Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths- And How We Can Stop!
Page 5
future greatness.34
This future greatness was based on reclaiming an idyllic past—a time before
Germany lost World War I and had to pay reparations to France. Hitler
promised to make Germany great again. He was on the far right.
On the other hand, Stalin, on the far left, promised a great revolutionary
time in the future, unlike any that had existed before, when factories and
farms would be collectivized and would be run by the people instead of by
the capitalists. In 1929, an American received a letter from a Russian friend
who wrote with “ecstatic excitement.” He was one of the young urban revo-
lutionaries who went to the countryside to collectivize the farms:
I am off in villages with a group of other brigadiers, organizing [collective
farms]. It is a tremendous job, but we are making amazing progress . . . I am
confident that in time not a peasant will remain on his own land. We shall
yet smash the last vestiges of capitalism and forever rid ourselves of exploita-
tion. . . . The very air here is afire with a new spirit and a new energy.35
Both these grandiose fantasies were created by HCP Wannabe Kings
who had no trouble exaggerating and lying to people to gain power over
them. These were the beginnings of stories that ended in war, famine, and
genocide. Of those who survived the destruction that resulted, many infat-
uated followers later wrote memoirs of how they were misled.36 In order for
HCPs to accomplish their incredible goals, they seduce their followers into
destroying their Targets of Blame.
At acking Their Targets of Blame
While they are recruiting their Negative Advocates, HCPs are also con-
stantly verbally attacking their Targets of Blame. This helps them estab-
lish a stronger bond with their Negative Advocates: It’s Us against Them!
They teach their advocates that their targets are evil, powerful, and plotting
against them. HCP Wannabe Kings speak to their advocates in large groups
at rallies to reinforce belonging to the group, following the leader, and hating
their assigned targets. In addition, these rallies feed the narcissism of the
Wannabe Kings and increase their drive rather than reduce it.
Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 22
3/1/19 1:59 PM
2: High-Conflict Emotional Warfare 23
They also train their advocates to join in attacking their targets by lead-
ing chants and hinting at violence. It is in this way that they get their follow-
ers to do their dirty work while at the same time denying any responsibility
for leading them and teaching them to do it. It’s just words, they say.
Targets of Blame are usually caught off- guard and feel crazy. What did
I do to deserve this? I thought we were friends—a community of people with
shared goals! Normal people don’t treat their [family] [friends] [colleagues]
[allies] this way! A classic warfare example of this is when Hitler invaded
Russia during World War II. Stalin was caught totally unprepared because
he thought he and Hitler were friends and believed that Hitler would never
do such a thing.37 There’s no honor among Wannabe Kings.
Dividing Their Community
When HCPs teach their advocates to attack their targets, this divisive behav-
ior is part of a psychological process called splitting. This term has been asso-
ciated with personality disorders for decades, including narcissists,38 and it
indicates that the person sees other people as either “all good” or “all bad,”
or simply as “winners” or “losers. ”39 For HCPs, there’s no in- between. When
they communicate this splitting, they do it emotionally so that others absorb
the split and start viewing the identified people as all good or all bad them-
selves—often without even realizing it.
Figure 2 shows what this HCP pattern looks like.
HCP
Negative
Advocates
Targets of Blame
FIGURE 2 . HCP Split ing . Copyright © 2019 Bill Eddy, All Rights
Reserved, Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths—And How We Can
Stop, Berrret -Koehler Publishers
Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 23
3/1/19 1:59 PM
24 Part I: How Narcissists and Sociopaths Get Elected
By speaking constantly about these all- good or all- bad people, HCPs
divide groups by spreading rumors, making veiled threats, pitting citizens
against each other, and occasionally by switching sides to keep everyone else
off balance. In a cooperative society, it’s easy for HCPs to simply pick off
individuals by attacking them publicly and blaming them for any problems
they wish. This stirs up the whole community and causes everyone to make
an emotional decision for or against that person. Since the targeted indi-
vidual is not used to having to publicly defend themselves in a cooperative
society, often they become terrified and immobilized.
Hitler provided the prototype for how to do this, which has been fol-
lowed by almost all Wannabe Kings ever since. He called it the formula for
“spiritual and physical terror,” which he claimed he learned from another
movement, but it describes his own approach exactly:
I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement
exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie [middle class], which is neither
morally nor mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes
a veritable barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary
seems most dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked persons break
down . . . This is a tactic based on precise calculation of all human
weaknesses, and its result will lead to success with almost mathemat-
ical certainty . . .40
In addition to such precise attacks, these Wannabe Kings easily shift
sides, confusing and defusing their opponents. After one side in the group
has submitted to them, they attack the other side. All the while, they blame
these conflicts on others and deny all responsibility for what they have done.
Stalin was apparently brilliant at doing this.
At first, after Lenin died in 1924, he organized support within the Com-
munist Party against his main rival, Trotsky. He sided with the “Rightists,”
who tolerated a form of free commerce and peasants owning land, against
the “Leftists,” led by Trotsky, who saw this freedom for farmers as allowing
capitalists to enrich themselves.
But in 1927 he flipped his politics: having satisfactorily disposed of the
“Leftists”—Trotsky was by now in disgrace, and would soon be in exile—
Stalin now began preparing an attack on the “Rightists,” Bukharin and
the New Economic Policy. In other words, Stalin used the grain crisis, as
well as the general economic dissatisfaction, not only to radicalize Soviet
policy, but also to complete the destruction of this group of rivals.41
Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 24
3/1/19 1:59 PM
2: High-Conflict Emotional Warfare 25
Dominating Everyone
This intense drive to have power over other people can be impulsive, auto-
matic, and intuitive, and it doesn’t turn off until the people or groups the
Wannabe Kings are trying to dominate submit to t
hem or are eliminated.
Those who have become their Negative Advocates—their followers—are
happy to submit to them. Those who the Wannabe Kings have targeted in
their community either submit, leave, or are destroyed.
Conclusion
This way, one by one, Wannabe Kings gain power over everyone. Many
people believe they will eventually stop themselves and become reasonable.
But they are never satisfied and continue without self- restraint until they are
stopped by a larger force (Hitler was only stopped by the Allies) or succumb
to the limits of the human body (Stalin died from a stroke after more than
thirty years in power).
But why don’t people stop them early on, especially when some people
see the HCP patterns when they can still be stopped?
Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 25
3/1/19 1:59 PM
Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 26
3/1/19 1:59 PM
3
THE 4-WAY VOTER SPLIT
When voters are exposed to the intensity of an HCP Wannabe King’s
emotional warfare, they tend to split into four groups (based on my
observations and reading about historical and current leaders). This helps
ensure the Wannabe King’s election and domination. These groups are
based on voter temperaments or personal emotional styles, not on any stan-
dard type of personality analysis or disorders. The groups are flexible so that
depending on how they are treated, members may shift from one group to
another, from one election to another.
The Four Groups
Here are the four groups who become divided or split by HCP Wannabe Kings:
LOVING LOYALISTS These are the HCP’s followers who would do anything
for their leader. Loyalists believe that their HCP is special and will serve
their needs where others haven’t. They believe their HCP speaks to them
and for them. They generally agree with the HCPs attacks on their Tar-
gets of Blame.
Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 27
3/1/19 1:59 PM
28 Part I: How Narcissists and Sociopaths Get Elected
The following three groups generally disagree with the HCP’s attacks on
their targets but have three different emotional reactions to it.
RILED- UP RESISTERS Resisters are the strong opponents, those who view
the HCP’s behavior as alarming and requiring strong opposition, other-
wise the community or country will suffer dire consequences.
MILD MODERATES Moderates are the people who see the Wannabe King’s
behavior in generally political terms and vote for or against them based
on parties or policies, mostly ignoring their character defects and attacks
as minor or temporary.
DISENCHANTED DROPOUTS Dropouts are the people who most strongly
dislike politics and want nothing to do with it. They don’t think their
vote matters, so they don’t bother voting. They see the Wannabe King as
being just like all the other politicians.
Figure 3 is what this 4-way split looks like.
The result of the HCP’s emotional attacks is that all of the groups become
highly emotional and fight with each other. This has the effect of further
strengthening the Loyalists’ ties to their HCP leader and neutralizing the three
opposition groups. The following is a description of the emotional response
pattern that is surprisingly consistent throughout the examples in this book:
LOVING LOYALISTS Loyalists despise Resisters for criticizing their leader
and looking down on them. They hate the Resisters’ resistance and con-
sider them unpatriotic and possibly evil. They dismiss Moderates as
simply representing the “establishment,” since they tend to be those in
the political center. Loyalists are emotionally inspired to follow.
RILED- UP RESISTERS Resisters despise the Loyalists and can’t understand
how they can support the Wannabe King. They think Loyalists are not
very smart. Resisters are angry with Moderates for seeming unconcerned
about the HCP and believe they are too willing to give in to their demands.
Resisters are also angry with the Dropouts and say they should be ashamed
of themselves for not voting. Resisters are emotionally inspired to fight.
MILD MODERATES Moderates dislike the extremes of the Loyalists who
are challenging their moderate values. They also dislike the Resisters
because they don’t see the need for angry protests and are emotionally
turned off by them. They are generally disappointed with the Dropouts.
Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 28
3/1/19 1:59 PM
3: The 4-Way Voter Split 29
Moderates tend to wring their hands about the polarization they see,
but they don’t know where it came from and how to reduce it. They are
emotionally inspired to freeze.
DISENCHANTED DROPOUTS Dropouts may dislike the aggressive nature of
the Wannabe King, but they blame both the Loyalists and the Resisters
for conflicts and polarization. Dropouts feel pressure from both camps
to vote for their side, but they mostly ignore the “political” people and
focus on their own lives. They are emotionally inspired to flee.
HCP
Negative
Advocates
Loving Loyalists
Follow
Targets of Blame
Mild Moderates
Riled-Up Resisters
Freeze
Fight
Disenchanted
Dropouts
Flee
FIGURE 3 . The 4-way split created by high- conflict politicians . Copyright © 2019 Bill Eddy, All Rights Reserved, Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths—And How We Can Stop, Berrret -Koehler Publishers Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 29
3/1/19 1:59 PM
30 Part I: How Narcissists and Sociopaths Get Elected
Wannabe Kings are skilled at keeping these groups fighting each other or
immobilized by creating an ongoing sense of conflict, chaos, crisis, and fear.
Through their constant speeches, they use what each group says and does to
feed the anger of the other groups. This way they can gain power and remain
in power.
Interestingly, they don’t usually have the support of more than about
40 percent of the adult population (their Loyalists), so the other three groups
combined (60 percent) could easily out- vote them if they united. Instead,
these groups often stay divided and emotionally ineffective.
For an example of applying the 4-way voter split (shown earlier in
Figure 3.1) to a specific election, go to Chapter 8 and look at the part titled
“US Presidential Election—2016.” And if you want to apply this framework
to other examples in this book or to one of your own, refer to Appendix C;
feel free to make a copy of the blank form for your own use.
Cultural Leadership
What most people don’t see is that the Wannabe King is primarily respon-
sible for keeping these fights and conflicts going, not the other groups.
Polarization doesn’t fall from the sky. As the cultural leader, the HCP has a
powerful influence on whether the community or nation takes an adversar-
ial or a cooperative approach to problem- solving.
It’s almost like flipping a switch. A unifying leader will use words to over-
come divisions and inspire a community to
set aside its differences in order
to accomplish a common task. A divisive leader (an HCP) will use words to
pit people against each other and teach them to take action against individu-
als or groups within their communities. In this manner they teach polariza-
tion, rather than simply reflecting the views of the community. We will see
this over and over again in the examples in Part II.
Ironically, an HCP leader can drive both sides of these conflicts. The
HCP does this by attacking one of the split groups, then another, while flat-
tering their followers. Although these opposition groups may not like the
HCP, they still tend to absorb the HCP’s opinion about the other opposition
groups, which then affects their voting patterns. The four split groups are
somewhat flexible so that cultural leaders can move some of them from one
group to another. But the basic pattern of splitting seems to have existed
throughout history.
Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 30
3/1/19 1:59 PM
3: The 4-Way Voter Split 31
Hitler’s Example
Hitler built up his Nazi party of Negative Advocates (Loyalists) primarily
by treating the small Jewish population in Germany (about 1 percent of
the country at the time) as his Target of Blame. By the elections in Feb-
ruary 1932, the Nazis had become the largest party in Germany having
grown from a tiny regional group in the 1920s. They received approximately
42 percent of the seats in the Reichstag (parliament). The Social Democrats
received 24 percent, the (Catholic) Center Party 18 percent, and the Com-
munist Party 16 percent.42
The Social Democrats were in power at the time and were essentially
the Mild Moderates, along with the Center Party. Hitler attacked the Social
Democrats viciously as the establishment, blamed them for losing World
War I, and falsely claimed they were controlled by Jews.
The German Communist Party (Riled- Up Resisters) was told by Stalin,
in Communist Russia, to focus on attacking the Social Democrats, since he
dismissed the Nazis as having little potential. The Social Democrats saw
the Communists as the bigger threat, so these two groups weakened each
other. The Center Party, with the cooperation of the Social Democrats, eased
restrictions on the Nazis, which allowed them to get into bloody street fights
with the Communists. It’s unclear how many people (Dropouts) didn’t vote