![What Does It Take to Get Rid of Trump?](https://fresnoalliance.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Get-Rid-of-Trump-2-620x408.jpg)
By George B. Kauffman
My head is spinning! What does it take to get rid of Trump? Here are some of the recent developments that, in my opinion, are more than sufficient to get rid of him and put him in jail.
Gone are the days when euphemisms about President Trumpās mental health insulated the man like so many padded walls. Erratic. Unpredictable. Unstable. Unmoored. Temperamentally unfit. This was what politicians and commentators said when they wished to question Trumpās state of mind but feared the consequences of a more colloquial assessment. Yet the deeper we plunge into this presidency, the more willing people become to call it like they see and hear it.
āI think heās crazy,ā Sen. Jack Reed (DāR.I.) confided to his colleague Sen. Susan Collins (RāMaine) in a July exchange inadvertently caught on a microphone. (āIām worried,ā she replied.)
CNNās Don Lemon, flabbergasted after a Trump speech last month, concluded that āheās unhinged… There was no sanity there.ā
Even some Republicans have grown more blunt, with Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.) recently suggesting that Trump āhas not yet been able to demonstrate the stability nor some of the competenceā to succeed as president.
Now, some psychiatrists and other mental-health professionals are shedding long-held norms to argue that Trumpās condition presents risks to the nation and the world. The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump (edited by Bandy X. Lee) features more than two dozen essays breaking down the Presidentās perceived traits, which the contributors find consistent with symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder, sociopathy and other maladies.
āCollectively with our coauthors, we warn that anyone as mentally unstable as Mr. Trump simply should not be entrusted with the life-and-death powers of the presidency,ā Judith Lewis Herman of the Harvard Medical School and Bandy X. Lee of the Yale School of Medicine write in the bookās prologue.
If so, what should we make of the nation that entrusted him with precisely such powers? In his new book, Twilight of American Sanity, psychiatrist Allen Frances asserts that Trump is not mentally illāwe are. āCalling Trump crazy allows us to avoid confronting the craziness in our society,ā he writes. āWe canāt expect to change Trump, but we must work to undo the societal delusions that created him.ā
And those delusions, Kurt Andersen contends in Fantasyland, have been around for a long time. āPeople tend to regard the Trump momentāthis post-truth, alternative facts momentāas some inexplicable and crazy new American phenomenon,ā he writes. āIn fact, whatās happening is just the ultimate extrapolation and expression of attitudes and instincts that have made America exceptional for its entire history.ā
So, depending on which of these books you trustāand their persuasive powers vary considerablyāyou might conclude that Trump is of unsound mind, or that weāre the deranged ones for electing him, or that America has always been disturbed, with Trumpās presidency just the latest manifestation.
And hereās the really crazy thing: These options are not mutually exclusive.
Mental illness hardly disqualifies one from the presidency. Abraham Lincoln is thought to have suffered from severe depression, but he held himself together and the union, too. āEquating mental illness with incapacity merely stigmatizes the mentally ill,ā clinical psychologist Craig Malkin writes in The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump. But Malkin and other contributors argue that Trumpās behaviorāhis political statements and actions as well as his interviews, books and social-media activityāsuggest more ominous possibilities.
Trump displays signs of āextreme present hedonism,ā the tendency to live in the moment without considering consequences, seeking to bolster oneās self-esteem no matter the risk. Or he exhibits ānarcissistic personality disorder,ā which includes believing youāre better than others, exaggerating your achievements and expecting constant praise. Combine hedonism, narcissism and bullying, and you get āan impulsive, immature, incompetent person who, when in the position of ultimate power, easily slides into the role of the tyrant,ā Philip Zimbardo (of the famous Stanford prison experiment) and Rosemary Sword write.
Others suggest that Trump shows indications of sociopathy, including lack of empathy, absence of guilt and intentional manipulation. Put it all together and you have āmalignant narcissism,ā which includes antisocial behavior, paranoid traits and even sadism.
āMr. Trumpās sociopathic characteristics are undeniable,ā retired Harvard psychiatry professor Lance Dodes concludes. āThey create a profound danger for Americaās democracy and safety. Over time, these characteristics will only become worse, either because Mr. Trump will succeed in gaining more power and more grandiosity with less grasp on reality, or because he will engender more criticism producing more paranoia, more lies and more enraged destruction.ā
And when the President stands before the UN General Assembly and threatens to ātotally destroyā an enemy country of 25 million people, enraged destruction seems on point.
Experts say all people have some narcissistic traits, but what does being a ānarcissistā mean? (Victoria Walker, The Washington Post)
The writers emphasize that they are not, technically, diagnosing the president. āAssessing dangerousness is different from making a diagnosis,ā Herman and Lee argue. āSigns of likely dangerousness due to mental disorder can become apparent without a full diagnostic interview.ā
Even so, these mental health professionals run afoul of the American Psychiatric Associationās Goldwater Rule, which deems it unethical to offer a professional opinion on a public figure without conducting a personal examination and without authorization to release the conclusions. (The debate dates to the 1964 presidential campaign, when a magazine published a survey of psychiatristsā views on Republican nominee Barry Goldwater.) (Is Trump Mentally Ill? by William Morrow)
The volumeās contributors take solace in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, a 1976 case in which the California Supreme Court held that mental health experts have a responsibility to speak out when they determine that someone poses a physical danger to others. Nevertheless, all these distinctions can be a bit fine. āAm I making a diagnosis of President Trump?ā psychiatrist Henry J. Friedman asks. āWell, yes and noāand even maybe.ā
The stand these psychiatrists are taking takes courage, and their conclusions are compelling. But itās hard to read The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump as simply the dispassionate insights of well-trained experts. āThe majority of mental health professionals tend to be liberal in their leanings,ā admits clinical psychologist Jennifer Contarino Panning, whereas psychiatrist David M. Reiss cautions that āthose who speak out must do so carefully, not without risk, and to a populace that should be reasonably skeptical.ā
Comparisons between Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler abound in this volume. āHistory will not be kind to a profession that aided the rise of an American Hitler through its silence,ā clinical psychologist John D. Gartner writes in a typical passage.
MIT linguist Noam Chomsky makes an odd cameo in the bookās epilogue, warning that the Trump administration might stage a fake terrorist attack. And clinical psychologist Michael Tansey suggests, with disdain and needless vulgarity, that āthere is considerable evidence to suggest that absolute tyranny is DTās wet dream.ā
In the final chapter, psychiatrists Nanette Gartrell and Dee Mosbacher call for an independent panel to evaluate Trumpās fitness for office, and they urge Congress to pass legislation ensuring that future presidential and vice-presidential candidates undergo evaluations. I would not want Tansey, for one, serving on that body. Wouldnāt dream of it.
Frances wrote the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder used in the American Psychiatric Associationās Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and he doesnāt think Trump qualifies. In Twilight of American Sanity, Frances says the diagnosis requires the patient to experience significant distress because of his condition. But throughout his life, Trump āhas been generously rewarded for his Trumpism, not impaired by it,ā Frances writes. āTrump is a threat to the United States, and to the world, not because he is clinically mad, but because he is very bad.ā
I appreciate this focus on Trump as a political rather than a psychoanalytic problem. There is something too simple about dismissing his misdeeds as signs of mental illness; it almost exonerates him, and us. But Francesās judgment proves even more damning. He trashes Trump as a āsecular antichrist,ā a ātwo-bit, would-be Mussolini,ā even an instrument of divine vengeance. āIf you were assigned the task of punishing humanity for its original sins,ā he thunders, āyou could do no better than invent a Donald Trump and give him extraordinary power.ā
The case for impeaching President Donald J. Trump. (Too soon?)
After a while, you almost forget Frances is a psychiatrist at all. America is delusional not just because it elected Trump but because it doesnāt conform to Francesās views on climate change, population growth, technology, privacy, war, economics and guns. āWeāve lost touch with the reality of starkly obvious existential threats,ā he asserts.
And when Frances strays into political strategizing, he is not only predictable but generic. āWe must find a crossover Anti Trump president,ā the author writes, āsomeone who can bring out our better angels on both sides of the polar gaps and who can replace buzzwords with common-sense solutions.ā (Yes, please, especially buzzwords such as ācommon-sense solutions.ā)
Frances worries that Trump has āa particular gift for bringing out all the worst irrational thinking and impulsive actions in his followers.ā But Studio 360 host Kurt Andersen is here to tell us that America has featured magical thinking and nutty impulses for centuries. Thanks to our mix of religiosity and Enlightenment valuesāplus the do-your-own-thing vibe of the 1960s and the super-powered distribution channel known as the InternetāAmericans have developed a āpromiscuous devotion to the untrue,ā Andersen writes.
In Fantasyland, Andersen chronicles those he considers purveyors of secular and religious pipe dreams, from Cotton Mather to P.T. Barnum, from Walt Disney to Oprah Winfrey. And, of course, from Donald Trump the real estate huckster to Donald Trump the commander in chief.
Fantasyland reads like the work of an author who comes up with a catchy idea and then Dumpster-dives his way through history for anything supporting it. The Salem witch trials, the Gold Rush, Scientology, Civil War reenactors, the tech bubbleāall are evidence of Fantasyland, a place where reality and make-believe are blurred and exploitable. Itās all quite clever, but if ever a 462-page book felt fleeting, this is it.
Andersen rushes through so much, and itās not always clear why. Hip-hop rates a random paragraph; so does the pill. Some variant on the word fantasy appears on virtually every page, just in case we didnāt get it. And the authorās contempt for people of faith grates. From the Puritans on out, almost any religiously inclined community resides in āFantasyland,ā save American Jews, whom he considers āreligiously reasonable,ā and American Catholics, whom he finds at least āmore reality-based than Protestants.ā
The story concludes, inexorably, with the American president. āDonald Trump is a pure Fantasyland being, its apotheosis,ā Andersen writes, describing Trumpās personal reality as āa patchwork of knowing falsehoods and sincerely believed fantasies.ā Still, Trump gets some credit for keeping a firm grasp on the nationās unhinging. āTrump waited to run for president until he sensed that a critical mass of Americans had decided politics were all a show and a sham,ā Andersen explains.
At that point, Trump fits right in.
There is an addendum to the speculation over Trumpās mental health and our own. Whether or not the American mind was already long gone, the Trump presidency may be adding to its frenzy, even prompting mental-health professionals to reconsider their approaches.
One of the psychiatrists in The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump warns of the rise of āTrump Anxiety Disorder.ā (Feeling helpless? Stressed about politics? Binging on social media? Ask your doctor about T.A.D.) Another contributor proposes the notion of a ācitizen therapistā who āworks with people in the office and the community on coping productively with public stress and becoming active agents of their personal and civic lives.ā
And even Frances writes sympathetically, if still condescendingly, about how opposing politicians can reach Trump voters. Rather than confront them with fact-based arguments aimed at proving them wrong, āyou must first gain [their] trust as a precondition for exploring the fears, feelings, fancies, stressors, legitimate beefs and experiences that have made the false beliefs so believable.ā
Of course, writing books lamenting Americaās generalized insanityāand the delusions of Trump supporters in particularāmay not be the ideal first step to win that trust. For all their expertise in human behavior, these psychiatrists donāt seem well-equipped to coax us out of our current political madness. Perhaps the Trump era also requires new therapy for Americaās shrinks. To use another euphemism: They seem a little on edge.
Do you want to influence Trump? Flatter him, make him the center of your attention and give him money. And all the worldās leaders, including our countryās enemies, know this.
Finally, if Trump decides to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, and I wouldnāt assume that he would hesitate to do this, this is said to bring on a āconstitutional crisis.ā What would this mean? Can anything be worse than what we already have?
*****
George B. Kauffman, Ph.D., chemistry professor emeritus at Fresno State and a Guggenheim Fellow, is a recipient of the American Chemical Societyās George C. Pimentel Award in Chemical Education, the Helen M. Free Award for Public Outreach and the Award for Research at an Undergraduate Institution, and numerous domestic and international honors. In 2002 and 2011, he was appointed a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Chemical Society, respectively.