US Presidential candidate Donald Trump has been accused by opponents of being a pathological liar. While no friend of The Donald, as posts to this blog will attest, I decided to do a bit of research as to whether Trump had been accurately diagnosed. I conclude he has not.
Mr. Trump is not a pathological liar; rather, he is a sociopathic liar. The former is a compulsive liar who consciously or not seeks to embellish the details of his life. The latter is defined as an individual (often a great narcissist) who “lies incessantly to get their way and does so with little concern for others. A sociopath is often goal-oriented (i.e., lying is focused—it is done to get one’s way)… Sociopaths are often charming and charismatic, but they use their talented social skills in manipulative and self-centered ways.” https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/.
Whether the lie relates to the number of Arab-Americans Trump claims to have seen celebrating the fall of the World Trade Center buildings, his claimed $10 billion net worth, or his constant flip flops on abortion rights, the case for war in Iraq and Afghanistan, or his incitement to violence at political rallies, Trump is a veritable fountain of untruth.
The amusing and revealing thing is he may not always realize he is lying. For Trump business, and he hopes presidential politics, is a succession of “deals” which he claims to be preternaturally gifted at. He also prides himself on unpredictability and “flexibility.” When taken together, these character traits easily translate into saying one thing on Monday and the 180 degree opposite on Tuesday. Most people would call that lying and brand the speaker a liar. However, I believe for The Donald, life is a series of non-continuous film frames in which he feels free to say one thing today if he finds it expedient and the polar opposite tomorrow without even the least sense of contrition.
This is why Donald Trump fits the profile of a sociopathic liar to a “T” — a big, fake gold leaf T as in Trump.
Agreed on all points, and I add the following:
My personal theory is that in 2015, the “Howard Stern” principle applied to the Donald: “He’s a riot, and we keep listening to him ’cause we want to hear what he’s gonna say next!” In 2015, the country’s electorate was, figuratively speaking, enjoying beers and chips on the patio, knowing that in a few hours (read: 2016), they’d be expected in the formal dining room for a real discussion. Until then, they could laugh and feel entertained. Point: the Donald was not taken seriously in ’15 (not seriously enough), so that his McCain-coward remark, his Fiorina-face remark, and his other juvenile vulgarities of last year were barely noticed. Once each state’s GOP electorate entered the dining room of 2016, the country’s mood and mindset began to focus on the unfolding Trump buffet atop the sideboard: Trump’s first gravy boat was, “I’ll sit out of the debate right before Iowa’s caucus ’cause I’m mad at Ms. Kelly.” Hearing that, I thought: he’ll soon to lose to Cruz, and so he did. Shortly before the Ohio primary, Trump served up more of his repugnant cuisine, e.g., “I’ll offer to the pay the legal bills of my supporter who cold-cocked my opponent instead of waxing wise against such violence,” and, “I’ll reject David Duke’s endorsement in a way that (wink-wink) Mr. Duke and his ilk won’t see as a denunciation.” So days later, Ohio’s GOP electorate came into the Buckeye dining room and ate what Kasich was serving. At that time, I thought, “Trump’s done.” And as we’ve seen since Ohio, Trump cannot get enough of his own cooking, for what did he serve next, right before Wisconsin’s revelers came in from their party patio to the dining room? This, over wife-related slurs: “Lying Ted started it!” and, “If abortion weren’t legal, and a woman went ahead and got an abortion, then yes, the woman should be punished.” So, the rancid stink of the Trump buffet was now (in my view) the perfect repellant to the holders of the forks, who, just moments earlier on party patio, were ready to dig in.
The overarching problem, about which nothing can be done, is that as a result of a person’s exposure on TV (see, Simpson, O.J.), ordinary American television viewers come to believe they KNOW the person, and grow to trust the person as surely as they trust an old, close friend or a family member.
Fortunately, approx. 35% of the GOP electorate won’t be enough to elect such a TV personality to the U.S. presidency. And in this case, I predict, even to clinch the GOP nomination. Thank god.