From an outsider view, the most worrying aspect you do not factor in enough is an electorate made so passive by its ridiculous media and material well being that the general feeling is that of spectatorship, a detached sitting back observing rather than the necessary acting (NOW, not the midterms!) to salvage your Republic.
This is excellent. The best clinical and theoretical framework I’ve read to help people understand clinical processes in a malignant narcissist. Explaining supply in context of Trumps sources helps us understand what is happening now and what to expect. I wish you could get a guest gig on MS Now. Nicole Wallace is increasingly speaking more clearly about trumps mental health deterioration and how it threatens all of us. My sense is that the tables have turned in media who are increasingly willing to speak in more specific terms to describe his deterioration. I’m glad. Suncribed. 😊😊
I would posit that this "new" foil or conflict is going to be the Pope and the Catholic Church. Trump has tried mocking via the digital trading card showing him as Pope. The Catholics in his regime have to denounce the Pope statements as being "not Catholic". MAGA is against the Church. And Doug Wilson, the Christian Nationalist, wants the regime to stop various forms of Catholic worship or ministry. Not counting the Pentagon dressing down.
This seems to me like a perfect set up for his next villain.
He can also revert to ICE killing more Americans. I do think the killing and punishment is his high.
As plausible as this post is and as insightful as it may be, this post could have made the same points without invoking a psychological theory.
It "connected the dots" between events persuasively. This would have been more than enough to make valid points about putting one's own personal interests ahead of the common good and of the proper stewardship of the office. I see the psychology as something of a distraction, which brings its own dangers.
The Goldwater Rule fits with at least three cautions. One is an appropriate tentativeness about diagnosing apart from a clinical examination. The second is to prevent mental health from being co-opted and weaponized for political purposes. The third is to preserve mental health services for their therapeutic purposes, with proper respect for privacy and without contamination by those whose goals are incompatible.
If those with the authority to do so under the 25th Amendment were to consult with those who have recognized mental health expertise, this would be a limiting circumstance. Somewhat like court-mandated psychiatric assessments, such a process would require consideration that is as objective and as free from political agendas and popular sentiment as possible.
Apart from such an exception, I'd simply connect behavior and event without getting into psychological assessments. The Law of Unintended Consequences continues to operate. I think it would apply rather forcefully to setting the Goldwater Rule aside.
Even if your statement is completely accurate, the rest of my reply applies.
Sticking with observable facts rather than inferred causes makes for a stronger case. It doesn't open the door to disputing the inferred causes or the appropriateness of making the inferences.
If the goal is to invoke the 25th Amendment, appeals to the public interest need to be uncontaminated by political agendas and are best made privately. Keeping the politics focused on public behavior is more likely to provide a context for those who can to find a basis for corrective action.
Carl, with respect — the Goldwater Rule was designed to protect against speculation. What I am doing is the opposite of speculation. I am applying the most parsimonious explanation to an eight-year pattern of documented, observable, public behavior that has resisted every other explanatory framework attempted. The clinical frame doesn't create the conclusion. It names what the observable facts already show. The people working hardest to avoid that conclusion are not being more rigorous than I am. They are being less honest.
I notice an inference about the motives of those who disagree.
Our disagreement is primarily about tactics and ethics. Although I've seen much value in many of your posts, we see this issue through different lenses.
Carl, we are not disagreeing about a norm in ordinary times. We are disagreeing about whether a norm designed for ordinary times applies when the subject of the norm is the most powerful person on earth, and the pattern of behavior in question is producing wars, constitutional crises, and civilizational stakes. The Goldwater Rule exists to protect against reckless speculation. I am not speculating. And the cost of maintaining the norm in this circumstance is not abstract — it is measured in the things I have been documenting all week. At some point, deference to professional etiquette in the face of an observable emergency is not caution. It is a form of complicity.
I’d be curious what you both thought of this piece I wrote on Dr. Bandy Lee a little while ago, the lead public psychiatrist on Trump’s mental state who has been sounding the psychiatric alarm on him for at least a decade. I offer it because it’s relevant and seems that it could accommodate both of your arguments.
Thanks for calling my attention to your thoughtful and well balanced post.
I'm old enough to remember when Barry Goldwater was running for president in 1964. This was two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, during the early phases of the Viet Nam War escalation, and as the civil rights movement was being met with violence. Reportedly, Goldwater had quipped about lobbing a missile into the men's room at the Kremlin. The fears were that his presidency would lead to race riots, escalation in Viet Nam, and even nuclear war. Events during LBJ's administration speak for themselves.
In the 1964 campaign context, some psychiatrists evaluated Goldwater as mentally unfit. He lost the election, sued the psychiatrists, and won the suit. Professional associations updated their ethical codes with the so-called Goldwater Rule.
If I were invited to do a professional assessment of the current president, all of the information in the post would inform my hypotheses. My leading differentials would be whether he actually is impaired, whether he's not impaired but has values and goals with which I disagree, or whether he's following Nixon's advice and playing the "mad man" in order to manipulate.
Back when I was doing debate, I learned to attack the weakest arguments of the other side and ignore the strongest ones. Conversely, I was taught to present only my strongest arguments. The public behavior and its impact, rather than the psychological inferences, provide the strongest arguments for public debate.
Thanks again for introducing your post into this discussion.
The implosion of our tyrant’s mind, for some reason, made me think of the Titan visiting the Titanic.
We do see Vance doing important things again. The planners could be preparing us for a transition.
Much as MAGA would question and mourn Trumps departure, I have to expect their attention and support would shift quickly to #2.
Vances rise to the office would provide a welcome balm for the Party. He need do nothing once in office and, If done soon enough, would it impact the midterms?
I appreciate much your very fine insights in “The Supply Crisis.” These insights all the more make me aware and I hope it is true of many, the need for the inner revolution of consciousness. The greatest work is the inner work of releasing those unconscious perceptions that are so deadly both in our personal, interpersonal, institutional, and global life.
"These are not the actions of a loyal vice president waiting his turn." His turn? Trump (technically) can't run again, and we know he will try, but it would be an even bigger disaster. Vance is doing what Harris and everybody else in that position do. That's why choosing Vance at the behest of Peter Thiel was a real mistake to such a narcissistic personality, as opposed to Doug Burgum or somebody who couldn't try to steal his thunder. Now he's created another liability.
Thoughts always turn to "what are the adults in the room doing?". The oligarchs, the billionaire class? They, the non-narcissist ones, must b worried. Surely Fox must pivot away from Trump soon. Unless chaos and culling is what they want. The US has to default on its t-bonds debt soon. Is this their way of fighting China - rarher than head-on armed conflict, which might be dicey for the US to win, they are opting to bring down the entire global economy, thinking that the US might beat China in a chaos world?
I've also found narcissistic supply to be incredibly informative recently. Frankly, it's the only analytical tool I've found that makes sense of trump's behavior! Everything he does is an exercise in generating narcissistic supply. No other framework--logic, reason, strategy, morality or immorality, or any other--explains trump's behavior so precisely.
Fantastic analysis. It rings true. And we should be very concerned, and aggressively prepared.
Perhaps we should feed his ego and name a form of narcissism after him....
Interesting diagnosis.
From an outsider view, the most worrying aspect you do not factor in enough is an electorate made so passive by its ridiculous media and material well being that the general feeling is that of spectatorship, a detached sitting back observing rather than the necessary acting (NOW, not the midterms!) to salvage your Republic.
This is excellent. The best clinical and theoretical framework I’ve read to help people understand clinical processes in a malignant narcissist. Explaining supply in context of Trumps sources helps us understand what is happening now and what to expect. I wish you could get a guest gig on MS Now. Nicole Wallace is increasingly speaking more clearly about trumps mental health deterioration and how it threatens all of us. My sense is that the tables have turned in media who are increasingly willing to speak in more specific terms to describe his deterioration. I’m glad. Suncribed. 😊😊
Our 1A 4th Estate must be divorced from this toxic capitalism.
The only currency, the only profit, should be pursuing truth and criticism of our government.
If you need 24/7 entertainment, we could put you in a special home for that.
I would posit that this "new" foil or conflict is going to be the Pope and the Catholic Church. Trump has tried mocking via the digital trading card showing him as Pope. The Catholics in his regime have to denounce the Pope statements as being "not Catholic". MAGA is against the Church. And Doug Wilson, the Christian Nationalist, wants the regime to stop various forms of Catholic worship or ministry. Not counting the Pentagon dressing down.
This seems to me like a perfect set up for his next villain.
He can also revert to ICE killing more Americans. I do think the killing and punishment is his high.
Yes, killing Lib Americans would b a huge high.
As plausible as this post is and as insightful as it may be, this post could have made the same points without invoking a psychological theory.
It "connected the dots" between events persuasively. This would have been more than enough to make valid points about putting one's own personal interests ahead of the common good and of the proper stewardship of the office. I see the psychology as something of a distraction, which brings its own dangers.
The Goldwater Rule fits with at least three cautions. One is an appropriate tentativeness about diagnosing apart from a clinical examination. The second is to prevent mental health from being co-opted and weaponized for political purposes. The third is to preserve mental health services for their therapeutic purposes, with proper respect for privacy and without contamination by those whose goals are incompatible.
If those with the authority to do so under the 25th Amendment were to consult with those who have recognized mental health expertise, this would be a limiting circumstance. Somewhat like court-mandated psychiatric assessments, such a process would require consideration that is as objective and as free from political agendas and popular sentiment as possible.
Apart from such an exception, I'd simply connect behavior and event without getting into psychological assessments. The Law of Unintended Consequences continues to operate. I think it would apply rather forcefully to setting the Goldwater Rule aside.
It is not just plausible. It is the truth of the situation. The psychological condition of Donald Trump and the attendant risk.
Even if your statement is completely accurate, the rest of my reply applies.
Sticking with observable facts rather than inferred causes makes for a stronger case. It doesn't open the door to disputing the inferred causes or the appropriateness of making the inferences.
If the goal is to invoke the 25th Amendment, appeals to the public interest need to be uncontaminated by political agendas and are best made privately. Keeping the politics focused on public behavior is more likely to provide a context for those who can to find a basis for corrective action.
Carl, with respect — the Goldwater Rule was designed to protect against speculation. What I am doing is the opposite of speculation. I am applying the most parsimonious explanation to an eight-year pattern of documented, observable, public behavior that has resisted every other explanatory framework attempted. The clinical frame doesn't create the conclusion. It names what the observable facts already show. The people working hardest to avoid that conclusion are not being more rigorous than I am. They are being less honest.
I notice an inference about the motives of those who disagree.
Our disagreement is primarily about tactics and ethics. Although I've seen much value in many of your posts, we see this issue through different lenses.
Carl, we are not disagreeing about a norm in ordinary times. We are disagreeing about whether a norm designed for ordinary times applies when the subject of the norm is the most powerful person on earth, and the pattern of behavior in question is producing wars, constitutional crises, and civilizational stakes. The Goldwater Rule exists to protect against reckless speculation. I am not speculating. And the cost of maintaining the norm in this circumstance is not abstract — it is measured in the things I have been documenting all week. At some point, deference to professional etiquette in the face of an observable emergency is not caution. It is a form of complicity.
I’d be curious what you both thought of this piece I wrote on Dr. Bandy Lee a little while ago, the lead public psychiatrist on Trump’s mental state who has been sounding the psychiatric alarm on him for at least a decade. I offer it because it’s relevant and seems that it could accommodate both of your arguments.
https://redbrown.substack.com/p/on-dr-bandy-lee-and-the-political
Thanks for calling my attention to your thoughtful and well balanced post.
I'm old enough to remember when Barry Goldwater was running for president in 1964. This was two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, during the early phases of the Viet Nam War escalation, and as the civil rights movement was being met with violence. Reportedly, Goldwater had quipped about lobbing a missile into the men's room at the Kremlin. The fears were that his presidency would lead to race riots, escalation in Viet Nam, and even nuclear war. Events during LBJ's administration speak for themselves.
In the 1964 campaign context, some psychiatrists evaluated Goldwater as mentally unfit. He lost the election, sued the psychiatrists, and won the suit. Professional associations updated their ethical codes with the so-called Goldwater Rule.
If I were invited to do a professional assessment of the current president, all of the information in the post would inform my hypotheses. My leading differentials would be whether he actually is impaired, whether he's not impaired but has values and goals with which I disagree, or whether he's following Nixon's advice and playing the "mad man" in order to manipulate.
Back when I was doing debate, I learned to attack the weakest arguments of the other side and ignore the strongest ones. Conversely, I was taught to present only my strongest arguments. The public behavior and its impact, rather than the psychological inferences, provide the strongest arguments for public debate.
Thanks again for introducing your post into this discussion.
I appreciate your comment too, it’s very informative. Thanks as well.
The implosion of our tyrant’s mind, for some reason, made me think of the Titan visiting the Titanic.
We do see Vance doing important things again. The planners could be preparing us for a transition.
Much as MAGA would question and mourn Trumps departure, I have to expect their attention and support would shift quickly to #2.
Vances rise to the office would provide a welcome balm for the Party. He need do nothing once in office and, If done soon enough, would it impact the midterms?
A cry-baby clown at the White House circus indeed!
Mike,
I appreciate much your very fine insights in “The Supply Crisis.” These insights all the more make me aware and I hope it is true of many, the need for the inner revolution of consciousness. The greatest work is the inner work of releasing those unconscious perceptions that are so deadly both in our personal, interpersonal, institutional, and global life.
Namaste,
Steven
"These are not the actions of a loyal vice president waiting his turn." His turn? Trump (technically) can't run again, and we know he will try, but it would be an even bigger disaster. Vance is doing what Harris and everybody else in that position do. That's why choosing Vance at the behest of Peter Thiel was a real mistake to such a narcissistic personality, as opposed to Doug Burgum or somebody who couldn't try to steal his thunder. Now he's created another liability.
Thoughts always turn to "what are the adults in the room doing?". The oligarchs, the billionaire class? They, the non-narcissist ones, must b worried. Surely Fox must pivot away from Trump soon. Unless chaos and culling is what they want. The US has to default on its t-bonds debt soon. Is this their way of fighting China - rarher than head-on armed conflict, which might be dicey for the US to win, they are opting to bring down the entire global economy, thinking that the US might beat China in a chaos world?
Or there are no adults in the room.
on The Boulder and it’s Speed Problem. I’ve only got Recognition.
I've also found narcissistic supply to be incredibly informative recently. Frankly, it's the only analytical tool I've found that makes sense of trump's behavior! Everything he does is an exercise in generating narcissistic supply. No other framework--logic, reason, strategy, morality or immorality, or any other--explains trump's behavior so precisely.