“Narcissists thrive in chaotic times.” —Michael Maccoby, Narcissistic Leaders, the Incredible Pros, the Incredible Cons, Harvard Business Review.1
Watching what is going on in the world feels like watching a car slowly sliding on ice and anticipating the sound of crashing metal. Heated disagreement is normal and healthy. What’s scary is extremism, which is evident in most major countries, and by definition tips the odds away from peaceful negotiation and toward violence.
A subjective but critical vector in this dynamic is learning how to categorize extremist leaders, which is what I discuss today. To be sure, it is easy to put the blame on bad leaders as opposed to us, the people that either vote for or fail to oppose these leaders in the same way 1930s-era Germans are culpable for their outcomes. Obviously, in a police state, opposition can be fatal. But even in a Democracy, accurately categorizing a leader takes training.
Categorizing Different Types of People
Extremists feed on uncertainty. Today’s rate of change is quickly upending existing social structures, the way the 17th century scientific revolution threatened the church. This is true across political systems. Twitter and Telegram threaten authoritarian regimes; the internet disrupts industries ranging from newspapers to hotels, destroying and creating millions of jobs.2 Many of the new jobs are more volatile,3 particularly at lower incomes.4
The accompanying uncertainty creates opportunities for a certain type of leader. I’ll focus on three case studies: Marjorie Green, Putin and Xi. Every human is unique and over the last 100 or so years researchers have spent enormous energy trying to categorize people. While I’m not a psychologist, familiarity with these frameworks can help us all and was a big part of my research on Raising a Thief.
Management-ish theorists like Briggs, Adizes, Maccoby (applying Freud) categorize healthy people in an effort to get them to better work together. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) provides mental health professionals with agreed-upon rubrics for sick people, the way a field guide allows a botanist to identify plants. Below, I created an overly-simplified version of their categorizations.
The management rubrics distinguish the degree to which a person primarily relates to the world via people, data or imagination. Most of us are a mix, not a pure type. Within these broad categories, there are pathological types. What tips a person towards pathological is not known (nature vs nurture) but to survive today, it pays to quickly identify pathological outliers.
Mental health pros will not diagnose a person from a distance. Still, being familiar with the frameworks is helpful. Within the DSM framework, there are clear distinctions between the types of pathologies.
US
In the US, 147 Congresspeople (27% of the total) voted to overturn the last election. Georgia’s Marjorie Green was one of them, perhaps the most enthusiastic. If 27% grows to 51%, the current form of government ends because voting ceases to function as a dispute resolution tool. Of those running for office next month, 291 question the election.
Again, the fault is as much with us as the leaders. Why are Americans voting for such people? Perhaps because doing so fills an emotional need for those who “feel” (important word) screwed by the system, “the system is rigged” resonates.
A New York Times profile said Green asserted “a wildfire in California … was ignited by a laser beam shot from space by a prominent Jewish family, the Rothschilds.” It sounded so bizarre (I’m revealing my data-centric bias!), I looked into it. As far as I can tell, the New York Times is referring to Green Facebook post, below.
As I wrote in Raising a Thief, the above language serves a purpose. Green replaces the actual issue—climate change—with an imaginary one—a cabal, intentionally distorting reality. She then does something consistent with what I understand a borderline personality to do. She swings from bizarre claim to “but what do I know?” If the Republicans gain control of Congress, she has vowed to start an impeachment process against Biden, which is consistent with another feature of borderlines—making excessive demands.
Putin and Xi
One difference between Green, Putin and Xi is that the latter two have enormous power. For now, Green doesn’t. Another may be the type of dysfunction they each have. Narcissistic (perhaps Putin and Xi) personalities will claim to do one thing, like creating a new order, when they are in reality fostering chaos.
Putin says he is attempting to break down the wall between Russia and Ukraine, “what is essentially the same historical and spiritual space.”5 The reality is mass graves in Bucha. Xi says he is attempting to build "a modern socialist country." The reality is obviating term limits, crushing Hong Kong, zero Covid, crushing entrepreneurs, etc.
I’m not the first one to suggest Putin’s behavior is consistent with a personality disorder. Symptoms include fantasies of unbridled power and hostility to criticism, thus murdering journalists and opposition politicians. These people also relish demeaning others. The image below from Getty as the invasion got underway is revealing.
A Chinese parallel is publicly removing former President Hu Jintao from his position next to Xi, included this image from the BBC. Some China watchers said it was impossible to determine the significance of this move. Armed with the framework I shared above, a more likely explanation is an effort to demean, similar to Putin. A Wall Street Journal profile of China’s arrest of two Canadians is also consistent with this behavior.
Both Russia and China have a tragic history of getting wildly off track. Ahead of US November mid-term elections, the question is if the US will do the same or, somehow, the brakes are applied and we avoid impact. The US almost collapsed during the Civil War, Great Depression and during the Vietnam War. Step one in calculating the odds is clearly assessing the cast of characters in charge. For the data-centric, there is now plenty of evidence about what makes them tic.
Investment Implications
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Things I Didn't Learn in School to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.