The Psychiatric Question: Is It Fair to Analyze Donald Trump From Afar?
In the midst of a deeply divisive presidential campaign, more than 1,000 psychiatrists declared the Republican candidate unfit for the office, citing severe personality defects, including paranoia, a grandiose manner and a Godlike self-image. One doctor called him “a dangerous lunatic.”
The year was 1964, and after losing in a landslide, the candidate, Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, sued the publisher of Fact magazine, which had published the survey, winning $75,000 in damages.
But doctors attacked the survey, too, for its unsupported clinical language and obvious partisanship. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association adopted what became known as the Goldwater Rule, declaring it unethical for any psychiatrist to diagnose a public figure’s condition “unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement.”
Enter Donald J. Trump.
The 2016 Republican nominee’s incendiary, stream-of-consciousness pronouncements have strained that agreement to the breaking point, exposing divisions in the field over whether such restraint is appropriate today.
Psychiatrists and psychologists have publicly flouted the Goldwater Rule, tagging Mr. Trump with an assortment of personality problems, including grandiosity, a lack of empathy, and “malignant narcissism.” The clinical insults are flying so thick that earlier this month, the psychiatric association posted a reminder that breaking the Goldwater Rule “is irresponsible, potentially stigmatizing, and definitely unethical.”
Putting a psychiatric label on a candidate they oppose can be a “seemingly irresistible tool for some in the field,” said Dr. Paul Appelbaum, a professor of psychiatry, medicine and law at Columbia University who disapproves of the practice. “This year, perhaps more than most, they’re persuaded they’re saving the nation from a terrible fate.”
William Doherty, a psychologist at the University of Minnesota, believes exactly that. In June, Dr. Doherty posted an online manifesto against “Trumpism” that has been signed by more than 2,200 mental health specialists.
Continue reading the main story
Presidential Election 2016
The latest news and analysis of the candidates and issues shaping the presidential race.
Americans Don’t Trust Her. But Why?
AUG 16
Early Voting Limits Donald Trump’s Time to Turn Campaign Around
AUG 16
Trump Campaign and Its Chief, Paul Manafort, Try to Move Past Ukraine Report
AUG 15
Biden Warns Trump Is Risk to U.S. Security
AUG 15
Donald Trump’s Terrorism Plan Mixes Cold War Concepts and Limits on Immigrants
AUG 15
See More »
RELATED COVERAGE
Is Trump Mentally Fit? ‘Sure,’ Gingrich Says AUG. 9, 2016
50 G.O.P. Officials Warn Donald Trump Would Put Nation’s Security ‘at Risk’ AUG. 8, 2016
Debate Over Trump’s Fitness Raises Issue of Checks on Nuclear Power AUG. 4, 2016
FEATURE
Will Trump Swallow the G.O.P. Whole? JUNE 21, 2016
“Yes, for me this is an exception,” Dr. Doherty said. “What we have here is a threat to democracy itself.”
Supporters of the Goldwater Rule have cited three main rationales for adhering to it: Most diagnoses made from a distance turn out to be wrong; the labels themselves can cause real harm to the person and family members; and the practice undermines the field’s credibility, particularly its commitment to confidentiality. Not to mention, others say, that it could expose a left-leaning bias in the field.
But the psychoanalyzing of public figures by commentators, columnists and pop psychologists has a bipartisan history. Concerns about grandiosity and narcissism dogged Lyndon B. Johnson’s presidency. Suspicions of a deepening paranoia clouded the end of Richard Nixon’s. Accusations of manipulation, deceit and a sense of entitlement have trailed the Clintons for years, prompting speculation about deeper personality problems.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/health/analyzing-donald-trump-psychology.html?_r=0
