Wannabe King Trump - same template as other authoritarians
“A boat full of people were killed in open international
waters by the United States under the direction of Donald Trump. Why on earth
would anyone consider themselves to be safe from this man and his enablers? It's
one anti-Constitutional, ignoring rule of law, utterly dangerous, amoral
bankrupting thing after another as we pick up speed to enormous destruction”.-
NY Times comment
'Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths', by Bill Eddy, has arrived at the most probable template for how "wannabe kings" grab and retain power. In his chapter 3, The 4-Way Voter Split, he begins by noting:
"When voters are exposed to an HCP Wannabe King's emotional warfare, they tend to split into four groups."
Recall here that 'HCP' refers to the high conflict personality which I described at the end of my Sept. 2nd post, i.e.:
Eddy, co-founder and trainer for the High Conflict Institute is an expert on the high conflict personality - especially when it embodies a number of particular sociopathic and narcissistic traits ('Fantasy crisis triad') - such as peculiar to Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Donald Trump. Eddy lists them as follows (p. 141):
High Conflict Personality Traits:
1. Creates targets of blame.
2. All-or-nothing thinking.
3.Unmanaged emotions.
4. Extreme behaviors.
Narcissistic Personality Traits:
1. Drive to be superior.
2. Grandiose ideas.
3. Fantasies of unlimited power.
4. Lack of empathy
Sociopathic Personality Traits:
1. Drive to dominate
2.Deceitful - lies and cunning.
3. Highly aggressive
4. Lack of remorse.
In combination Eddy asserts these comprise the 'fantasy crisis triad' which sustains the malefactor in power while keeping media and the voting public splintered and paralyzed to stop him. Usually by allowing their own emotions to obfuscate issues that ought to have been clear.
This sets the stage for his reasons for why HCPs typically garner voter splits, with usually only 40 percent backing them specifically (like the MAGA cult with Trump). These he calls Loyalists who:
"would do anything for their leaders. They believe he will serve their needs where others haven't. They believe their HCP speaks to them and for them."
The others, usually comprising 60 percent or more of the electorate break into:
- Riled-Up Resisters:
"These are the strong opponents of the HCP who view his behavior as alarming and requiring strong opposition- otherwise the country will suffer dire consequences."
This group, of course, was largely at the center of the massive 'No Kings' protests, e.g.
'NO KINGS' Protests = Diminishing Returns? WSJ's Kim Strassel Needs To Watch Those News Clips Again
- Mild Moderates:
"These are people who see the Wannabe King's behavior generally in political terms. Hence, they vote for or against them based on parties or policies. They mostly ignore character defects as mild or temporary."
The tragedy of this group is that by ignoring Trump's character defects - specifically his congenital lying and malignant narcissism- they were more easily conned, i.e. about accepting his claims to "stop inflation" or stop the wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Hence, unable to see that what he was spouting were lies and manipulations, not policies.
- The Disenchanted Dropouts:
"These are people who mostly dislike politics and want nothing to do with it. They don't think their vote matters so they don't bother voting. They see the Wannabe King as just like all the other politicians."
This group embodies the mostly low information, poor and working class voters - of whom 19 million never bothered to show up for last year's general election. From TIME (Sept. 8, p. 14):
"New data from Lake Research Associates makes clear that the real change (in 2024) was between the poor and low-income people who decided not to vote in the race between Trump and Kamala Harris. More than 19 million who helped elect President Joe Biden in 2020 didn't show up in 2024."
Eddy's conclusion is the most relevant to take away:
"The result of the HCP's emotional attacks is that all of the groups become highly emotional and fight with each other. This has the effect of further strengthening the Loyalists' ties to their leader and neutralizing the opposition groups."
This sets up the following characteristic response patterns among the respective groups, which are "surprisingly consistent" throughout all examples in his book - from Hitler, to Stalin to Mao Zedong - and Trump (U.S. Presidential Election 2016, p. 107).
The response patterns to the HCP's emotional warfare are:
- Loyalists:
"Loyalists despise the Resisters for criticizing their leader and looking down on them. They hate the Resisters' resistance and consider them unpatriotic and possibly evil. "
- Riled Up Resisters:
"Resisters despise the Loyalists and can't understand how they can support the Wannabe King. They think Loyalists are not very smart. The Resisters are angry with Moderates for seeming unconcerned about the HCP and believe they are too willing to give up their demands. Resisters are also angry with the Dropouts for not voting. Resisters are emotionally inspired to fight."
- Disenchanted Dropouts:
"Dropouts may dislike the aggressive nature of the Wannabe King, but they blame both the Loyalists and the Resisters for conflicts and polarization. Dropouts feel pressure from both sides to vote for their side, but choose to mostly ignore these political people. They are emotionally inspired to flee."
And there you have the template for how the wannabe kings (or what I call tyrants) grab and stay in power. As Eddy adds:
"Wannabe Kings are skilled at keeping these groups fighting each other or immobilized by creating an ongoing sense of crisis, chaos, conflict and fear. Through their constant speeches (or social media posts in the case of Trump), they use what each group says and does to feed the anger of the other groups. In this way they can gain power and remain in power."
And no better illustration is given than the methods of Hitler. (P. 31, Hitler's Example) showing how this sociopath got all the major German voting groups (e.g. Social Democrats, Communists etc.) fighting each other so that he could become Chancellor with only 35% of the Nazi Party in Parliament.
How to get past these HCP conquests? The basic insight is to see through the HCP as using "emotional communication" to trigger one's own base emotions, i.e. in the amygdala. This brain region can "pick up fear from visual cues in 33 milliseconds". As Eddy writes:
"After all, emotions are contagious and high emotions (fear, panic, resentment, anger, rage) - are highly contagious. When emotions run high they shut off the logical, problem solving part of our brains."
This is why the first order of business in dealing with a Wannabe King is not to let his emotional fusillades burrow into our brains paralyzing the ability for problem solving. Because it is ultimately the latter which will cut off the HCP influence and get us out of our predicament. That must include no longer seeing the other gr0ups as enemies.
But, the media must also get more savvy into how it's being played by the HCP. As Eddy notes:
"The HCP candidate tends to succeed because 'Moderates' simply won't believe he's as terrible as made out, so will just vote for their usual party's candidate. Adamant Resisters, meanwhile, will often throw away their votes on third party candidates, and the Dropouts won't vote at all.
All this is assisted by the high emotion media which tend to favor HCPs, because they are more entertaining and put more energy into building an emotional relationship with viewers. The result is the emotional warfare of HCPs is endlessly repeated and they are often elected."
In the case of Hitler, Eddy observes he was on the radio "ten times more often than his opponents", so dominated Germans' attention. Trump, meanwhile, has benefited from FOX News and its glorification of the HCP while attacking opponents or the opponents' parties. Ultimately, getting voters "primed" to always think of being in an adversarial drama.
How to detach from this sordid emotional trap is the subject of most of Eddy's book which is beyond the scope of a single blog post (or even several) to capture. But what stood out for me was his identification of the "worst form" of high conflict personality" - the Malignant Narcissist. ('Malignant Narcissism' p. 14). Trump, of course, was diagnosed to have this profile by Dr. Bandy X. Lee, later supported by hundreds of professionals in the runup to the 2024 election, i.e.
The Malignant Narcissist in Eddy's view is the most dangerous type of HCP precisely because the condition is "untreatable". As he notes (p. 14):
"The Malignant Narcissist can be particularly powerful, confident and aggressive. They can look charismatic while promoting grandiose plans. They are ruthless, heartless and lack a conscience. They are also paranoid and sadistic, say the experts, and are more driven than most narcissists or sociopaths to destroy their targets of blame."
He then (p. 15) goes on to cite Erich Fromm's diagnosis of Hitler and his warning: "This narcissism is malignant because it is not restrained in its growth like a malignant cancer."
This is exactly like Trump, given each new power display or grab - whether money from universities, national guard occupations of blue cities, etc. is followed by more displays, e.g. extra-judicial slaying of a boatload of civilians off the coast of Venezuela- given he's never satisfied. His lust for power and retribution is insatiable. So even though no formal diagnosis of his malignant condition has been made, even the most purblind voter can see what he's about. Power and extortion.
The hurdle, of course, is to get all the four voting groups to see and agree on the same threat, which won't be easy for the reasons cited already. In the meantime we all need to try to stop "feeding the beast" with emotional reactions that undermine our ability to successfully defend our democracy.
Some particular advice is given to the Dropout lot, i.e. "we understand your frustration with the political system - but sometimes the stakes are simply too high to void your vote". As when an HCP - like Trump - threatens to take over.
See Also:
Opinion | The Unchecked, Unbalanced Reign of King Donald - The New York Times
Excerpt:
Since his inauguration in January, President Trump has exerted unfettered authority over pretty much anything and everything that tickles his fancy, caresses his ego or bloats his wealth. And he has been largely unchecked by Congress, whose Republican majority is his pathetic pep squad. He has been inadequately balanced by the courts, as his administration contrives ways to delay, defy or otherwise evade their rulings and as he benefits from decades of Republicans’ painstaking elevation of jurists friendly to the party.
He’s the monster the founders dreaded, rehomed from their nightmares to the Resolute Desk, where he’s teaching us a lesson I didn’t get in school: Some of the most important checks and balances reside not in the architecture of our government but in the stirring of our consciences, the murmurings of our souls.
Why is Trump attempting and getting away with power grabs that so few of his predecessors — and certainly none in the past half-century — did? Because he’s unscrupulous and unashamed. Because he’s unmoved by precedent, propriety, decency. Because he’s rapacious and he has no interest in appetite control...
For Congress to check and balance Trump, its members must first be willing to. It’s a separate power only if those members hold themselves separate. But the Republicans who control the House and the Senate have instead surrendered all control to Trump.
For the free press enshrined in the First Amendment to check and balance Trump — or, for that matter, any other president — the best information must be distinguishable from the worst, and it must find an audience with open minds. But the digital revolution has created a chaos of boutique obsessions, splenetic social media posts, deepfakes and slop. Reality is whatever we’ve decided to purchase at the pick-your-truth bazaar.
We, the people, have always been the real check, the most important balance, with the power, through our votes, to reject and depose any would-be king with an unstirred conscience and a dormant soul. But we must recognize what’s happening.
“I have the right to do anything I want to do — I’m the president of the United States,” he said on Tuesday, when, for three appalling hours, members of his cabinet competed to find the loftiest superlatives, the rosiest adjectives to describe his majesty. Had one of his recent predecessors uttered that line, it would have been the story of the week, the month, the year.
But from Trump, it’s routine.
And:
by Thom Hartmann | September 3, 2025 - 5:06am | permalink
America is at risk of abandoning its founding principle of government, “by and for the people,” in favor of a system older than democracy itself: rule by one man.
Pretty much everybody understands that the United States and the old Soviet Union both had governments based on ideology or principle. The main notion of the US was expressed in the Declaration of Independence and has guided us toward what Lincoln called “a more perfect union” for 249 years:
“[T]hat all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
And:
by Thom Hartmann | September 5, 2025 - 5:01am | permalink
Could Trump’s weakness and the GOP’s cowardice mean the end of democracy around the world? Could Trump’s apparent participation in the crimes of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell be the proverbial horseshoe nail that brings down majority rule and representative government worldwide?
The world’s first modern major confrontation between authoritarianism (in this case, a kingdom) and democracy was the American Revolution in 1776. Outside of tribal societies, democracy had been largely dormant all over the world for the previous two thousand years, but we installed an early version of liberal democracy here in 1789.
Our first president, George Washington, not only fought the fascist forces of King George, but he was also a fanatic proponent of democracy itself, to the point that he refused to serve a third term in office so as not to set a “king-like” precedent.
No comments:
Post a Comment