Studying human evil - Pathocracy

"Pathocracy is arguably one of the biggest problems in the history of the human race." Steve Taylor, Ph.D. in the "Out of Darkness" blog, published in Psychology Today 

Maine Writer - Trumpzi and his evil circle of influence define the subject of this pathocracy analysis.  

Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin - examples when evil leadership is enabled (narcissistic personality disorder).

The Polish psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski spent his early life suffering under the Nazi occupation of Poland, closely followed by the brutality of Soviet occupation after the war. His experience of these horrors led Lobaczewski to develop the concept of "pathocracy." This is when individuals with personality disorders (particularly psychopathy) occupy positions of power. (1)

Lobaczewski devoted his life to studying human evil, a field which he called "ponerology." He wanted to understand why 'evil' people seem to prosper, while so many good and moral people struggle to succeed. He wanted to understand why people with psychological disorders so easily rise to positions of power and take over the governments of countries. Since he was living under a "pathocratic" regime himself, he took great risks studying this topic. He was arrested and tortured by the Polish authorities, and was unable to publish his life's work, the book Political Ponerology, until he escaped to the United States during the 1980s.

Pathocracy is arguably one of the biggest problems in the history of the human race. History has been a saga of constant conflict and brutality, with groups of people fighting against one another over territory and power and possessions, and conquering and killing one another. Surveying the course of human history from ancient times to the 20th century, the historian Arnold Toynbee spoke about the "horrifying sense of sin manifest in human affairs.”

But there is an argument that this is not because all human beings are inherently brutal and cruel, but because a small number of people—that is, those with personality disorders—are brutal and cruel, intensely self-centered, and lacking in empathy. This small minority has always held power and managed to order or influence the majority to commit atrocities on their behalf.

Power and Pathology

A small minority of humans suffer from personality disorders such as narcissism and psychopathy. People with these disorders feel an insatiable lust for power. People with narcissistic personality disorder desire constant attention and affirmation. They feel that they are superior to others and have the right to dominate them. They also lack empathy, which means that they are able to ruthlessly exploit and abuse others in their lust for power. Psychopaths feel a similar sense of superiority and lack of empathy, but the main difference between them and narcissists is that they don't feel the same impulse for attention and adoration. To an extent, the impulse to be adored acts as a check on the behavior of narcissists. They are reluctant to do anything that might make them too unpopular. But psychopaths have no such qualms.

At the other end of the scale, people with a high level of empathy and compassion usually aren’t interested in power. They prefer to be "on the ground," interacting and connecting with others. They may even refuse the offer of a high-status position because they’re aware that higher status will disconnect them (although for a non-empathic person, that is part of its appeal). So this leaves positions of power open for people with psychological disorders (or at least with a high level of ambition and ruthlessness, even if not a fully fledged psychological disorder).

Throughout history, these pathological individuals have always risen to the top. In some ways, pre-industrial feudal societies restricted them, since power was often bequeathed by birth rather than attained by individual efforts. The demise of the feudal system was certainly a positive step towards greater equality and democracy, but a negative side effect was that it gave psychopaths and narcissists greater opportunity to attain positions of power.

As Ian Hughes points out in his important book Disordered Minds, the whole point of democracy is to try to protect the mass of people from this pathological minority. This was the central idea of the American constitution and the Bill of Rights. Democratic principles and institutions were established to limit the power of pathological individuals.

This is why, as Hughes also points out, pathological leaders hate democracy. (2) Once they attain power, they do their utmost to dismantle or discredit democratic institutions, including the freedom and legitimacy of the press. (This is the first thing which Hitler did when he became German chancellor, and it is what autocrats like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban of Hungary and President Erdoğan of Turkey have done. It is also what President Trump has been attempting to do.)

Moreover, pathological leaders are completely unable to comprehend the principles of democracy, since they regard themselves as superior, and see life as a competitive struggle in which the most ruthless deserve to dominate others.

Collective Pathocracy

But pathocracy isn’t just about individuals. As Lobaczewsk pointed out, pathological leaders always attract other people with psychological disorders, who seize the opportunity to gain influence. At the same time, individuals who are moral, empathic and fair-minded gradually fall away. They are either ostracised or step aside voluntarily, appalled by the growing pathology around them. As a result, over time pathocracies tend to become entrenched and extreme.

This isn’t to say that everyone who becomes part of a pathocratic government suffers from a psychological disorder. Some people may simply have a high level of ambition and a lack of empathy without actually having a diagnosable condition, while others may simply ride the coattails of a pathological leader whose goals happen to coincide with theirs.

A significant part of the problem is the attraction that many people feel to charismatic demagogues. Psychologically, this is very similar to the attraction of spiritual gurus, who often attract the blind devotion of disciples, despite unethical and exploitative behavior. The attraction of gurus and demagogues is a deep-rooted impulse to return to the childhood state of worshipping parents who seem omnipotent and infallible and could take complete responsibility for our lives, and magically solve our problems. 

At the same time, the paranoia of pathological leaders leads them to demonize other groups and creates an intoxicating sense of group identity with a common purpose.

Protection Against Pathocracy- (Is American in danger of being taken over by a pathocracy?  I submit, Republicans who support Donald Trump are victims of  wrong minded propaganda like #fakenews and #althernativefacts, and they are now in a "group think" cult.)

I will leave to you to decide whether the United States is in danger of being taken over by a pathocracy. But we should remember that pathocracy only emerges because we don’t take sufficient measures to protect ourselves from pathological leaders.

In the long term, as I have argued in a previous post, we need stringent measures to restrict the attainment of power. Put simply, the kind of people who desire power the most—the most ruthless and non-empathic—should not be allowed to attain positions of authority. All potential leaders (or members of a government) should be rigorously assessed by psychologists to determine their levels of empathy, narcissism or psychopathy—and hence determine their suitability for power.

Meanwhile, we need to preserve and strengthen our democratic institutions and processes to ensure that the great mass of people is protected from the minority of psychopaths and narcissists with an insatiable lust for power. We need to make sure that our democracy does not transmute into a pathocracy.

He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’s leadership is imploding- echo commentary

Psychiatrists might want to rethink some of their reticence about The Goldwater Rule".  In other words, I've read two very recent reports about Donald Trump's deteriorating mental health.  This echo article about that very subject was published in May 2017, in The New Yorker.

In my opinion, Trump's serial lies are enough to demand a reprimand about his horrible leadership.  Nevertheless, one report described Donald Trump as having "cried" when the Pentagon cancelled his expensive $92 million military parade on Veterans Day, a decision supported by The American Legion.  In another report, associates who have known Donald Trump for many years are telling friends that they are observing changes in his mental status (although no actual descriptions of the changes were given).  

In May 22, 2017, Jane Mayer wrote about how a group of psychiatrists and psychologists were debating about how to warn the public about Donald Trump's narcissistic personality disorder. (NPD). Yet, the “Goldwater Rule” forbids mental-health professionals to give opinions on public figures they haven’t personally examined. Frankly, some may make an exception given the continued misbehavior, observed on a daily basis, by Donald Trump.

This "echo" blog is just as relevant today, maybe even more so.

Published in The New Yorker May 22, 2017, p28 print

When Donald Trump accused his predecessor Barack Obama of wiretapping him, James Comey, then the F.B.I. director, told colleagues that he considered Trump to be “outside the realm of normal,” and even “crazy.” Many Americans share this view, but the professionals who are best qualified to make such an assessment have been forced to remain mum.

“I’m struggling not to discuss He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named,” a psychiatrist named Jerrold Post said last week, speaking on the phone from his office, in Bethesda, Maryland. Post, who is the director of the political-psychology program at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs, and the founder of the C.I.A.’s Center for the Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior, has made a career of political-personality profiling. However, he is also a distinguished life fellow of the American Psychiatric Association, whose professional code of conduct forbids members to publicly comment on the psyches of living public figures whom they have not personally examined.

The ban, known as “the Goldwater rule,” is the legacy of an embarrassing episode from 1964. That year, Fact magazine published a petition signed by more than a thousand psychiatrists, which declared that Barry Goldwater, who was then the Republican Presidential nominee, was “psychologically unfit to be President.” Goldwater lost the election, but he won a libel suit against the magazine. The bad publicity seriously tarnished the reputation of the profession.

More than fifty years later, Trump appears to be testing the limits of the Goldwater rule. In March, the Washington, D.C., branch of the A.P.A. convened a meeting of its members to debate the rule. Post and several others argued that, given the President’s erratic behavior, the organization was infringing on its members’ freedom of expression. Psychiatrists, they insisted, have a responsibility to serve society at large. “I think there’s a duty to warn,” Post said. “Serious questions have been raised about the temperament and suitability of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.” He added, “It seems unethical to not contribute at this perilous time.”

The psychiatrist John Zinner took the argument further, suggesting that, as doctors, who swear an oath to protect their patients, psychiatrists have an obligation to speak out about the menace posed by Trump’s mental health. “It’s my view that Trump has a narcissistic personality disorder,” Zinner said later. “Trump is deluded and compulsive. He has no conscience.” He said that psychiatrists have a constructive role to play in advising policymakers to add checks on the President’s control over nuclear weapons. “That supersedes the Goldwater rule,” he said. “It’s an existential survival issue.” (There were some dissenters at the meeting. Dr. Mark Komrad, who is on the staff at Johns Hopkins Hospital and Sheppard Pratt Health System, worried that overturning the rule could be bad for the profession. “We’re already seen as peddlers of a liberal world view,” he said. “If we make pronouncements about Donald Trump, nothing is gained. You don’t need a doctor to tell you that the guy on the plane with a hacking cough is sick.”)

Post is part of a push to have the A.P.A. form a commission to revisit the Goldwater rule. Meanwhile, the President’s firing of Comey (and since then, a litany of too many others to count, as well as other reactionary edicts, like taking away security clearances - behaving like a spoiled child who is hoarding toys) presented an almost irresistible case study to revisit this Goldwater decision issue. (IMO the A.P.A. has a duty to act.)

Post, when asked about the firing, chose his words carefully. He said he agreed with lay commentators that Trump appeared to be trying to suppress the F.B.I.’s investigation into his campaign’s ties to Russia, revealing a pattern—a quickness to get rid of those who disagreed with or threatened him. The result, Post said, would be “a sycophantic leadership circle afraid to question him.” He added that the manner of the firing, which Comey learned about from TV reports, displayed “a failure of judgment in crisis”; it was likely to turn Comey into “a dangerous and resentful witness.” Post said that it reminded him of other leaders he had studied, including Vladimir Putin, “a quintessential narcissist,” whose “way of handling criticism is to eliminate—literally—the critics.” After the Comey episode, Post said, he worried that “He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named’s leadership is imploding.”

What would Post ask Trump, if he had the opportunity to get the President on his couch? Post cleared his throat and said, “I’m sorry, but I think I’d better not answer that.”

The question reminded him of the time, during a television interview, that Dan Rather asked him what he would do if he encountered Saddam Hussein. Not realizing that the microphone was turned on, Post, who had been discussing Saddam’s “malignant narcissism,” gave a less than scholarly answer: “I would run right out of the office!” 

Donald Trump needs to prove mental competency

There's plenty of evidence about Donald Trump's mental instability coupled with inappropriate behavior. As a matter of fact, where's the evidence to prove his competence? Just because he's a rich buffoon, doesn't prove mental competency. In fact, Donald Trump shows symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. 

Main Stream Media (MSN) must demonstrate how Donald Trump is qualified and mentally competent to be nominated to run for President of the United States

A personality disorder is a pattern of deviant or abnormal behavior that the person doesn't change even though it causes emotional upsets and trouble with other people at work and in personal relationships. It is not limited to episodes of mental illness, and it is not caused by drug or alcohol use, head injury, or illness. There are about a dozen different behavior patterns classified as personality disorders by DSM-IV (Psychiatric and Psychological Diagnosis and Statitcal Manual). 

All the personality disorders show up as deviations from normal in one or more of the following:
(1) cognition -- i.e., perception, thinking, and interpretation of oneself, other people, and events; (ie, birtherims)
(2) affectivity -- i.e., emotional responses (range, intensity, lability, appropriateness); ("fat pigs")
(3) interpersonal functions; (serial philanderer)

(4) impulsivity. (pretending to be John Miller with a People Magazine reporter; pledging to build an immigration wall along the Mexican-US border; banning all Muslims)
Secretary Hillary Clinton justifiably raised awareness about Donald Trump's mental competency and lack of qualifications to be nominated to run for President of the United States.

Clinton questions Trump's 'steadiness.' Is that his kryptonite?

Christian Science Monitor (CSM)

Questioning the GOP candidate's steadiness is an obvious line of political attack, given Donald Trump's loose talk and lack of foreign-policy experience. But it remains to be seen if the critique can resonate with the 2016 electorate. By Peter Grier, Staff writer

WASHINGTON — Is steadiness in the context of foreign policy – or a perceived lack thereof – going to serve as Donald Trump’s kryptonite, a powerful argument against his election as president of the United States in the fall?

Probable Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton seems sure to use that as a main theme in the campaign, in any case. She aired it out today in one of her sharpest attacks yet on Mr. Trump, saying he is not fit to serve as POTUS.
Trump is “divisive and dangerous” and “unmoored,” said Mrs. Clinton in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo.
Recommended: What do you know about Donald Trump?

The former secretary of State pointed to his feud with British leaders, his questioning of the usefulness of NATO, and his offhand remarks that maybe more countries should have nuclear weapons, as evidence that Trump would be a danger to the nation.

In proposing to temporarily ban non-citizen Muslims from entering the US, Trump is slapping in the face US allies that are majority Muslim themselves, Clinton said.

“I know how hard this job is, and I know that we need steadiness as well as strength and smarts in it,” said Clinton.

You’re going to hear a lot of similar critiques in the months ahead. It’s a natural line of attack, given Trump’s penchant to pretty much say anything he wants at any time (IMO without the MSN demanding accountability!), and his evident lack of background on international relations. The “steadiness” angle brings up not just his foreign policy wavers but also his general character, so it’s a twofer. It’s a way, sotto voce, of calling Trump a clown.

But you know who else tried the steadiness angle? Jeb Bush, that’s who. Clinton’s words today could have been lifted verbatim from the late, teetering stages of Mr. Bush’s presidential bid. Back then it didn’t appear to peel off a single voter from the Trump parade.

In the GOP primaries it’s seemed that steadiness was, in fact, not a virtue. The very word seemed like the kind of thing a GOP elitist would say. Trump voters appeared to want the opposite of steady – action, excitement, and the explosion of the status quo.

They want things ripped up in Washington. Steadiness might not help that.

“He’s not just going to sit around and see what’s going to happen,” one Trump voter told the Monitor’s Patrik Jonsson earlier this month.

The question is whether the larger electorate in November will react differently, especially if anti-Trump forces pump cash into ads explicitly linking the steadiness question with war, peace, and nuclear weapons.

Trump with the button. That’s what the Clinton campaign wants you to think about when “steadiness” flashes on screen.

It’s a vision that’s already given former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates pause. Mr. Gates – a Republican who served both Presidents Bush and Obama – was asked Thursday if he’d be comfortable with Trumpian access to nuclear launch codes.

“Right now? No,” said Gates in an interview with Yahoo News.

Gates went on to say that he might change his mind if Trump appeared to grow in his understanding of complex international problems, and if he picked good advisers. You can bet that when the Clinton campaign uses the footage of this interview for an attack ad, they’ll edit that last part out (IMO, as they should.... because Donald Trump is clearly politically incompetent!).

Donald Trump's mental competency isn't his kriptonite, rather, it's his achilles heel. In the intensity of the Presidential Campaign, he'll reveal more decompensating behaviors. The problem is, will Americans wake up to realize how dangerous he is before it's too late?