Month: March 2026

Parsing the decision-making of any president is difficult given the many complexities involved. Trump presents added challenges since he is a serial fabulist and the explanations he and his underlings offer frequently conflict and change radically. Could Occam’s Razor help? This principle holds that the simplest answer to a problem—i.e., the one with the fewest complexities, assumptions, and variables—is often the best. One straightforward, readily observable, and consistent theme goes a long way toward explaining Trump: virtually everything he does seems to be fundamentally about himself, specifically advancing his personal interests or feeding his insatiable ego.    

Allen Frances, a psychiatrist who helped write the criteria for a condition known as “Narcissistic Personality Disorder” (NPD), describes Trump as “an undisputed poster boy for narcissism” who “demonstrates in pure form every single [NPD] symptom.” Dr. Frances cautions that this does not mean Trump is mentally ill; indeed his main point is to criticize those who leap to this conclusion.^[1]For one thing, it is unethical under the so-called “Goldwater Rule” to diagnose anyone as mentally ill without examining them; for another, many politicians and other public figures exhibit NPD … Continue reading However, it is abundantly clear that Trump is a world-class narcissist.

According to the Mayo Clinic, people with NPD can exhibit the following symptoms:

• • Have an unreasonably high sense of self-importance and require constant, excessive admiration.
  • Feel that they deserve privileges and special treatment.
  • Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements.
  • Make achievements and talents seem bigger than they are.
  • Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate.
  • Believe they are superior to others and can only spend time with or be understood by equally special people.
  • Be critical of and look down on people they feel are not important.
  • Expect special favors and expect other people to do what they want without questioning them.
  • Take advantage of others to get what they want.
  • Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others.
  • Be envious of others and believe others envy them.
  • Behave in an arrogant way, brag a lot and come across as conceited.
  • Insist on having the best of everything.

They also have trouble handling anything they view as criticism; become impatient or angry when they don’t receive special recognition or treatment; easily feel slighted; react with rage or contempt; and belittle other people to make themselves appear superior.

Trump regularly displays most if not all of these characteristics in his public statements and behavior. To cite just a few examples:

• • He’s stocked his White House staff and administration with compliant, unquestioning sycophants.
  • He engages in unhinged rants against those who challenge his positions from political opponents, to media figures, to judges and Supreme Court justices.
  • He seeks vengeance against perceived enemies through frivolous legal attacks.
  • He names things for himself and covets awards and recognition.
  • He can’t accept his 2020 election loss and obsessively seeks ways to relitigate it.
  • He far exceeds former presidents in embellishing his accomplishments, frequently telling obvious lies.
  • He scorns foreign leaders who express insufficient praise and gratitude to him and favors those who flatter him.
  • His gratuitous, nonsensical, and cruel comments on the  murder of the Reiners and the death of Robert Mueller highlight both his need to make everything about himself and his total lack of empathy.

Moreover, there’s no obvious explanation for Trump’s behavior other than indulging his ego. He functions transactionally with no apparent core ideological beliefs. He flouts traditional democratic values and has no respect for the rule of law. Notably, he declared himself to be  constrained only by his own “morality.”

Nor does he adhere to any consistent policy agenda. He ran in 2024 on a platform of opposing illegal immigration, improving the economic lot of ordinary Americans, and keeping the nation out of foreign military entanglements. While he successfully secured the southern border, he pushed his anti-immigrant campaign well beyond what most of the public expected or wanted. He shows little interest in specific steps to improve the economic welfare of non-wealthy Americans, and some of his key policies do the opposite. 

Most surprisingly, he did a complete about-face on military adventurism. He sought to annex Greenland, he used the military to kill alleged drug smugglers, he attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, and he seized Venezuelan President Maduro. His most consequential action is the current war on Iran. Efforts abound from all ideological quarters to understand the rationale for starting this war, what its objectives are, and how it will end. These efforts are hampered by statements from Trump and others in the administration that are even more vague, shifting, and conflicting than usual.^[2]See, e.g., here, here, here and here.  

What is consistent in Trump’s words and actions is a focus on himself. According to Trump’s press secretary, he said he started the war because of a “a good feeling” that Iran was about to attack U.S. assets. He posted an image of himself captioned “the most badass president of all time.” He demanded Iran’s “unconditional surrender.” He insisted that he must be personally involved in selecting Iran’s next leader. He declared the war will be over “any time I want it to end” and “when I feel it in my bones.” He said he “chose” not to wipe out Iran’s oil infrastructure on Kharg Island “for reasons of decency,” but later added that “we may hit it a few more times just for fun.”  

All of this points to an unserious person consumed by self-importance who operates by whim and caprice. It suggests that Trump’s ego played a major, perhaps pivotal, role in his decision to go to war. With the exception of his ludicrous Greenland escapade, Trump’s previous adventures worked well for him; they kept him in the spotlight and made him look macho, decisive, and formidable. These quick successes probably emboldened him to undertake the Iran war with the same aims in mind.

The war now rages on and its consequences expand while Trump contemplates his next potential adventure: Cuba. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In a rare bit of good news for our politics, the grossly antidemocratic practice of gerrymandering subsided a little in recent years as several states shifted control of redistricting from partisan legislatures to independent commissions. Virginia was one such state. In 2020, it adopted a constitutional provision establishing an independent commission process in order to end racial and partisan gerrymandering. The Virginia process was enacted with broad bipartisan support and garnered widespread praise.^[1]See, e.g., here and here.

Unfortunately, gerrymandering has returned with a vengeance at President Trump’s instigation. Texas responded to his urging with a gerrymander that could shift five currently Democratic congressional seats to Republicans. California countered with a proposal to override its independent commission and shift five seats from Republicans to Democrats. To their credit, some red and blue states refused to participate in this gerrymandering frenzy; other states joined or are considering joining in on one side or the other. To its discredit, Virginia is one of the latter.

The Democratic-controlled Virginia General Assembly recently enacted a proposal, actively supported by Governor Spanberger, to amend the state’s constitution to reverse its independent redistricting process for 2026 and the following two election cycles. If approved by Virginia voters in an April 21 special election, the amendment would return control over redistricting to the legislature and give it free rein to once more gerrymander congressional districts.

The General Assembly has already developed a radically gerrymandered map designed to change the state’s congressional delegation from 6-5 to 10-1 in favor of Democrats. In the process, it would shift almost half the state’s voters to new districts and effectively disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of Virginians with respect to their congressional vote.^[2]For background, see here, here, here, and here.

One of the most outrageous aspects of this regressive proposal is the disingenuous, indeed Orwellian way it is being sold to voters. The official description appearing on the April 21 ballot, which was dictated by the General Assembly on a party-line vote, calls it a measure “to restore fairness” in upcoming elections. Obviously, it would do precisely the opposite by restoring the unfairness of gerrymandered electoral districts that the independent commission was enacted to prevent. 

The proposal would penalize a very large portion of Virginia voters simply for being potential Republican supporters. The Democratic governor and legislative majority apparently rationalize unfairly disadvantaging these Virginians as an appropriate means to counter the unfairness imposed by gerrymanders on Democratic voters in other states. One might expect a state governor to put the rights and interests of her own constituents above national politics.^[3]Indeed, Ms. Spanberger said she had no intention of redistricting during her gubernatorial campaign last year. The fact that she did not shows how debased our current politics have become. It will only get worse as both parties continue their race to the bottom.

The additional rationalization by supporters that the proposal is only a “temporary” departure from the independent process should also be taken with a large dose of salt. As noted above, the gerrymander will remain in effect for three election cycles stretching into the next decade. The independent commission may well be viewed as an anachronism by that time, particularly as our politics become ever more polarized and extreme. If Democrats still control the General Assembly, they will likely be inclined to extend the by-then entrenched gerrymandered districts. Conversely, if Republicans control the legislature, they will likely look for gerrymander payback and engineer their own bypass of the independent commission.

In sum, the proposal is bad for Virginia and bad for our politics in general. While some may view gerrymandering as simply politics as usual, its fundamental purpose and effect is to undercut the constitutional right to vote by devaluing the votes of American citizens based on their disfavored political views.

Here’s hoping that Virginia voters see through the deceptive marketing and reject the proposal. Failing that, the courts may put it to rest. There are several legal challenges to the process by which the proposal was enacted. The Virginia Supreme Court opted to defer a decision on the merits, if necessary, until after the April 21 special election but acknowledged that it presents “weighty assertions of invalidity.”