Weaponized Narcissism

By Thomas Lamia

In my March essay (Enemy of the People) I wrote of behaviors the American Psychiatric Association characterize as narcissism. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) was my source. As I said in March, Donald Trump exhibits substantially all of the behaviors listed, including those for malignant narcissism.

Should the president’s narcissism disqualify him from holding office? If so, how should the issue be assessed and resolved?

The importance of our process for electing leaders requires that personality traits which may affect judgment must be fair game. The rough and tumble of electoral politics demands it. What might fairly be called character assassination when whispered to a neighbor over the back fence is accepted in political give and take. Abusive, intemperate, and even false statements in political combat are protected by the 1964 Supreme Court ruling in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. This holds with particular effect to disqualifying health conditions.

Per the DSM, “Narcissistic personality disorder involves a pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy.” A list of specific traits follows this general description. In March, I noted that Trump showed signs of each of these traits.

My thesis is that Trump appears to have a malignant narcissistic personality disorder that he uses as a weapon to control others who fear the consequences of challenging his authority. He is hostage to his disorder. It causes him to act on impulse, avoid accountability, seek vengeance, claim unearned credit, demand obeisance and bully resisters. Those in his orbit or subject to his power are hostage to his erratic behavior, which induces fear of unacceptable consequences. This fear leads to avoidance behavior, flattery, concessions, insincere praise, and lavish gifts. Everyone in his orbit is hostage to his need for admiration and his lack of empathy. We, the people, are in his orbit.

The Supreme Court’s grant of immunity from prosecution for a broadly defined set of “official acts” has given the president previously unknown and unimagined license for dominance. There is a growing list of individuals and institutions affected: law firms, universities, public institutions, foreign countries, state and local governments, Congress, and others. By his will alone, with no consultation or approval from Congress or administrative staff, he has radicalized the executive branch of the federal government. Constitutional limits requiring joint action with Congress to pass laws and spend money have been set to the side. Trump has used executive orders and defensive litigation when challenged. His actions reflect a personal vision of presidential power as virtually unrestrained by Congress and the “rule of law.”

To rule without answering to higher authority is catnip for the narcissist. Legal challenges have brought mixed results. A definitive rejection of a final court order has yet to come, but cases are still pending.

The president seeks ultimate personal control of government because anything less would be contrary to his claim to be a “unitary executive” ─ a claim that serves his self-image of superior status. When challenged, he says, “I am the president of the United States.” End of argument.

Trump has accommodated his handlers and critics when convenient and has used his control of executive branch agencies ─ Defense, Treasury, State, Justice, Management and Budget, and others, to craft orders that take immediate effect. No input or objections from White House staff, executive agencies, the vice president, or the cabinet appear to be necessary — all report to him and independence is not tolerated.

He has taken an oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. His actions on January 6, 2021, in support of an insurrection against the constitutionally mandated procedure for determining his successor belie the sincerity of that oath.

All this bears the mark of a disrupter president defiantly ignorant or dismissive of constitutional limits on his power. The resolution of several legal challenges to his authority ─ those that have found their way onto the court’s “shadow docket” ─ hang fire for now, as does the effect of mid-term elections and the likely cataclysm they will cause.

The president has been able to carry out his programs primarily by executive order. His several vanity construction projects, put in motion without congressional approval or input, appear to be in limbo. The Congress and the courts stand by. Nevertheless, the president persists in support of his challenged actions. These are his chosen works, his desired legacy, the gamut from unauthorized war to mindless cancellation of university research. His works, if done, are theoretically subject to reversal at some future time when the Supreme Court or Congress or the people find an enforceable way to undo his crusade to remake the country in his own image.

The dilemma is that the president’s narcissism is impervious to corrective efforts. Narcissism is not a crime or a disqualifying condition to serving as president. The Constitution’s 25th Amendment does provide a remedy (removal of a president), but the mechanics necessary are wholly impracticable in this case, as the vice president and a majority of cabinet officers would have to agree to the removal. Impeachment is also impracticable, until the House and two-thirds of the Senate are in friendly hands.

The president’s narcissism must be openly discussed ─ for this president and future presidents. A personality disorder that removes or substantially dilutes the moral compass of a president is a matter of grave public concern and requires serious and timely effort to educate the public and to find a practical, politically neutral solution. The risks posed by having a malignant narcissist in charge of the nuclear arsenal is simply unacceptable. This personality disorder of the president must be addressed openly and urgently.

---

Comments can be addressed to the writer at trlamia15@gmail.com.