Ringside Report Reviews the Documentary #UNFIT: The Psychology of Donald Trump

[AdSense-A]

By Jim “Giacomo” Gatto

In the closing credits of the documentary #UNFIT: The Psychology of Donald Trump (2020) (AVAILABLE ON: Prime Video (Amazon), Apple TV (iTunes), GooglePlay, FandangoNOW, VUDU, Microsoft, YouTube, DirecTV, Spectrum, Comcast, Cox, Xfinity, U-verse, Fios) director, Dan Partland inserted the following quote: “As a narcissist, Trump can not [ sic ] admit he’s wrong and change course, even when American lives are at stake. We cannot let him take the country down with him.” — Hans Royal, June 2020.

This was the quote the filmmaker chose after his extensive research and interviews with psychologists, historians, political consultants, and others who have known or studied Donald Trump. In other words, “be warned.” A sobering message. One I have agreed with since the first time Donald Trump appeared on my radar, and even more concerned when he threw his hat in the ring. And a similar message I had imparted to anyone who would listen. I can’t say why I felt that way, but I just knew it. Intuition, I guess, based on no empirical evidence, just my understanding of human behavior, learned on the unforgiving streets of Bensonhurst, Brooklyn during my adolescence.

The first time I looked at this guy and I knew—uh, uh. No good. That was around 35 years ago. Since then, I have witnessed his antics over the years. The sagas of three marriages, covered very closely in the New York media and supermarket tabloids. The bankruptcies. The bombast. The pompous horse’s ass. And the racist who took out a full-page ad in four New York newspapers, calling for the death penalty for the Central Park 5. I didn’t like him then, and I like him less and less every day.

After watching this film, I now have a better understanding of why. It is a short, but comprehensive exploration into the mind of Donald Trump, and equally important, the minds of his followers, making a compelling case for a major cause for concern for all Americans and the world at large. Among the contributors are some of the most well-regarded and respected experts in their respective fields: Retired Navy Senior Chief who worked in Cryptology, Malcolm Nance; Ethics Attorney for George W. Bush, Richard Painter; Attorney and co-founder of The Lincoln Project, George Conway; Research Psychologist, Sheldon Solomon; and former White House Communications Director, Anthony Scaramucci.

The film opens with Malcolm Nance discussing “The Personal Liability Program”, in which background checks are carried out for top military personnel, who may or may not be tasked with guarding a truck, which may or may not be carrying a nuclear weapon; and, in contrast, no such screening for the president who has the unilateral power to launch those nuclear weapons. That power is given to the president by the electorate. By virtue of being elected, the president is cleared from undergoing the rigorous background checks and evaluations required for any other person who might, on the off chance, be tasked with carrying out a nuclear strike. So right from the beginning we are reminded of the fatal flaw in our system should we have a rogue president.

Roll Credits. Cut to: First Day of Trump Presidency. White House Press Secretary, Sean Spicer addresses the media for the very first time and tells the first set of, what turned out to be, a continuous barrage of lies—a practice which subsists to this day. The lies were about the size of the crowd at the inauguration. Spicer contended that “some members of the media were deliberately engaged in false reporting. Photographs of the event were intentionally framed in a way to minimize the enormous support that had gathered on the National Mall” And Chuck Todd, on “Meet the Press” Asks Counselor to The President, Kellyanne Conway “why put him [Spicer] out there for the very first time….and utter a falsehood? Why did he do that? It undermines the credibility of the entire White House press office.” Conway immediately goes on the attack, “no it doesn’t. Don’t be so overly dramatic about it, Chuck. you’re saying it’s a falsehood and they’re giving…Sean Spicer, our Press Secretary gave alternative facts to that. but the point remains… Todd, exasperated, “look, alternative facts are not facts–their falsehoods.” So, Spicer comes out swinging, attacking the media, and Conway defends the lies coming out of the White House. They threw down the gauntlet on day one. There’s a method to this madness.

The evaluation and diagnosis begins with Psychologist, John Gartner Ph. D discussing “The Goldwater rule”, and how it’s being weaponized by the Trump Administration. The rule is named for former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, and it was enacted in response to an article in “Fact” magazine. The article made false accusations regarding the candidate’s mental fitness, thus damaging his bid for office. Goldwater sued publisher Ralph Ginzburg and was awarded $75,000 in damages. The rule states, in short, “that It is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures whom they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.” Gartner disagrees that this holds true today, as the psychiatrists who contributed to the article had made wild speculations based on some of Freud’s theories, and were not based in fact. The members of the ethics committee who formed the Goldwater rule were attempting to protect the profession from embarrassment, but never intended it to be a gag order, but simply to ensure that professionals are careful to not make unfounded statements. Gartner challenges the rule with a different rule, the duty to warn obligation called the “Tarasoff rule.” More on this later.

Gardner further challenges the Goldwater rule contending that the psychiatric interview is the least reliable means of making a diagnosis. That so much more can be learned by observing a client in their everyday life, and by what their friends and family say about them, and how they interact with others. Gartner continues, “I am more confident in my diagnosis of Donald Trump than in any diagnosis I have ever made before, because I have more information.” So, according to Gartner the theory that the interview process should be the only process by which a diagnosis is made is seriously flawed. George Conway, husband of Kellyanne Conway and cofounder of the Lincoln Project supported Trump at first and was hoping that he would eventually smooth out the rough edges and settle into the job. But after enough time, Conway realized there would be no change. So, he started doing some research and found an article in Rolling Stone magazine in which Gardner diagnoses Trump as a malignant narcissist. This made perfect sense to Conway, and upon this revelation he realized that he could no longer support him.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) provides the guidelines by which psychiatric evaluations are made. A Malignant Narcissist diagnosis has four components:

1. Narcissism- Grandiose sense of self-importance, lack of empathy for others, need for excessive admiration, the belief that one is unique and deserving of special treatment. Gardner says “this is not a big problem as many politicians are narcissists. But it’s the other three that make him dangerous.”

They are:

2. Paranoia- Likely to engage in conspiracy theories, for example, Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assassination, Obama birther conspiracy, fake news, being/playing a victim, the demonization of anyone who disagrees with him.

3. Anti-Social Personality Disorder- Constant lying, violating the rights of others, for example sexual assault, not paying bills, defrauding and exploiting people, ignoring the 1st amendment, breaking laws and norms. Here Gardner goes on, “He has broken every norm of the presidency. That’s why he’s out of control. It’s part of his personality to break norms that no one else would ever dream of, and he has a lack of remorse, or no guilt or anxiety about it.

4. Sadism- Taking pleasure in harming for humiliating and degrading other human beings, nasty tweets, attacking people, calling names, thousands of vicious attacks; he enjoys degrading others and takes pleasure in it.

So, what we have is the foundation for a Malignant Narcissist diagnosis. By his words and his actions there is clear evidence for all four components. He claims to be the best at everything and him and only him can save this godforsaken country from the mess it’s currently in. The conspiracy theories and the breaking of rules and disregard for the law; his lack of empathy for anyone suffering from anything unpleasant; the sexual assaults charged against him, to which he has denied every single one, although he has made numerous monetary settlements with his alleged victims. His tweetstorms, in which he regularly attacks any of his detractors, including his friends the minute they disagree with him. The notion that he takes pleasure in his attacking cannot be reduced to speculation, for he has said in interviews before he became president that revenge is a must and he will seek it in any way possible, and he enjoys it. The psychiatrists agree that these traits add up to Malignant Narcissist personality disorder. And a Malignant Narcissist in the White House is a danger, not to one or two people, but to the entire nation and ultimately the entire world.

Enter the Tarasoff rule. The Tarasoff rule is a simple one. It mandates that a mental health professional must weigh the patient’s confidentiality against that patient’s possible danger to society. The doctor/patient confidentially agreement is a fundamental principle in the medical field. However, the mental health professional is charged with protecting the safety of society over the rights of the patient’s confidentiality. If a patient is deemed to be a danger to themselves or others the confidentiality clause is abandoned. The mental health professionals in this documentary all agree that they must follow this mandate, as it is their duty to inform the public of the potential danger Donald Trump poses against the citizens of the world. Think back to the opening scene in the film where Malcolm Nance discusses the handling of nuclear arms. This is the worst-case scenario. But there are other, and seemingly less dangerous, at least immediately, but pose a tremendous threat to public safety. Environmental laws that have been scrapped, setting us back 50 years at the very least; proposals to build more coal mines in the midst of a climate crisis; the deregulation of clean water protections; and an overall seemingly conscious effort to cripple the environment and destroy democracy. Blended together, a recipe for a disastrous, reckless, and very dangerous human being. And in his position of power, a serious threat to the environment, our democracy, and national and world security.

Perhaps the most important part of this film was the examination into the psyche of his followers. Although this film provides tremendous insight into Trump’s psyche, some of it revelatory and some confirmation of what we already know, it would provide no practical value other than walking away with a better understanding of the man in the White House. I don’t think there’s any dispute that Donald Trump will never change. The die has been cast, and for a man in his seventies who’s gotten as far as he has doing what he’s always done, there’s no reason to believe that we can do anything to change him. However, if we have a better understanding of the thought process of his followers, then perhaps we can do something to change their minds. The task being to deprogram, but only possible if we know what makes them tick, and hopefully reach some of them. Even if it’s just a small portion. So, what is it that draws them in?

It starts with gaslighting. Driving home the idea that what you’re seeing is not really what’s happening. And “if you think you saw something, you’re probably losing your mind. The news is fake. All the accusations against me have no merit, I didn’t do anything that I’ve been accused of. In fact, everything you’ve been told about me is a lie.” How is this possible? How is it possible that anyone with half a brain can buy in to this counter-intuitive line of reasoning. Apparently, it’s more common than you think. In the 1950s, Solomon Asch conducted a series of experiments, known today as The Asch Conformity Experiments. In an article on the website “Behavioral Legal Ethics”, Asch’s hypothesis is explained: “Asch hypothesized that when confederates (fake participants) uniformly gave a particular response in a group setting, the lone true participant would feel pressure to conform to the group consensus.” In the experiment, the test group was asked to look at a picture with one line on the left side and three lines of different sizes on the right, and labeled A, B, & C. After viewing they were asked a simple question: which of the three lines on the right is the same size as the line on the left? One hundred percent of the time they answered correctly. Next, the confederates were asked the same question about the same picture and chose the wrong answer on purpose. The test group, when given the chance to change their answer, did so 50% of the time to match the confederates’ answers. Demonstrating and proving the hypothesis that peer pressure can influence a choice simply to fit into the group.

So how do you accomplish groupthink amongst your followers? A few components need to be present. Gartner explains that this is primal behavior and, in fact, quite normal for all species of animals, including humans. Being part of a group is a means of survival. The leader must convince potential followers that there are harmful forces growing, against which they need to fight in order to survive. The best way to do this is to create division by fostering a sense and fear, and that the nation can be better and purer without certain elements, e.g. Mexicans and Arabs. Playing on the fears of women and the elderly by calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers. What mother wouldn’t be petrified for their daughters’ safety with rapists running wild? Or their small children being coerced into taking drugs? Or for the elderly, the deep fear of Arabs who are infiltrating our society and planning terrorist attacks? The working man is being told his job will be outsourced to some foreign land. And so on. It becomes a question of “us versus them.” And, “we will get behind our leader no matter how terrible he is. Yes, he’s a liar, a cheat, a misogynist, a jerk. We don’t care. He allows us to speak our minds and say what we really mean. I don’t have to like him. Just as long as he saves us from this mess.” Anthony Scaramucci points out, Chief Strategist for Barak Obama, David Axelrod told him, “People will vote for a person they don’t like but they won’t vote for a person who doesn’t like them.” This is perhaps the reason that Hillary Clinton turned off a good portion of the electorate when she called them deplorables. She sent them running to Trump. “You don’t like us? Ok, we’ll vote for the other guy.”

What trump is doing is a calculated and concerted effort to divide and conquer. He foments fear on both sides. For his supporters, it’s a longing for what once was–an America that their parents told them about. When things were simple. “When we didn’t have these interlopers invading our country and disturbing our way of life.” For the Democrats and Liberals, the fear is about the election. Is my vote going to be counted? Should I mail my vote in or should I vote in person? If I vote in person will I be met with violence by Trump supporters. Should I risk it? Or should I just stay home? He is banking on all of the voters from both sides give in to the fear. This is how he plans to win. It makes no difference to him if he wins fair and square.

There are lessons to be learned here. After watching this film my strategy has changed a bit. Armed with some valuable insight into the minds of Trump supporters, my approach will be a bit different when engaging, as I may have a better idea of what motivates their support for him. At the very least, I am now convinced it’s motivated by fear. That’s a bit easier to tolerate. I am, however, not convinced that there isn’t some correlation between this fear and poor education. At least in some cases. And certainly not dismissing the notion that pure racism isn’t a major motivator. But without a rabble- rouser a mess of this scale is not possible.

Richard Painter, a legal scholar, and a man for whom I have great respect, was asked on screen “What are you most fearful of, about this president being in control?” Painter, without hesitation gave a startling answer, “nuclear war… I mean, that’s… that’s the long term. I mean that’s…that’s the biggest risk is that the some… he gets in a confrontation with a foreign leader…North Korea, ah, with China, ah, where is ego’s on the line.” Richard Painter is not one for hyperbole. Coming from him, that raised a few hairs on my neck.

I highly recommend you all invest 90 minutes and watch this well-researched and fact-supported documentary. It’s an eye-opener…

[si-contact-form form=’2′]