Book Read Free

Why We Elect Narcissists and Sociopaths- And How We Can Stop!

Page 16

by Bill Eddy


  Republican moderates, Democratic moderates, and most Independents.

  This is typically the largest group of voters and it decides most elections.

  Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 108

  3/1/19 1:59 PM

  8: Here at Home: From McCarthy to Nixon to Trump to ___________? 109

  Moderates generally are not the energized party bases. In many ways they

  are comfortable with the “establishment” and don’t like a lot of intense polit-

  ical conflict. In this election, Moderates went in four directions, some into

  each of the four split groups.

  In my analysis the Moderate candidate in this fundamentally two- party

  system was Hillary Clinton in 2016. The majority of the country voted for

  her by almost 3 million votes more than Trump. They remained Moderate.

  Double Negatives

  Double Negatives is the term given by the Identity Crisis researchers to those

  voters who had equally unfavorable views of both Clinton and Trump. I

  believe that this is because of the effect of Trump’s intense emotional split-

  ting or dividing of groups as he attacked Clinton and other targets in almost

  every one of his public announcements or Twitter commentaries.

  The effect of emotional splitting is that it triggers an equally distaste-

  ful feeling about both people, even though one (the HCP) is usually acting

  extremely badly while the other (the Target of Blame) is being fairly normal

  or simply defending himself or herself. The result of repeatedly hearing very

  bad things about a normal person from a very badly behaving HCP is that

  both are perceived as equally very bad. I’ve seen this over and over again,

  in high- conflict divorcing families, workplace conflicts, and legal disputes.

  People turn away from both the HCP and their Target of Blame.

  By consistently attacking Clinton about having a private email server

  when she was Secretary of State (a potentially illegal set- up because of the

  risk of releasing government secrets, but this didn’t happen, and she was

  cleared), Trump was able to make her seem involved in a scandal and dis-

  honest. This turned out to be a fantasy crisis. Ironically, she was unable to

  pin any one scandal on him, because there were so many and she didn’t

  effectively focus on one the way he did.

  In an early October YouGov poll, almost 80 percent of respondents said

  that they had “heard a lot” about the Clinton email story—more than any

  other story about Clinton or Trump. (For example, only 51% said they

  had heard a lot about Trump’s calling Alicia Machado “Miss Piggy.”). . .

  Meanwhile, no single idea or theme dominated perceptions of Trump.234

  In this election, more double- negative voters were Republican: 45 per-

  cent to 35 percent Democrat. “Trump did better among those with unfavor-

  able views of both candidates. They appeared to be holding their nose and

  Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 109

  3/1/19 1:59 PM

  110 Part II: The Fantasy Crisis Triad Worldwide

  voting their partisanship. ”235 Those double- negative Moderate Republicans

  voted with the Loyalists. Most of the double- negative Moderate Democrats

  stayed put and voted for Clinton. But some voted against both and went

  with the Resisters by voting for third- party candidates, and some went with

  the Dropouts and did not vote at all.

  Independent Voters

  Independent voters are a growing part of the electorate and generally are

  Moderates. However, 75 percent of these voters lean toward one party or

  the other, while the remaining 25 percent are likely to drop out and not vote

  at all.236 If they mostly vote with their parties, then why do they register as

  Independents? Surveys and interviews have shown that they basically “don’t

  like political parties,” “are tired of the fighting between both the Republican

  and Democratic political parties,” and “ . . . think that there is a need for bal-

  ance and compromise, and so . . . [they are] independent[s]. ”237

  In my view, they essentially don’t like the fighting and therefore fit my cat-

  egory of emotionally- mild Moderates. In 2016, 68 percent of Independents

  who lean Republican voted for Trump, and 65 percent of Independents who

  lean Democratic voted for Clinton. But as pollsters have noticed, “The char-

  acteristic anger and vitriol of partisan politics are turning them away from

  party membership. . . . In the wake of the 2016 election, we see mounting evi-

  dence of this connection between political dissatisfaction and independent

  identification. ”238

  RESISTERS

  Resisters can be the riled- up opponents of an HCP politician and they can

  be on the left or on the right, and sometimes both. But they also often attack

  the Moderates, which helps allow the HCP to be elected. In the case of

  Hitler, they were the Communists who often fought against the Social Dem-

  ocrats (the Moderate establishment), which weakened the Social Democrats

  and helped them lose power. In the case of Stalin’s drive for collectivization

  in the Soviet Union, they were the small capitalist farmers who hid grain and

  equipment and mostly operated in the shadows. In Putin’s Russia, they were

  the street protesters and others opposed to his policies. Every HCP inspires

  a resistance because of their extreme positions and extreme emotions.

  In the 2016 election, Bernie Sanders represented the Resisters fight-

  ing against the Democratic establishment by running in the Democratic

  Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 110

  3/1/19 1:59 PM

  8: Here at Home: From McCarthy to Nixon to Trump to ___________? 111

  primaries against Hillary Clinton. However, he insisted that he remained an

  Independent. “Throughout the campaign, Sanders touted his independence,

  vowed to take on the political establishment, and railed against the Demo-

  cratic National Committee. ”239

  Clinton criticized Sanders for focusing on a few issues (free higher edu-

  cation, healthcare for all, and attacking big banks) with simplistic answers,

  while she had position papers and knowledge on just about every possible

  issue that could be raised.

  On the other hand, Sanders’ criticisms of Clinton and the Democratic

  Party were emotionally engaging to many of his followers. She became a

  Target of Blame for Sanders in an emotional way that mirrored Trump’s

  attacks on her, although during most of the campaign Sanders and Clinton

  remained friendly.

  However, late in the primaries, the release of emails hacked from the

  Democratic Party office revealed behind- the- scenes manipulations that

  added to the Resisters’ anger at the establishment. As the primary campaign

  intensified, Sanders’ followers’ once generally favorable opinions of Clinton

  deteriorated significantly.

  By the general election, after Sanders swung his support to Clinton, only

  79 percent of his supporters voted for her, an estimated 12 percent voted

  for Trump, and the remainder continued resisting and voted for small third

  parties, or dropped out and didn’t vote at all.240

  With Sanders’ more emotional relationship with his followers and his

  focus on simple, us- against- them anti- establishme
nt messages, one wonders

  whether he might have been able to actually win the general election if he

  had been the Democratic candidate rather than Clinton. Sanders seemed to

  demonstrate the importance of an emotional bond with his followers, but

  without the emotional hostility toward Targets of Blame that Trump displayed.

  DROPOUTS

  In this election, the largest group of potential voters were the Dropouts at

  39 percent. Dropouts have many reasons (or excuses) for not voting. I have

  often heard from those who believe there’s no real difference between the

  parties or the candidates, or they are really busy, or they can’t really get away

  from work on election day (even when they’re self- employed).

  One of the more recent reasons may be new “voter suppression” laws

  in several states that limit hours and locations and require limited forms of

  Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 111

  3/1/19 1:59 PM

  112 Part II: The Fantasy Crisis Triad Worldwide

  identification for voting. However, although such laws appear targeted at

  minority populations, such as African- Americans and Native Americans,

  these new laws do not appear to have changed the historical trend away from

  voting.

  However, African- Americans did vote less in 2016 for the first time in

  twenty years, even in states that had no changes in voter laws. Millennials

  and Generation X (18- to 35-year- olds) turned out more voters in 2016

  than 2012, but still slightly less than 50 percent. 241

  A Fantasy Crisis Triad Overreach?

  To help his party win the midterm congressional election in November

  2018, Trump aggressively pursued the idea that a caravan of barefoot refu-

  gees from Central America was an “invasion of our country.” He made the

  unfounded claim that it included “Middle Easterners” who were likely ter-

  rorists. So he ordered the Army to defend the border.242

  More than 5,000 active- duty military troops will deploy to the southern

  border by the end of this week, Defense Department officials said on

  Monday. . . . But the caravan, which has shrunk from 7,000 people to less

  than 3,500, is still weeks away from reaching the United States. 243

  It is not insignificant that immediately after the election, Trump stopped

  talking about this threat.

  “Now that the political utility of troops on the southern border to face a

  fictitious caravan invasion threat is over,” said Adm. James G. Stavridis, a

  former commander of the military’s Southern Command, “let’s hope the

  president will stand down the troops so they can be with their families—

  especially over the holidays. ”244

  It seemed that this fantasy crisis became obvious to a significant portion

  of the country, with the “fictitious caravan invasion” being openly discussed

  in major media outlets. In addition, the issue of immigration appears to be

  shifting all together in the eyes of the public, as revealed in November 2018.

  On Election Day, a stunning 54 percent of those who voted said immi-

  grants “strengthen our country.” Mr. Trump’s party lost the national pop-

  ular vote by seven points, but he lost the debate over whether immigrants

  are a strength or a burden by 20 points. Mr. Trump got more than half of

  Republicans to believe immigrants were a burden, but three quarters of

  Democrats and a large majority of independents concluded that America

  gains from immigration.245

  Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 112

  3/1/19 1:59 PM

  8: Here at Home: From McCarthy to Nixon to Trump to ___________? 113

  When reality sets in enough, an HCP’s fantasy crises seem to lose their

  power. But of course, with the use of high- emotion media, they often can

  keep covering up reality with more Fantasy Crisis Triads.

  High- Emotion Media

  When Trump campaigned for office, his way of speaking was far more emo-

  tional than all the other candidates, Democrat or Republican. This caught

  the attention of the Director of Content at dictionary.com, who said this about the words the presidential candidates were using during 2016:

  “Bernie [Sanders] and Hillary [Clinton] tend to use concrete language,”

  she explained, “whereas the Republican contenders—with the possible

  exception of Kasich—tend to use descriptive language. I think that’s partly

  why Trump’s speech is so resonant with his supporters: he’s speaking to

  them on an emotional plane. ”246

  This fits very well with the theory of this book—that potentially high-

  conflict politicians use language that goes under everyone’s radar and emo-

  tionally triggers them. Logically, none of these fantasy crises make any sense.

  But they make sense to narcissists, sociopaths, and high- conflict personalities

  who want to identify as many people as possible as villains so that voters view

  them as heroes by comparison. All of this works only on the emotional plane.

  Trump also used emotional repetition in the names he chose to call

  people. He openly laughed and said he was adding a name to each of his

  opponents, just as Newt Gingrich taught Republican congressional candi-

  dates in the 1990s (see Chapter 4).

  What he didn’t say openly (and may or may not have even realized him-

  self) was that he was tagging them with an emotional label. Our brains can’t

  resist absorbing such labels, even without conscious processing. This is

  an extremely simple and emotional way to promote sales that advertisers

  learned decades ago but that most politicians are unwilling to use.

  Also, these emotions triggered each voting group’s own type of emo-

  tional responses; for instance, Loyalists might have felt joy, Resisters anger,

  Moderates fear and frustration, and Dropouts helplessness and/or avoid-

  ance. This further created division among all of these groups. “How can they

  (Loyalists, Resisters, Moderates, Dropouts) be so (stupid, overreactive, pow-

  erless, indifferent)?”

  Furthermore, this emotional repetition was in isolation for many of

  Trump’s followers who only got their news from Trump- favorable sources,

  Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 113

  3/1/19 1:59 PM

  114 Part II: The Fantasy Crisis Triad Worldwide

  such as Fox News. One analysis of Trump’s electoral success clearly con-

  cluded that those who got their news from television and not from news-

  paper subscriptions were more susceptible to his emotional, but false,

  messages.

  The findings cover more than 1,000 mainstream news publications in

  more than 2,900 counties out of 3,100 nationwide from every state except

  Alaska, which does not hold elections at the county level.

  The results show a clear correlation between low subscription rates and

  Trump’s success in the 2016 election, both against Hillary Clinton and

  when compared to Romney in 2012. Those links were statistically signif-

  icant even when accounting for other factors that likely influenced voter

  choices, such as college education and employment, suggesting that the

  decline of local media sources by itself may have played a role in the elec-

  tion results. POLITICO’s analysis suggests that Trump did, indeed, do

  worse ov
erall in places where independent media could check his claims.247

  Trump also directly attacked the media from the start of his campaign

  and trained his followers to do so too. At his rallies, he placed the media

  in a compact area where he could point at reporters and have the crowd

  jeer them. In this manner, he was able to cast doubt on their reporting, and

  he quickly adopted the phrase “fake news” when others reported accurately

  about him.

  Rather than attempt to put news media out of business, as we have seen

  that other Wannabe Kings have done in other countries, Trump found great

  success in constantly criticizing them. Social media was also an important

  key to his success, but it was not necessarily the biggest factor. By using

  Twitter, Trump was able to communicate directly with his followers, but

  having his tweets emotionally repeated on cable and network television was

  far more important.

  It’s also clear—as the economists Levi Boxell, Matthew Gentzkow and

  Jesse Shapiro wrote in these pages last year—that among older white

  Americans, the core demographic where first the primaries and then the

  general election were decided, television still far outstrips the internet as

  the most important source of news. And indeed, the three economists

  noted, for all the talk about Breitbart’s influence and Russian meddling

  and dark web advertising, Trump only improved on Mitt Romney’s show-

  ing among Americans who don’t use the internet, and he “actually lost

  support among internet- using voters.” In a sense, you could argue, all

  those tweets mattered mainly because they kept being quoted on TV.248

  Eddy_WhyWeElect.indd 114

  3/1/19 1:59 PM

  8: Here at Home: From McCarthy to Nixon to Trump to ___________? 115

  To put the power of the high- emotion media into perspective, the elec-

  tion researchers just mentioned reached three conclusions that really stood

  out to me:

  1. The 2016 election was not really about economic anger or change.

  People were doing economically better than during the prior eight

  years when they elected an African- American president two times.

  The state of the economy helped Clinton win a majority of the

  national vote.

  2. It really was about personality—the personality of the candidate and

 

‹ Prev