Say What? The “Hypocrisy Democracy”

By Seth Davin Norrholm, Ph.D. and David M. Reiss, M.D.

This week Dr. Norrholm and Dr. Reiss discuss the rampant hypocrisy endured by the American people under the Trump Administration and five psychological factors that influence its existence: (1) ignorance, (2) sociopathy, (3) cognitive dissonance, (4) dissociation, and (5) impressionist thinking

If there is a common element to our ongoing weekly series on the Psychology of the Trump Presidency, it is the regular release of behavioral snippets from the head of our Executive Branch in the form of 140-character Tweets. As many in the popular media have illustrated, this President appears to have a historical Tweet that completely contradicts a recent move by Trump or a newly posted Tweet from one of his Presidential Twitter accounts (@realDonaldTrump or @POTUS). For example, in the last 5 months, Trump has used military force in Syria and Afghanistan (remember the Mother Of All Bombs?), declined to routinely read his Presidential Daily Briefings, refused to release White House visitor logs, proposed shocking cuts to Medicaid and severe limitations to, if not the complete removal of, affordable healthcare for all American citizens, and played golf as many as 24 times since taking Office; each of these Presidential acts has occurred in the wake of previous Trump Tweets in which he has either criticized his predecessor for considering or undertaking these activities or posted a new Trump Tweet in direct conflict with what he is currently saying and doing.

Within the 24 hours prior to publication of this article, after months of declaring, insisting, and tweeting that #Trump/Russia was a “hoax” perpetuated by Democrats who were “looking for an excuse” for having lost the election, Trump tweeted acknowledgment that Russia interfered with the US electoral process – BUT that it was Obama’s fault.

What is Hypocrisy?

In general terms, hypocrisy is the espousing of two or more points of view or taking two or more actions, simultaneously or consecutively, when the ideas or acts are contradictory and inconsistent with each other. Sound familiar? In many cases (especially with this POTUS), the conflicting points are promoted as true and appropriate and there is little to no acknowledgment of the illogical juxtaposition. The contradictory positions may be supported at the same time or, if the occurrences were consecutive, the original idea or act is not withdrawn, disavowed or modified despite the subsequent opposing position or behavior. As described in the previous section, the President’s position on Medicaid (May 2015: Trump states he would not touch Medicaid, Medicare, or Social Security versus June 2017: the Better Care Reconciliation Act, or Trumpcare, would cut hundreds of millions of dollars from Medicaid) is a primary example of this stunning hypocrisy.

Now that it is clear that the President is promoting a “hypocrisy democracy,” let’s take a deeper look at the motivations that may underlie Trump’s hypocritical acts. His penchant for all things hypocritical may not be the result of the same reasoning or same motivations.

Hypocrisy as a Result of Ignorance

While it may sound controversial at first reading, it is quite likely that there are people who simply do not have the intellectual ability to recognize certain logical inconsistencies. In fact, as a general rule, the more complex the topic, the greater the level of cognitive ability that is required to appreciate underlying inconsistencies.

Thus, some hypocrisy is unintentional or in plain language, “clueless.” This may explain the apparent hypocrisy in a portion of the populace in general, but (one would hope) not among politicians, leaders, or members of the public who are actively involved in socio-political activities, positions of leadership, and/or law making.

Hypocrisy as a Result of Sociopathy

In a recent column, Dr. Norrholm clearly pointed out the sociopathic qualities of the political agenda of the sitting President as well as the GOP members of Congress. Clinical and behavioral observations have shown us that some people will very intentionally adopt inconsistent views and/or behaviors, and promote or defend them as if there are no problems. Typically, this is done in order to manipulate others or for personal gain (monetary, social, sexual, etc. – think SuperPACs, hobnobbing with the 1%ers, or seeking out multiple romantic partners/spouses).

This is actually not a psychological issue – rather, this is a behavioral and ethical issue. Sadly, probably too many people within the socio-political-economic system may fall into this category. While some are quick to ask what is wrong with GOP leaders like Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell, the answer may not be psychiatric disorder X, Y, or Z, but a failure to live up to moral codes 1, 2, or 3.

Much to the dismay of millions of Americans, these manipulations, at times, are not only intentional but malicious.

There can be times when intentional hypocritical actions may be taken but rationalized that they are “for a greater good,” or “necessary to connect with the public.” This is a common defense for lying in politics (which is not necessarily new to this Administration, however, the degree of lying is at historic levels). However, even if taken with sincere motives, such an “end justifies the means” mentality, under any circumstances, is still manipulative and dishonest. In addition, while this may be frequently effective, this tactic often leads to:

· a vulnerability to exposure,

· a loss of credibility

· condemnation that ends up being self-defeating, and/or

· interference with the intended goal (for better or worse)

Again, when people act in this manner it is not a matter of psychology or psychopathology, but of philosophy and ethics.

Hypocrisy as a Result of Cognitive Dissonance

Cognitive Dissonance is a term used for the experience of discomfort when a person realizes or senses (fully or partially) that there is a serious inconsistency between their stated points of view and/or behaviors. That is, they unintentionally adopted conflicting positions and even if it is not appreciated fully in “black and white” terms, there is an uncomfortable feeling that all is not right or that something does not make sense.

In a healthy person, the experience of Cognitive Dissonance leads to self-reflection, re-evaluation of the issues or behaviors in question, and/or taking appropriate steps to resolve the inconsistency that led to hypocritical behavior. An example of this might be an individual who volunteers to work on an Earth Day project but routinely throws all of his or her garbage into landfill-bound receptacles.

As with most human behavior, however, there is a large spectrum between a psychiatrically healthy, adaptive recognition and remedy at one end (the person who corrects the inconsistency) and the opposite reaction at the other end which can include the use of psychological defenses that further distort reality including:

· denial (simply stating that the obvious contradiction does not exist),

· projection (“I am not inconsistent, it is your faulty understanding/belief/standards/hostility) or

· increasingly deceptive and dishonest rationalization and manipulation in order to maintain the status quo and to avoid taking responsibility for having a logical and integrated point of view

Once those maladaptive, problematic defenses are brought into play, hypocrisy that may have started out “benignly” morphs into malignant, intentional, and/or sociopathic hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy as a Result of Dissociation

We include this for the sake of completeness in our discussion but we should point out that this issue would apply more to the public than to politicians or leaders. This is in large part due to the notion that this is a purely psychological phenomenon that occurs on an unconscious level. For some individuals, emotional conflicts cause a “split” in their cognitive and emotional functioning which allows, in essence, different “aspects” of the personality to take different positions or, under different circumstances, behave in different ways, that are internally inconsistent.

This is not to be confused with “multiple personality.” Every psychiatrically normal person may experience moments of dissociation. However, in the “normal” situation, this triggers a sense of Cognitive Dissonance, as discussed above.

However, with more severe psychopathology, dissociation drives a person toward behaviors (or statements) that are contrary, that are so separated and compartmentalized within the unconscious , that there is no cognitive recognition of inconsistency and not even an emotional sense that “something isn’t right”, i.e., Cognitive Dissonance.

At different times, under different circumstances, the person may display what seems to the outside (and objectively does constitute) very different and opposing ideas, philosophies, responsibilities, and ethics.

This is not a matter of ignorance but rather, psychological denial that is so deep and so unconscious that when the person is saying or acting in one way, they actually have no memory of or appreciation for the fact that they have also said or acted in a diametrically inconsistent manner. This is truly a psychological pathology/illness, often arising from experiences of trauma or abuse.

Attempting to reason with someone who is dissociating is pointless since at any given time, they will only experience one side of the contradiction and they will sincerely (within their conscious experience) deny that that other side exists even to the extent of having no sense of responsibility for inconsistent behaviors.

Dissociation can be protective for a child in an abusive environment but it is disruptive and at times quite dangerous for a functioning adult – and extremely problematic when introduced into the socio-political dialogue.

At the same time, the person who easily dissociates into a state of mind with fluid or failing logic or ethics, is “ripe for the picking” for unscrupulous manipulative persons (typically narcissistic or sociopathic) who will act to reinforce the dissociation to keep the subject malleable, pliable, and unlikely to even realize that they are being manipulated.

The Influence of Impressionist Thinking

The spectrum midway between the appreciation and an appropriate response to Cognitive Dissonance (i.e., psychiatrically healthy) and complete psychological dissociation is marked by a heavy reliance upon Impressionistic Thinking. This is a type of “reasoning” that relies upon emotions to define reality rather than facts, logic, rational arguments, or consistency.

All children begin life relying upon Impressionistic Thinking (as we sense and feel before we have language and before we can truly “think” rationally) but in a healthy situation, a maturing individual, with minimal trauma, learns to temper appreciation of emotions and sensations with respect for reality, logic, and consistency.

Within our society, as we have discussed previously, Impressionistic Thinking is extremely common and is reinforced by many social powers such as political spin, marketing of almost every type, and pre-packaged opinions espoused by talking heads on the nightly news.

It can be argued – and it is our position – that, in fact, in general, other than in technical environments, at least significant aspects of Impressionistic Thinking tend to dominate over logical and rational thought. It is extremely difficult to find political “spin” or advertisements that do not more aggressively seek an emotional reaction than a logical consideration of facts (Think of the advertisements for family-centered products such as insurance, medication, or dietary supplements – they are rife with emotionally laden images of the Rockwellian family sitting around the table, fireplace, or vacation spot).

However, often, Impressionistic Thinking becomes fixed in persons who experienced dysfunctional developmental years, particularly if they grew up in situations where their sense of safety or their sense of being held in positive esteem was dependent upon the emotional state of a parental figure as opposed to an objective view of their behavior.

The parent or caretaker who acts out abusively (verbally, violently, sexually, etc.) because of an emotional state of anger, intoxication, sexual need, etc. effectively trains the child to carefully scan the emotions of others to determine if the environment is safe; and to attempt to placate emotional discomfort in others to maintain safety. This also occurs in situations that do not involve physical abuse or danger but simply receiving attention, affirmation, or love. If those important parental responses are dependent upon the emotional state of the parent rather than the factual behaviors of the child, children tend to partially or fully retain a reliance on Impressionistic Thinking to determine reality even as adults.

Paradoxically, and at times tragically, the more emotionally sensitive and intellectually adept the child is, the more “effective” Impressionistic Thinking is in securing those goals, and the more “fixed” that style of thought becomes in the developing personality.

Impressionistic Thinking is particularly problematic because emotions do not follow the same “rules” as reality. Two competing emotions (or sensations) may be present at the same time without there being a logical fallacy. Practically, one cannot logically simultaneous believe that the earth is round and that the earth is flat; or that 2+2 = 4 and 2+2 = 5; but emotionally, a person can experience elements of happiness, sadness, fear, and security at the same time.

For example, if one is being favored with rewards by a powerful, frightening, and dangerous parental figure, it is possible – and, in fact, appropriate – to experience both joy and fear simultaneously, without contradiction. Similarly, on a sensory level, if you hold a hot coal in one hand and an ice cube in the other, your experience does not follow the “laws of physics” such that you are comfortably at an average temperature but rather, without contradiction, you are being burned and frozen at the same time.

Thus, we find Impressionistic Thinking and the resulting hypocrisy tolerated and in fact promulgated and ominously, as hypocrisy is defended via increasingly irrational and dangerous distortions of reality, we are, in fact, simultaneously burnt and frozen with little appreciation of how we got into the quandary or being able to conceptualize a clear pathway to safety.

Concluding Remarks

The bombardment of hypocritical acts and statements by this President and his Administration can lead to a responses marked by confusion, incredulousness, and scorn in many individuals, however, as we have discussed in other articles, there can be an inexplicable acceptance of repeated hypocrisy as well. It is our hope that through a better understanding of the moral, ethical, and psychological influences underlying hypocrisy, as displayed by our sociopolitical leaders, one can hone their skills at identifying and appropriately processing what they are seeing and hearing, and if successful “weather the storm” of inconsistency and anchor themselves to a sense of safety and stability.

About the Authors:

Seth Davin Norrholm, PhD is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Emory University School of Medicine, a full-time faculty member in the Emory Neuroscience Graduate Program, and a member of the Emory Clinical Psychology Graduate Program. Dr. Norrholm has spent 20 years studying trauma-, stressor-, anxiety-, depressive-, and substance use-related disorders and has published over 85 peer-reviewed research articles and book chapters. The primary objective of his work is to develop “bench-to-bedside” clinical research methods to inform therapeutic interventions for fear and anxiety-related disorders and how they relate to human factors such as personality, genetics, and environmental influences. His work receives funding from the Department of Defense, NATO, and the Brain and Behavior Foundation. Dr. Norrholm has been featured on NBC, ABC, CNN.com, USA Today, WebMD, Scientific American, and is a regular Contributor to The Huffington Post.

David M. Reiss, M.D. has been a practicing psychiatrist for more than 30 years, specializing in “front-line” adult and adolescent psychiatry. He has evaluated and treated over 12,000 persons of diverse social and cultural backgrounds, from every occupational field. Dr. Reiss has been recognized internationally for expertise in character and personality dynamics. He is often interviewed and quoted in the print, Internet and radio/TV media, nationally and internationally, to help the public understand the psychological aspects of current events. He is an authority on issues regarding social and political phenomena, medical and mental health treatment, PTSD, violence in society, and the functioning of the current mental health system.