In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Trump Is Getting Even Trumpier!," David Brooks writes:
"It’s hard to know exactly what is going on in that brain, but science lends a clue. Psychologists wonder if narcissists are defined by extremely high self-esteem or by extremely low self-esteem that they are trying to mask. The current consensus seems to be that they are marked by unstable self-esteem. Their self-confidence can be both high and fragile, so they perceive ego threat all around."
Trumps suffers from a severe narcissistic personality disorder? Who would have ever guessed? More to the point, could he be dangerous as commander in chief of America's armed forces? Perhaps the answer to this last question is to be found in Brooks's conclusion:
"Suddenly the global climate favors a Trump candidacy. Some forms of disorder — like a financial crisis — send voters for the calm supple thinker. But other forms of disorder — blood in the streets — send them scurrying for the brutal strongman.
If the string of horrific events continues, Trump could win the presidency. And he could win it even though he has less and less control over himself."
My solution: All presidential candidates should be screened by a supreme court of psychiatrists, but then 90 percent of all candidates might be deemed unsuitable.
Make no mistake about it: Hillary is also narcissistic. Are her presidential ambitions about the good of the country? Not a chance. If she cared about the US, she would have given up the race after FBI Director Comey branded her as "extremely careless."
Obama? Also a narcissist, and the revelation yesterday that he hid from Congress a devastating codicil of his unsigned nuclear agreement with Iran attests to his willingness to promote his "legacy" at the expense of the world. And whereas the US State Department yesterday was quick to cast doubt upon the existence of this codicil, Iran today proudly confirmed that it was both real and binding.
Best to tend to my garden and walk my dogs.