Schoolyard lessons (a meditation on raising children in the time of Trump)

“Hello, sweetheart.  How was school?”

“Mommy, Bernie is calling me a not nice name and it makes me feel bad.”

“I’m sorry, dear.   I’m sure he’ll stop.”

“He called me Poopy Fatso.”

“Oh dear, that’s not very nice.  What did you do?”

“I told him it’s not nice to call people names.”

“And?”

“He said the President has a not nice name for everybody, like ‘Little Mario,’ or ‘Crooked Hillary,’ so that means it’s ok.  Bernie said he would never call me Danny again, but only Poopy Fatso.”

“Well, he’s wrong; I’m sure he’ll forget about it after a few days.   How did Mrs. Gonzalez like your report on Canada?”

“She really liked it.  She used a big word . . .I remember, she said it was ‘brilliant.’  That means I’m very very smart.   You know, Mommy, I think I’m smarter than any of the other kids in the class.”

“Darling, you are very smart, but you mustn’t brag about it.  No one likes a braggart.   How do you think the other children feel if you tell them that you're smarter than they are?  It’s not polite.”

“But, Mom . . .  The President brags like all the time.  ‘I’m a winner, you’re a loser; I’m a winner, you’re a loser . . .’  So why isn’t this the same?  Why can’t I say that I’m smart and all the other kids are stupider?”

“Sweetheart, that’s not a word.  And it’s entirely different when the President does it.   He’s a politician.”

“But the President is like the most important person in the world.  I want to be like him.”

“Who did you have lunch with today?”

“Steve Collins.   His Mom gave him potato chips with his lunch.”

“You know we don’t eat potato chips.”

“He said that his father has more money than Daddy.   He said I didn’t have potato chips because Daddy is poor, and that poor people are losers.”

“Danny, money isn’t everything.  We are not poor.   Daddy has a very important job that helps people and makes him happy, that’s what matters.”

“No it’s not.   Only rich people are cool, because they have the money to get cool stuff.   Like the President.   I want a plane with my name on it.   I want three wives with big boobies.  I want all my stuff covered in gold.”

“Danny!  Where did you learn that word?  It’s not polite to talk about boobies.   Please don’t use that word.   Who else did you have lunch with?”

“Carlos, a new kid.”

“That’s nice.  Do you like him?”

“No.”

“Why not?”

“He talks funny.”

“Sweetheart, that’s called an accent.  It just means he came from somewhere else.  We all did, at some time.”

“We gave him a noogie.”

“What!”

“After lunch Steve sat on him and called him names and I am gave him a noogie.   Everybody stood around and watched.   Carlos cried.”

“Danny!  How could you do such a thing?  That’s terrible.  Wait ‘til your father hears this.  There is nothing worse than being a bully.  What were you thinking?”

“The President said that people who talk funny and aren’t like us need to go back where they came from.  I was just trying to help.”

“What?  That’s not what he means.”

“Yes it is.  Anyway, Carlos is small, so we could do it.”

“Danny, you know better than that.  You can’t pick on people who are weaker than you.  How do you think Carlos felt?   Did you ever think about what it would be like to be Carlos and have someone sit on you and give you a noogie in front of all the kids?  Would you like that?”

“But, Mom . . .  I’m not Carlos.  I don’t talk funny.   And I don’t like him.   The President says nasty things about everyone he doesn’t like, or anyone who is mean to him.   So that’s what I’m gonna do.”

“That is not what you are going to do, Danny.  Your father and I have always taught you to be a nice person.  You have to be polite, to respect other kids.  To think about other people’s feelings.  Never be mean.  Don’t call kids names.  Don’t be a bully.   Danny, you know all this.  What’s come over you?”

“I don’t want to be a loser.” 

Statements against interest

The rules we follow in the courtroom are designed to help judge and jury ferret out the truth, or something close to it, from a blizzard of often-conflicting evidence.  One of those rules tells us that “statements against interest” – that is, a statement that comes at some cost, disadvantage, or liability to the person testifying - should be accorded a higher degree of credibility. The theory is that the person has nothing to gain, and something to lose, so his main motivation is likely to be simply telling the truth or doing the right thing. On the other hand, when the person has something to gain from making a claim, he might well be telling the truth, but we should probably be skeptical.

Applied to politics, this rule would suggest that it might not be best to form our opinions about a candidate from statements made by his or her opponent or that opponent’s team. Those claims might well be true, but are hardly the most reliable source if we are seeking the truth.

Thoughtful citizens once turned to an independent press, which today largely has been replaced by media sources that act as cheerleader-in-chief in an echo chamber of common belief. Even truly independent and thoughtful sources like PBS Newshour are trapped by the requirement to present “both sides.” So where to turn? 

One approach is to find people making “statements against interest.” Partisans have an enormous interest to see their party take the White House (their interest is defined in terms of jobs, access, influence, power, and money, as well as the prospects for their political agenda). So when party members criticize their own candidate (following the primaries, once he or she is carrying the banner for their side), these are powerful examples of statements against interest and we should afford them a presumption of credibility.

I have been collecting “statements against interest” about Donald Trump made by prominent Republicans after he became their candidate. Here is a selection for your consideration:

50 Former GOP National Security Officials (including former GOP CIA directors, heads of the National Security Agency and Department of Homeland Security, US Trade Representative, etc.):  Trump “would be a dangerous President and would put at risk our country’s national security . . .Mr. Trump lacks the character, values, and experience to be President.  . . . He appears to lack basic knowledge about and belief in the U.S. Constitution, U.S. laws, and U.S. institutions, including religious tolerance, freedom of the press, and an independent judiciary.  In addition, Mr. Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he has little understanding of America’s vital national interests, its complex diplomatic challenges, its indispensable alliances, and the democratic values on which U.S. foreign policy must be based. At the same time, he persistently compliments our adversaries and threatens our allies and friends . . . He is unable or unwilling to separate truth from falsehood . . . He lacks self-control and acts impetuously. He cannot tolerate personal criticism.  He has alarmed our closest allies with his erratic behavior.  We are convinced that in the Oval Office, he would be the most reckless President in American history.” (August 8, 2016)

Hank Paulson (Treasury Secretary under President Bush):  His “brand of populism [is] rooted in ignorance, prejudice, fear and isolationism . . . Trump is a phony and should not be president . . . . When Trump assures us he’ll do for the United States what he’s done for his businesses, that’s not a promise — it’s a threat . . . In essence, he takes imprudent risks and, when his businesses fail, disavows his debts.  Trump repeatedly, blatantly and knowingly makes up or gravely distorts facts to support his positions or create populist divisions.”  (June 24, 2016)

William D. Ruckelshaus and William K. Reilly (former GOP EPA Administrators): “Donald Trump has shown a profound ignorance of science and of the public health issues embodied in our environmental laws.  He hasn’t a clue about Republicans’ historic contributions to science-driven environmental policy . . .

That Trump would call climate change a hoax—the singular health and environmental threat to the world today—flies in the face of overwhelming international science.”  (August 9, 2016)

David Brooks (Republican columnist): Trump is “a morally untethered, spiritually vacuous man who appears haunted by multiple personality disorders.” (July 29, 2016)

George Will (long-time conservative columnist): Will left the GOP over the Trump nomination.  Before that, he said: “Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states—condign punishment for his comprehensive disdain for conservative essentials, including the manners and grace that should lubricate the nation’s civic life.” (April 29, 2016)

Mitt Romney (GOP Presidential nominee 2012): Trump has “a character and temperament unfit for the leader of the free world.” (May 27, 2016)

Karl Rove (Senior Republican strategist): Trump is “a complete idiot” who is “graceless and divisive.”  (June 3, 2016)

Paul Wolfowitz (long-time senior GOP official in various roles, foreign policy advisor to President Bush): Trump “says he admires Putin, that Saddam Hussein was killing terrorists, that the Chinese were impressive because they were tough on Tiananmen Square.  That is pretty disturbing . . .  I certainly think it's important to speak up and say how unacceptable he is. I'm always more than willing to do that. . . .The only way you can be comfortable about Trump's foreign policy is to think he doesn't really mean anything he says. That's a pretty uncomfortable place to be in. Our security depends on having good relationships with our allies. Trump mainly shows contempt for them. And he seems to be unconcerned about the Russian aggression in Ukraine. By doing this he tells them that they can go ahead and do what they are doing. That is dangerous.”  (August 26, 2016)

Susan Collins (GOP Senator): She noted his “constant stream of cruel comments and his inability to admit error or apologize . . . .  But it was his attacks directed at people who could not respond on an equal footing . . .that revealed Mr. Trump as unworthy of being our president.” (August 9, 2016)

Lindsey Graham (GOP Senator): Trump’s attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel “is the most un-American thing from a politician since Joe McCarthy.  If anybody was looking for an off-ramp, this is probably it. There’ll come a time when the love of country will trump hatred of Hillary.” (June 7, 2016)

Meg Whitman (CEO Hewlett Packard, former CEO of eBay, GOP candidate for Governor of California): It is time for Republicans “to put country first before party.”  Trump is “a dishonest demagogue,” who could lead the country “on a very dangerous journey . . . . Time and again history has shown that when demagogues have gotten power or come close to getting power, it usually does not end well.”  Trump has already “undermined the character of the nation.”  (August 2, 2016)

Sally Bradshaw (GOP operative and author of GOP post-2012 strategy): “I could not abide the hateful rhetoric of Donald Trump and his complete lack of principles.”  (August 1, 2016)

Marc Racicot (Republican National Committee chair, 2001 to 2003): “I cannot and will not support Donald Trump for president.” (August 3, 2016)

Gordon Humphrey (former GOP U.S. Senator from New Hampshire): Trump is “a sociopath, without a conscience or feelings of guilt, shame or remorse.”  (August 4, 2016)

Richard Hanna (GOP Congressman): “For me, it is not enough to simply denounce [Trump’s] comments: He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country.” (August 2, 2016)

Glenn Beck (hard right conservative talk show host):  (The day after the nomination he predicted that because of Trump, the US would not “elect another Republican president ever again.”)  Previously, he had said:  “I don’t want my children to look at that man and say, ‘Yeah, he’s my President.’ I won’t have that. I will not endorse it, I will not tolerate it.”  (May 4, 2016)

George P. Shultz (Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan and Secretary of both Labor and the Treasury under Richard Nixon):  On the prospect of a Trump presidency: “God help us.”  (August 15, 2016)

(Please note that I have given the dates of these statements. Trump was recognized by the RNC as the presumptive nominee on May 3. Statements prior to May 3 made by Trump’s primary opponents or their supporters cannot fairly be considered “statements against interest.” My own collection was supplemented by examples collected by David Graham for The Atlantic’s website.)

What is narcissism?

I thought it would be useful to share with you some of what I have learned about narcissism while researching my next novel, which happens to feature a deeply narcissistic protagonist (a scientist, not a politician). I am not going to assert any conclusion or opinion about Donald Trump’s personality or mental health. Instead, I simply ask you, based on reports of his behavior that you find credible, to consider whether the concept of narcissism helps to explain his past behavior and to predict how he might behave if elected.  

First, we need to distinguish between personality traits and personality disorders. We all, thank goodness, have widely differing personalities, and many of us are characterized by behaviors and attitudes that are unusual or eccentric.  Many politicians, for example, have an inflated sense of self-esteem and behave in an unusually self-aggrandizing and obnoxious manner. This may make them jerks, but it doesn’t mean they suffer from a personality disorder. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, a personality trait crosses over to become a personality disorder when it is deeply ingrained, particularly inflexible, and causes distress or impaired functioning.

So what is the mental disorder known as “narcissistic personality disorder”? The Mayo Clinic describes it as follows:

"Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for admiration and a lack of empathy for others. But behind this mask of ultraconfidence lies a fragile self-esteem that's vulnerable to the slightest criticism."

Behind this rather dry definition lies a long and rich literature that fills out the picture of a typical narcissist, and explores the consequences of being in a personal relationship with one, or giving the narcissist power. The profile of the typical narcissist that follows is drawn from my review of that literature over the past three years.

The most distinctive characteristic of the narcissist is a dangerously inflated ego, revealed by arrogant grandiosity. The narcissist fears most of all being ordinary. Whether or not the narcissist has any actual achievements, he insists on a self-created narrative in which the hero is a kind of avatar self, whose distinctiveness is illustrated by exaggerated or invented episodes and accomplishments.   

Part of the narcissist’s narrative often involves having a special destiny. Closely associated with this conviction that he is “special” is a tendency toward magical thinking (that is, a conviction that a falsehood must be true because it fits that narrative or otherwise advances the narcissist's desires).  In almost all cases, it leads to a belief that the narcissist deserves to be surrounded by other special or high status people.  He is an inveterate name-dropper, and in his personal life seeks out “trophy partners” who make him look good. Another manifestation of the conviction that he is “special” is the belief that he should be exempted from ordinary rules of behavior and law. This conviction also makes the narcissist comfortable with subterfuge and deception; any means is justified by the higher goal of preserving the illusion of the narcissist’s heroic narrative, or satisfying the narcissist’s desires. Thus the narcissist almost always is a comfortable and accomplished liar.

The narcissist’s lack of empathy colors everything about him. In some extreme cases he lacks the ordinary understanding of what it is like to be someone else, but in all cases he simply does not care. He has no real interest in other people and fails to see that they have any intrinsic value. Instead, their only value is as a means to fulfillment of the narcissist’s own needs and desires. He often treats people as objects to be manipulated. He is quite talented in finding and exploiting weakness in others. His ability to manipulate those closest to him is enhanced by surrounding himself with people who crave his approval and are otherwise dependent. The narcissist is often quite charming, but it is a false charm, always deployed tactically to get what he wants.  

The narcissist’s life is generally characterized by shallow and unsuccessful relationships, most marked by splashy exaggerated starts and disastrous finishes. The marriage partner of a narcissist generally experiences exploitation instead of caring; and any commitment to the relationship is conditional on the marriage continuing to benefit the narcissist. He is usually incapable of true love.

The narcissist is marked by an extreme sense of entitlement. He believes he deserves all he wants, and thus genuinely feels he is being cheated or treated unfairly if he does not get what he wants. The narcissist has unusually low tolerance for interference or denial, and generally manifests extreme frustration when he is denied something he wants. Interestingly, the narcissist generally desires money, status, and power not so much as ends in themselves, but to boost his image and how others perceive him.

The narcissist has a pathological need for attention. He is keenly envious of others who distract from a focus on him, and is often willing to sabotage others most cruelly, and to take actions that appear to be against his interest, to achieve the all-important return of the spotlight to him.

The narcissist is constantly seeking approval. He revels in kudos, accolades, and praise, and is often a braggart. The narcissist can almost never accept blame or responsibility, or feel shame; he is superbly talented at shifting blame to others. He views all criticism as either attack or betrayal. Thus, upon receiving the slightest criticism or perceived slight, he flips into a hyper defensive mode and feels justified in attacking his critic.

The narcissist seeks to dominate conversations. He frequently interrupts others, and his speech is marked by the frequent use of the words “I,” “me” and “my.” He often refers to himself in the third person. On the other hand, the narcissist does not like to be asked about, or to talk about, his inner life.

In most cases, the narcissist’s personality is formed early and remains static over the course of his life. Some say that the narcissistic personality is fundamentally immature, or even infantile, characterized as it is by the desire to create and control a world with him at its center. Another mark of immaturity is the tendency to ignore his problems instead of confronting them.  Many believe that the narcissist is, fundamentally, deeply insecure.  Appearance is important to the narcissist, and primping and fastidiousness in appearance are common.  

*   *   *   

So there it is. The portrait of a narcissist. Sound like anyone you know?

WHY ANOTHER BLOG?

When we decided to publish Getting to Green during the 2016 presidential primary season, we anticipated that figures such as Jeb Bush would be serious contenders, leading an effort within the party to frame a GOP platform that included more mainstream positions on climate change and the environment. Despite strong support from many corners of the party for conservatives to pursue a strategy of engagement rather than denial, the Trump revolution destroyed any chance of a serious discussion of environmental policy during the primaries or at the convention.

Following the election, however, Republicans will face the task of shaping the party or parties that emerge from the rubble of Trumpism. Many will advocate that the new GOP reject the voices of the far right that have forced the party to maintain positions on the environment that the party "establishment" has understood for some time now need to be modernized to achieve electoral success in the decades ahead. I believe that the first half of 2017 will present the best opportunity in a generation for conservatives to revisit their anomalous quarter-century of opposition to conservation, and my plan is to resume an ambitious schedule of events and appearances in support of this goal toward the end of the first quarter.

Because my main objective this year has been to promote Getting to Green’s call for bipartisan cooperation on the environment, I have refrained from making comments that could be construed as partisan. The time has come, however, when silence regarding the forthcoming election is no longer a morally supportable option.   

Accordingly, for the balance of this year, this blog will focus on the issues presented by Donald Trump’s candidacy. Many of these comments will be informed by my research and writing of Christian Nation, which anticipated the rise of a populist demagogue on the right, explored the circumstances under which such a candidate could prevail in an election (many of which circumstances are the same ones that have propelled Donald Trump), and then showed why our constitution and courts might not provide the barrier we assume between such a demagogue and the implementation of his or her program. My next book involves a main character with a pathological lack of empathy and explores how our popular and political cultures reflect the current epidemic of narcissism. My research and thinking about these subjects also inform my perspective on the Trump phenomenon. I hope readers of my books will find that this blog does what my books aim to do: offer an independent, historically informed, non-partisan, and pragmatic perspective on topical issues with a moral and political dimension.