By David M. Reiss, M.D. and Seth Davin Norrholm, Ph.D.
In our previous articles, we have described psychological pathology and dynamics (specifically, personality traits and psychiatric disorders) that may underlie patterns of dysfunctional or problematic behaviors displayed by the sitting President , members of his administration and family, and perhaps some of his most ardent sycophantic supporters.
The current President has repeatedly taken the unprecedented step of holding political “re-election” rallies to keep in touch with his base.
We have offered these views in attempt to provide clinical understanding as an aid to knowing, in general, what can be expected of these people, both in public and private life.
However, regarding dysfunctional and problematic behaviors, appreciating personality traits never provides a comprehensive reason, a complete explanation, an excuse or a release from responsibility, or full accountability or liability.
Yet all persons will, at times, demonstrate dysfunctional and problematic behaviors that are not related to specific personality traits or psychopathology. One may ask the question, “What is wrong with that person?!” and the answer may not fall within the realm of an altered mental capacity.
As with most observable individual behaviors, public acts can be viewed as occurring on a continuum spanning from the most harmless to those that break with social conventions and may be considered harmful to other people. If we focus on the less socially unacceptable end of that continuum, one can further break this range of behaviors along a smaller scaled spectrum. For example, at one end of the spectrum, one can envision acts that would be considered by most to be illegal or criminal. At the other end of this negative behavioral spectrum, one would expect to find behaviors that may be annoying, obnoxious, and/or inconsiderate but do not fall under legal scrutiny. In other words, they may be “wrong” in a social sense but they are not criminal.
Even among criminal acts, there is a hierarchy of malfeasance. Not every illegal act is of the same degree of severity or merits the same degree of punishment. Under our current, established legal system, some acts are felonies, some are misdemeanors, while others may receive legal attention but are socially “decriminalized” (e.g., a parking ticket; or currently, minor marijuana possession in some States).
There is a hierarchy assigned to crimes according to degree of malfeasance - some crimes, such as possession of small amounts of marijuana, are “decriminalized,” either by actual law or public perception, as a result of their relative harmlessness.
It is our position that in addressing dysfunctional and problematic behaviors, within our current sociopolitical/cultural morass, especially as promulgated by partisan politicians and the media, the proportion and context of the behaviors have been significantly lost or ignored – due to carelessness, lack of introspection, hysteria, and/or willful manipulation.
One need look no further than the recent endorsement of Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore by his state’s governor, Kay Ivey, and the false equivalency being placed between Moore’s alleged sexual deviance and Senator Al Franken’s alleged misconduct with model/radio host Leeann Tweeden as examples of this loss of proportion and context.
People are often responsible for actions that are deceitful and/or lacking in decency. We intentionally avoid the term “guilty of” to prevent confusion with illegal acts.
The ability to think of acting, or actually acting, deceitfully or indecently, is a universal aspect of human nature. It does not require a personality disorder or any specific psychopathology to have an abhorrent thought or impulse, or to behave irresponsibly. Freud himself talked about the existence of the “id,” or the aspect of the “self” that contains uncensored impulses and desires. Behaviorally speaking, social scientists have discussed, in evolutionary terms, how certain malevolent behaviors favor practical success and are implicitly or explicitly rewarded. One need not be a sociopath or a malignant narcissist to harbor “impure” thought or to behave irresponsibly – one need only not be a saint (of which there are few among us).
The key to being a decent, upright, responsible member of society does not require somehow abolishing all inappropriate thoughts or impulses – nor does it require the application of severe external behavioral controls as to practically prevent inappropriate behaviors from even being possible (e.g., The Pence Rule)
The key to being a decent, upright, responsible member of society does not require somehow abolishing all inappropriate thoughts or impulses – an impossible task. Nor does that require the total absence of momentary carelessness or lack of consideration. In fact, it does not demand perfection or never making a mistake. Neither should it indicate a need to apply such severe external behavioral controls as to practically prevent inappropriate behaviors from even being possible (i.e., “The Pence Rule”).
What is required is a commitment to being decent and honest; an obligation to be self-aware (without being irrationally guilt-ridden or masochistic/self-punitive), and (to borrow from Alcoholics Anonymous) the willingness and courage to admit mistakes, to apologize sincerely, and “to make amends” as appropriate. A mature and responsible person is aware of his/her inappropriate thoughts and impulses and autonomously, consciously, decides to ignore those urges and to act in a decent, responsible, compassionate manner.
When the highest governing personnel of the country are consistently lacking in, if not devoid of, those positive traits – at least as displayed by their publicly observable personal and political behaviors, the populace is left without leadership, without role models, and without an external non-legal system of support and structure to discourage indecency and deceitfulness, and to encourage acknowledging and “righting wrongs.”
One need look no further than a White House press briefing to see the normalization of deceit and “what-about-ism”
In the current sociopolitical climate, indecency and deceitfulness has been “normalized” while at the same time, truly despicable (albeit not necessarily illegal) behavior is excused by irrational “what-aboutism”.
At present, at times when relatively minor transgressions, inconsiderate behaviors, and even significant but not criminal “mistakes” are uncovered, there is now no allowance for appropriate self-reflection, no room for apology, and zero attempt to accept a reasonable making of amends. Rather, an immediate and highly punitive (if not sadistic) reaction is demanded and frequently initiated with a 140 to 280-character assault. After all, should not a “micro-aggression” call for a firm but “micro-response”? Should a “punishment” cause more immediate and long-lasting pain and damage than the problematic behavior itself inflicted?
In the current sociopolitical climate, there is no room for civil discourse, the making of amends, or thoughtful reflection. Rather, shots are fired via Twitter in 140 to 280-character, punitive volleys.
This is a very dangerous place to be as a society. When honesty and decency are devalued; when indecency and deceitfulness are viewed as strategic; and when responses to transgressions are themselves based upon indecent and deceitful motivations, the structure of even the semblance of a just and benevolent society is being shattered and a continuing vicious cycle into evil becomes a very real possibility.