Ponerology and the Pathology of Leadership:

Author Govert SchullerPosted on November 1, 2024Categories PoliticsTags Politics, Trump

Assessing Trump and his Movement

The rise of Donald Trump and the behavior of his followers should prompt an interest in political ponerology, a framework for understanding how pathological leaders can gain influence, distort moral standards, and polarize societies. From the lens of political ponerology, that is, the study of “evil” in political systems, Donald Trump’s movement can be examined as part of a larger pattern in which ideological, social, and emotional mechanisms enable the growth of pathological, political systems. Political ponerology, as developed by the Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Łobaczewski, provides a framework for understanding how political structures evolve towards a state of socio-pathology and how individuals and groups can become agents of social harm and violence as part of a systemic process—often without conscious malice, though some with clear malicious intent.

Pathocracy and the Emergence of Pathological Leadership

Pathocracy is a core concept in political ponerology, describing a political system where individuals with psychopathic traits gain power and spread their pathological worldview across the broader society, usually first in and through a political party and possibly subsequently by attaining state power. In this view, Trump’s appeal to populism, nationalism, racism, and protectionism could be seen as fostering an atmosphere where emotions like fear, frustration and anger are weaponized for political purposes.

By using emotionally charged language and divisive rhetoric, Trump has effectively tapped into existing grievances (both real and imagined), which in turn normalizes hostility and discredits empathy, self-control, cooperation, and compromise—traits essential for a healthy democratic system and civilizational development.

The Role of the “Spellbinders”

In ponerology, spellbinders are charismatic figures who manipulate public sentiment and cultivate a kind of psychological spell over followers, often by framing their leadership as the solution to complex societal problems. Trump’s rhetorical style and personal brand as an outsider fighting an alleged corrupt system fit this mold.

Łobaczewski observed that spellbinders rely on psychological and emotional manipulation, often distorting reality through conspiracy theories, scapegoating, and exaggeration of threats (like immigration or globalism in Trump’s case) to create a narrative of “us vs. them.” This psychological manipulation undercuts critical thinking and empowers followers to disregard facts that do not align with the leader’s narrative. Trump’s conscious use of a few “Big Lies”, like the allegations that Obama was not an American citizen or the 2020 election was rigged, fits this pattern.

Normalization of Paranoia and Tribalism

A key outcome of ponerogenic movements is the erosion of social cohesion. Trump’s rhetoric frequently focuses on themes that divide Americans by race, nationality, class and political ideology, contributing to what could be described as a form of “tribalism.” This tendency aligns with what Łobaczewski called hysteroidal cycles, where societies under the sway of pathological leaders exhibit extreme polarization and develop paranoid, even murderous, attitudes toward out-groups. This cycle might endure for several decades.

Trump’s movement often emphasizes distrust of traditional institutions (media, judiciary, scientific authorities), framing them as tools of the elite. Though there exists a self-serving US power elite as the executive arm of the upper class, Trump and his followers have a very confused understanding of it. This skewed perception of society undermines the democratic process and engenders a paranoid mindset among followers who see themselves in an existential struggle against an enemy they hardly understand.

Paralogical Reasoning: Constructing an Alternative Reality

One core concept in ponerology is paralogical reasoning, where followers are encouraged to abandon reasonable arguments based on established truths in favor of a reality defined by the leader or his lieutenants like Stephen Bannon, Stephen Miller and to a lesser degree, but not less toxic, Alex Jones. Trump’s movement frequently relies on this tactic, promoting narratives that validate his authority and dismiss established facts as part of a conspiratorial “deep state” plot.

For example, the persistent denial of the 2020 election results, despite clear evidence to the contrary, illustrates the strength of paralogical thinking within Trump’s movement. Through relentless promotion of “fake news” rhetoric, Trump builds an alternative reality where only his version of events is trustworthy. In Trump’s narrative most immigrants are raping, thieving, freeloading individuals who even eat their neighbors’ pets.

This paralogical approach isolates followers from traditional sources of information and fosters a mindset that disregards logic in favor of partisan emotions and “alternate facts”. When Trump positions his narrative as the only “truth,” followers become highly resistant to outside perspectives, creating a closed belief system that intensifies loyalty and distrusts anything that contradicts the leader’s perspective. And when caught with a claim too preposterous, he will state he was only joking.

Paramoral Confusion: Redefining Morality to Justify Behavior

Paramorality, another ponerological concept, refers to the redefinition of ethical standards to serve the leader’s interests. Leaders like Trump, and he is certainly not the only one, redefine moral frameworks so that actions that might normally be condemned are viewed as noble or justified when they serve the movement’s goals. For example, Trump’s portrayal of aggressive actions as patriotic acts—such as rejecting legitimate electoral outcomes or encouraging hostility toward political opponents—reframes behavior that undermines democracy as morally righteous.

All this was clearly and dramatically on display on January 6, 2021, when Trump instigated his followers to storm the US Capitol on the day of the final vote count of the Electoral College, even to the point of endangering the life of his own Vice-President Pence, who chaired the ceremonial procedure and was pressured by Trump to send back the results to the states, something he correctly thought he could not do.

Within Trump’s movement, paramoral thinking justifies undemocratic actions by portraying them as necessary to “save” America. Loyalty to Trump is reframed as a higher moral duty than loyalty to democratic principles, enabling followers to rationalize behavior they might otherwise find unacceptable, or become intolerant to people they previously perceived as fellow Americans. This creates a moral code tailored to Trump’s needs, allowing actions that destabilize society.

Groupthink and Loss of Individual Agency

According to ponerology, movements like Trump’s often discourage critical thinking and encourage conformity to the group’s values and beliefs, even when they are harmful. Followers may begin to think collectively rather than individually, reinforcing group identity over personal judgment. This dynamic can lead to what Łobaczewski called ponerization, where otherwise moral individuals adopt behaviors that contribute to systemic harm due to social pressure and indoctrination.

These persons are not pathological themselves, but adapt their thinking, morals and behavior to the demands of the pathological political system they are allied with. It is a temporary madness, but not a chronic disorder.

Groupthink can lead to the internalization of propaganda, making it difficult for followers to recognize contradictions within the movement or its leader’s behavior, even when it diverges from the follower’s own original values. Their passionate, emotional state muffles or overrides their cognitive dissonance and moral contradictions. In this mind set they can belittle or ignore the many dubious and even outright criminal behaviors of Trump.

Malignant Narcissism and Pathological Leadership

From a political ponerology perspective, incorporating the concept of malignant narcissism into the analysis of Donald Trump and his movement provides an additional layer of insight. Malignant narcissism—a term coined by the social psychologist Erich Fromm—combines narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) with antisocial behavior, paranoia, and sadism. This particular combination of traits can be especially dangerous in leaders, as it often drives them to seek validation and power at any cost.

In Trump’s case, behaviors such as the refusal to accept criticism, his fixation on loyalty and personal loyalty tests for those around him, and his frequent disparagement of perceived “enemies” suggest a deep need for admiration combined with a tendency to view those who do not provide it as threats.

This aligns with traits of malignant narcissism, where a leader’s fragile self-image results in extreme defensiveness and hostility towards perceived adversaries. Some argue that Trump’s political ambition to become president only became serious after then President Obama made jokes about him in public at a roast of Obama himself.

Malignant narcissism is a form of extreme narcissism that includes elements of antisocial behavior and paranoid tendencies, making individuals exceptionally manipulative, controlling, and defensive. According to ponerology, leaders with these traits are highly effective in establishing pathocracies, or pathological social systems, by a process of mental contagion.

As far as scale is concerned, it could be argued that Trump established initially his own little pathocratic kingdom with his business empire, then, according to Republican moderates, took over the Republican party, and is now poised again to preside over the USA, but this time not with adult, moderate Republicans as guardrails, but with spellbound loyalists ready to implement his radical plans like deporting millions of immigrants, sacking disloyal bureaucrats, and prosecuting his political opponents.

Grandiosity and the Role of the “Spellbinder”

Trump’s public image emphasizes grandiosity, a defining characteristic of narcissistic personality disorder, but his tendency toward self-aggrandizement and exaggeration goes beyond typical narcissism. In political ponerology, spellbinders are charismatic figures who charm and manipulate others to adopt a distorted, inflated vision of reality. Trump’s self-presentation as a singularly capable leader—the “only one who can fix” societal issues and claims to be “the best” at numerous skills—reflects a pathological level of grandiosity typical of malignant narcissism.

This grandiosity not only draws followers but also acts as a psychological force that deflects criticism. Followers may see him as a near-mythic figure, whose weaknesses and faults are dismissed or reinterpreted as evidence of his strength or unique insight, reinforcing a cycle of dependency and idealization. A part of this strategy is to project all negative traits upon one’s opponents. With Trump, if you didn’t know better, it is the Democrats who are the liars, subversives, riggers, corrupters, anti-Semites, fascists, etc., who are America’s biggest danger.

Paranoia and the Weaponization of Fear

Paranoia is a key component of malignant narcissism, and it manifests in Trump’s rhetoric through recurrent themes of conspiracies and victimization by hostile forces, both real (the decline of well-paying manufacturing jobs) and imagined (cultural Marxists running US colleges and the media). His movement is characterized by a pronounced fear of outsiders and a perception that institutions like the media, judicial system, or political establishment are “rigged” or corrupt.

Sadistic Pleasure and the Culture of Dominance

Malignant narcissism also includes elements of sadism, often expressed through a need to dominate or humiliate others. Trump’s rhetoric often includes disparaging nicknames, insults, and public humiliation of perceived opponents, not just as political strategy but as a form of personal gratification.

Political ponerology views such sadism as a mark of pathocratic leadership, where the leader derives pleasure from displays of dominance and superiority over others. This pattern often filters into the culture of the leader’s followers, who may adopt similar language and attitudes, contributing to a wider culture of antagonism and aggression toward not only outsiders or dissenters, but also inferiors, employees and contractors.

Manipulation and the Exploitation of Followers

Individuals with malignant narcissism are often highly manipulative, using charm and coercion to gain loyalty. Trump’s use of emotional appeals, coupled with a rejection of factual criticisms or accountability, aligns with how ponerology describes the creation of a “paramoral” environment. In this environment, actions that would typically be unethical (e.g., disparaging democratic norms, encouraging violent rhetoric and violence itself) are justified as necessary to support the urgent cause of making America great again.

Followers, drawn to the sense of empowerment provided by their identification with a “strong” leader, are often manipulated into supporting actions and ideas that serve the leader’s personal interests, not the broader community’s well-being. Given the many serious court cases he is embroiled in, one of Trump’s personal, top priorities is staying out of jail, which might only be feasible if the wins the 2024 presidential election.

Charismatic and Pathological Leadership

Comparing Donald Trump’s movement to Mussolini’s fascism, Hitler’s Nazism and Stalin’s communism reveals striking parallels, especially when viewed through the lens of political ponerology. Though the historical, social, and ideological contexts differ, all four movements exhibit a similar pattern of pathological leadership, reliance on paralogical and paramoral manipulation, and the establishment of a culture of fear, division, and loyalty.

Trump, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin each portrayed themselves as charismatic leaders uniquely capable of restoring national greatness. All leveraged their personal appeal to cultivate large, loyal followings who saw them as the only solution to complex social, economic, or cultural problems. In each case, their leadership style exhibited elements of malignant narcissism—including grandiosity, paranoia, and manipulative sadism.

Hitler and Mussolini went a step further by embedding their personal ideologies, after gaining state power, into the core of state identity, thereby creating a pathocracy where social, cultural, and moral standards were defined by the leaders’ pathological perspectives, and policies were developed based on their idiosyncratic references.

Trump, though operating in a flawed democracy, similarly positioned himself as a figure above traditional political norms, encouraging his followers to reject and even vilify the institutional pillars of American democracy, and even told the militias he embraced to “stand by” for a possible coup d’etat.

Each of these leaders fostered a paralogical framework where objective facts were secondary to the leader’s narrative. Hitler used extensive propaganda to reshape reality, portraying Germany as besieged by Jews, Communists, and “degenerate” forces, creating a rationale for extreme policies, including the creation of concentration camps and genocide. Mussolini similarly shaped Italy’s perception of the state as eternally embattled, painting resistance to his rule as treasonous opposition to Italian greatness, though he didn’t share Hitler’s anti-Semitic, genocidal inclinations.

Trump’s use of paralogical reasoning manifest in his rejection of verifiable facts (such as the 2020 election results) and in the propagation of conspiratorial beliefs. At a certain moment the number of verifiable lies he had made was 30,000 and counting. By rejecting mainstream media, science, and institutions, Trump’s movement builds an alternative reality that validates followers’ grievances and mistrusts democratic processes, deepening the movement’s emotional and ideological isolation from broader society.

See for example the bizarre phenomenon of the QAnon movement in which paralogical processes of interpretation are stretched to their limit, triggering paramoral actions like looking for basements under pizzerias to find satanic pedophiles, or triggering the smaller relational dramas of alienation from family and friends.

The US electorate has been warned by multiple and diverse people about this flirtation with its own version of fascism. And in some professions, like psychologists and psychiatrists, there exists even a duty to warn potential victims of possible danger if a person with clearly bad intentions might get the means to execute them on a big scale. Trump poses exactly such a clear and present danger to the well-being of the US and beyond.

The Inevitable Pathological Collapse?

A ponerological perspective would argue that pathological systems eventually collapse due to their inherent unsustainability, as they ultimately fail to provide functional solutions to real societal issues. People become disillusioned, snap out of their spell, or have time in jail to contemplate. However, the process can be slow and destructive, potentially causing lasting damage to the social fabric and political institutions, especially if the process leads to the capture of state power, pushed into military adventures and ends in inglorious defeat.

In Trump’s case, even if his political movement wanes, the deepened divisions and distrust sown will have long-lasting effects. The willingness of Trump’s followers to challenge election legitimacy, view political opposition as enemies, and support actions that undermine democratic norms reflects a pathologically altered political culture that may take years to reverse.

Conclusion

Viewed through the lens of political ponerology, Trump’s movement reveals a pattern of pathological leadership that manipulates reality, redefines moral standards, spellbinds followers, and fosters deep divisions. Concepts like paralogical reasoning and paramoral confusion provide insights into how Trump has created a movement that is both self-sustaining and frustratingly resistant to critique, fostering loyalty through an alternative reality and moral framework that supports his dubious authority and amoral actions.

While comparisons to historical leaders like Mussolini and Hitler are necessary, Trump’s movement operates within the unique democratic context of the US Constitution, with all its checks and balances, and with a population usually proud of its individualism and independence.

Yet the core dynamics remain similar: a leader who fosters an intense, morally rationalized loyalty; a belief system rooted in manipulated truths and repeated lies; a movement of collectivized individuals homogenized by their shared paramoral and paralogical beliefs; a political will to establish an authoritarian state, and a deeply polarized society left in its wake.

To address this legacy, American society will need to renew its commitment to truth, ethical standards, and democratic principles. The challenge will be, after the fever has broken and the myriad delusions popped, that of reintegrating Trump’s future-former followers into a collective framework where loyalty to the nation is grounded in shared values, not individual allegiance, and where logical reasoning, common-sense morality and deliberative democracy become again the ingredients of its moral compass, maybe improving upon its earlier, flawed state.

But first, he has to be decisively beaten at the polls on November 5, 2024, a day that might become infamous if Trump wins, or part of a cautionary tale about collective madness if he loses. In either case, people have to educate themselves about the structure and dynamics of ponerology and find ways to non-coercively filter out candidates with serious and dangerous personality disorders.

Sources

Domhoff, G. William. 1969. The Higher Circles: The Governing Class in America: An Investigation of the Men and Women who govern our Country. New York: Vintage Books.

Domhoff, G. William. 1978. The Powers That Be: Processes of Ruling Class Domination in America. New York: Vintage Books.

Elias, Norbert. 1939. The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.

Fromm, Erich. 1941. Escape from Freedom. New York: Farrar & Rinehart.

Hedges, Chris. 2018. America: The Farewell Tour. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Holoyda, Brian. 2024. “QAnon”. Entry in: Encyclopedia Britannica, 28 Oct. 2024.

Jaynes, Julian. 1976. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lee, Bandy (Ed). 2017. The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President. New York: Thomas Dunne Books.

Lee, Bandy. 2024. The Psychology of Trump Contagion: An Existential Danger to American Democracy and All Humankind. Washinton, DC: World Mental Health Coalition.

Lobaczewski, Andrew. 2006 [1998]. Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes. Grand Prairie, Canada: Red Pill Press.

Mika, Elizabeth. 2017. “National Character Counts Week: Welcome to Pathocracy“. Medium, 19 Oct 2017.

Mika, Elizabeth. 2017. ”‘Now More Than Ever’: On Straitjacketing Trump“. Medium, 23 Aug 2017.

Rosenbaum, Ron. 1998. Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil. New York: Random House.

Rosenbaum, Ron. 2017. “Against Normalization: The Lesson of the ‘Munich Post’ “.  Los Angeles Review of Books, Feb 2017.

Schuller, Govert. 2017. “On Trump: The Aspiring Pathocrat“. Alpheus, 24 Feb 2017.

Schuller, Govert. 2017. “On Trump: The Tasaroff Doctrine Trumps the Goldwater Rule.” Alpheus, 2 Nov 2017.

Schuller, Govert. 2018. “On Trump: The Ruling Pathocrat.” Alpheus, 14 April 2018.

Simone, Simone & Fulero, Solomon M., PhD, JD. 2005. “Tarasoff and the Duty to Protect”.  Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, Vol. 11 / Issues 1-2.

Stenner, Karen. 2009. “Three Kinds of ‘Conservatism’”. Psychological Inquiry, 20: 142–159.