Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday November 14 2016, @09:17PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-a-different-president dept.

I've come across an article on The Atlantic that analyses Trump's personality:

Many questions have arisen about Trump during this campaign season—about his platform, his knowledge of issues, his inflammatory language, his level of comfort with political violence. This article touches on some of that. But its central aim is to create a psychological portrait of the man. Who is he, really? How does his mind work? How might he go about making decisions in office, were he to become president? And what does all that suggest about the sort of president he'd be?

It's a long, but very interesting read.

Here's a list of sentences the article itself highlights:

Combined with a gift for humor, anger lies at the heart of Trump's charisma.

Trump appeals to an ancient fear of contagion, which analogizes out-groups to parasites and poisons.

Narcissism in presidents is a double-edged sword. It is associated with historians' ratings of "greatness"—but also with impeachment resolutions.

Andrew Jackson displayed many of the same psychological qualities that we see in Trump.

Trump has never forgotten the lesson from his father: The world is a dangerous place. You have to be ready to fight.

And the final paragraph summarizes:

Who, really, is Donald Trump? What's behind the actor's mask? I can discern little more than narcissistic motivations and a complementary personal narrative about winning at any cost. It is as if Trump has invested so much of himself in developing and refining his socially dominant role that he has nothing left over to create a meaningful story for his life, or for the nation. It is always Donald Trump playing Donald Trump, fighting to win, but never knowing why.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @04:38AM (#426865)

    Game. Set. Match.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @05:03AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 15 2016, @05:03AM (#426874)

    Proof by non-example.
    In Buzzaro-world that's the strongest possible argument.
    You really can't argue with that logic.