♦️ This is part 1 of the series: Grown-Up Democracy — on voters, politicians, and who should be allowed to run the world. Read part 2 here: A Test to Vote? Could That Save Us from Narcissistic Maniacs? Read part 3 here: What Should Be Required to Become a Politician? Read part 4 here: The Narcissist Is Never Alone.

We cannot have a world where people who are lucky enough to have the right to vote use that right to put manchildren in power.

People around the world bit their nails and hoped Americans wouldn’t vote for a flailing, incompetent and narcissistic madman. Americans voted for the madman.

The election of Trump is the worst example, but far from the only one.

It happened in Brazil, it happened over and over in Hungary, Turkey and a string of other countries.

We cannot have it like this.

Yes, I know, many in not-so-democratic countries are pressured to vote for a certain candidate. They are threatened with unemployment, the withdrawal of benefits or even violence. Massive election fraud also takes place. But that is usually not the case the first time these children run for office. The window of opportunity to reject them may be open for years.

Too many voters don’t take that opportunity.

Russians elected Putin again and again until they had no say about anything anymore.

Some of these manchildren are more radioactive than others, from bellicose Putin to the clownish Berlusconi in Italy.

What they all have in common is that they only care about themselves. “Me First” and “Make Me Great Forever.” Still, the crowds cheer them into public service.

We must stop accepting that voters behave like that.

Subscribe now

Where is the uproar?

Nonetheless, the media and public debate treat elections as if voters, by and large, know what they are doing.

“Here are the reasons why people prefer Mrs Blue over Mr Red.” – “This is why people think the Glorious Party is best for our country.”

This pretence goes on despite everybody knowing that uninformed, lazy, short-sighted and easy-to-fool voters are as commonplace and as old a problem as democracy itself.

In America, I noticed some mumbling about better education and more critical thinking the last time Trump won. In other countries, not even a mumbling can be heard. At least nothing that reaches major news channels.

In Britain, “What is the EU?” was one of the most popular search terms after the Brexit referendum. Apparently, millions didn’t have a clue what they voted for. And that would have been equally worrisome if the majority had voted to remain in the European Union.

We cannot have it like this.

But where is the uproar? Where are the campaigns for “Better Voters”?

This is a problem on a scale with obesity, drug addiction and every other public health issue combined. In fact, it is worse, since ignorant voters affect everyone, and every sector, and every corner of society.

This is how bad it is

Let’s compare ignorant voters to another societal problem to show you how bad this is.

Almost every country demands a licence to drive a car, and in most countries, you need to pass a driving test and a theory test. Driving licences were introduced at the beginning of the 20^th century due to the huge number of traffic fatalities.

In other words, societies realised early on they had a huge problem. “People drive and cause fatalities. We cannot have it like that. We must ensure that people have the necessary skills to drive.”

Still, as citizens, we have the right to vote and to make decisions about healthcare, education, policing, energy, transport, air quality, trade, housing, food, water or anything that affects us every day, now and in the future. And we can do that without any training or proof of our skills—whatsoever.

So, what should we do?

The problem isn’t Trump or Orban

To have better voters, we need to stop focusing on the “wrong” leaders or parties and focus on voter skills.

The core problem is not the single candidate or political party. If we hadn’t had Trump and Orban, we could have had Rump and Gorban.

Educating voters is not about making people refrain from voting for him, her or them.

Educating voters is teaching voters how to make sound judgements. To consider longer-term consequences. To realise there are no quick fixes. To spot obvious lies.

To accept that no one is going to save you.

Educating voters is making them ask, “If I were to hire these candidates, what would I need to find out about them?” What background checks and references? “What questions would I ask them at a job interview?”

No matter how bombarded with fake news, upset about immigration, despairing over the cost of living or being told by their priest who to vote for, educated voters would not have voted for Trump.

Furthermore, he, Orban, Bolsonaro and all the others would not have run for office because they knew they wouldn’t stand a chance.

Unskilled voting is as old as Socrates, but it’s solvable.

It is time we, who want to be responsible citizens, take a deep breath and shout out in unison:

“We cannot have it like this”

We cannot let the well-being of our societies be dependent on those who cast their vote for whoever makes them feel good.

We cannot let our common future be decided by people who vote for something they have no clue about.

We cannot accept that millions of voters let themselves be fooled by me-me-me idiots. Whatever political flavour these idiots claim to have.

What we have to accept is that in a democracy, we will find heaps of me-me-me idiots who want power and admiration. Freedom also means freedom for idiots. The solution is not to lock them up, but to stop enabling them. We must learn not to give children power they cannot handle. And for that, we need more educated and better voters—tons of binned MAGA caps, better.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading! Please share your suggestions on what to do about ignorant voters.

♦️ This is part 2 of the series: Grown-Up Democracy — on voters, politicians, and who should be allowed to run the world. Read part 1 here: The Problem Isn’t Trump or Orban. It’s Everyone Who Made Them Possible. Read part 3 here: What Should Be Required to Become a Politician? Read part 4 here: The Narcissist Is Never Alone.

A democracy can work fairly well with ignorant voters until the right idiot comes along. And the higher the number of ignorant voters, the more likely that an idiot will become our leader. As happened in America. But Trump is merely one example.

This has happened in so many democracies; it’s about time we accept that ignorant voters are dangerous. The question is what we do about it.

We, as voters, make decisions about our country’s future, our own future, our children’s future —without needing any skills or knowledge whatsoever.

So, what if we introduced a test-based licence to vote? It would not constitute a panacea, but it could prevent the worst of the narcissistic maniacs from ending up in a position of power.

In this article, we will have a closer look at voter testing. What it might look like, and how we could get there.

Several scholars have suggested a test for voters. They agree that a basic understanding of the political system and the principles of democracy must be included in such a test. “Who is responsible for what? – “How do the different institutions relate to each other?” – “What kind of elections do we have?”

However, for the test I have in mind, such questions would only be the starter.

Subscribe now

A test of how to think, not what to know

The larger part of the voter test should focus on critical thinking and how to make better decisions. It would be a test of how to think, not what to know.

Here are some ideas for what to include:

· Simulations: Testees could be asked to simulate as decision-makers at a local council. “You only have money for a new school or upgrading the local sewer plant. What would you choose? How would you defend your choice?”

· Role-play: Put him or her in the role of a manipulator spreading misinformation. What does it take to manipulate people? What to do to avoid being manipulated? Or create some variation of the Cranky Uncle or the Bad News game.

· Awareness of confirmation bias and overconfidence: Give people statements to agree with and give them gradually more disagreeable, nuanced and complex alternatives to choose from.

And to enhance interest, make the questions relatable to people’s everyday lives.

Make the test relatable and worthwhile

Show people that good thinking is not just about voting; it’s about every decision you make.

· Point out the similarities between running a local council and jiggling household finances. ”Fixing the potholes or Meals on wheels? Fixing the porch or meat on weekdays?”

· Show the testee that the qualities you look for in a political leader may be much the same as the ones you look for in a partner or a friend.
”Reliable? Caring? Can handle criticism?”

· Compare voting to interviewing somebody for a job.
“What would you need to know about this candidate to offer him or her a job?” (Hint: something more than “Only I can fix it.”) “Why do they want this job? What is their plan for solving any of the problems the country faces? What have they done in the past? Strengths and weaknesses? Have they learned from mistakes?”

But coming up with ideas for what a voter test could look like is one thing. That is fun. Now comes the hard work. How can such a test be implemented?

Let’s look at some of the hurdles we will encounter.

What about the costs for all this testing?

If there is one objection we will face pretty quickly, then it is “What about the costs?”

This would be one of the easiest objections to refute, because we have a heavy counterargument ready at hand:

What about the costs for ignorant voters? What has and will Trump cost America and the world? What will his wars, tariffs and tax cuts for the already supersonic rich cost? Orban made Hungary the poorest country in the European Union. Erdogan ignited a long-standing economic crisis in Turkey. Brexit has cost the Brits deeply.

Setting up and running voter tests may be a small cost compared to risking a Trump or an Orban 2.0.

Who should put these tests together?

Who should decide on the questions? That seems to be the biggest argument against tests to vote. “The other political party will never accept questions on XYZ.”

But politicians with vested interests must be kept at arm’s length while these tests are being established. Any fishy objections like “We shouldn’t dig too deep into that manipulation stuff, it upsets voters,” will then fall on deaf ears.

Our lawmakers will have the final say, but not until the questions and the procedures have been tested so thoroughly that the stream of but-but-but will have dried out.

And voter tests cannot be rolled out on a grand scale just like that. They should be tried on smaller groups, then at a number of local elections, until it is wise to launch them at the national level.

Testing and trying are the key issues here—and also the solutions.

We need more experimentation

A sad thing about politics is the lack of experimentation. Politicians are so afraid of making mistakes and risking not being re-elected, they dedicate almost zero time to trying out anything. Instead, they employ endless energy defending every little move they make. Or on attacking the other side for their mistakes.

What if politics were more like science? We start with a hypothesis and test it out. If it doesn’t work, we amend it or discard it and come up with something else.

And that is what Franklin D. Roosevelt meant by “bold and persistent experimentation.”

You do not see much of that attitude in today’s politics. But we will never fix anything if we are not willing to find out what works. To be brave enough to encounter a bunch of backlashes before we get it right.

By starting small, trying out several options and learning from mistakes, we could exercise some bold experimentation in voter tests. Even without politicians risking any form of crucifixion.

Now, let’s say we have overcome a stretch of thorny hurdles and deep potholes on our way to launching a test for voters. Still, one big issue remains.

Subscribe now

Mandatory or not mandatory?

Is it wise to make a test to vote mandatory?

If it is voluntary and only those who pass the test are legitimate to vote, won’t that lead to democracy for the few? Where only the most resourceful are willing to do the test?

We could introduce weighted voting, where everyone could vote, but where the votes of those passing a test counted more. But wouldn’t that lead to the same result? A society dominated by an elite?

“My answer: I don’t know — and I don’t think anyone can know. Why don’t we test and try?”

If it turns out that only the educated and already engaged are willing to do the test, then perhaps we should make it mandatory? And since mandatory testing without mandatory voting makes little sense, perhaps we should introduce mandatory voting, too? 22 countries already have.

We need to stop wasting time arguing whether something will work if we have not tried it out.

The world is led by manchildren due to ignorant, lazy and easy-to-fool voters. These manchildren enrich themselves, keep people in poverty and dismantle democracies. They are also good at speeding up the extinction of everything living. It is time to stop squabbling and take action to improve the quality of voting. Or to quote Roosevelt,” Above all, try something.”

------------------------------

But what about the politicians themselves you may ask? More on what should be required to become a politician in my next piece.

Thanks for reading! Please, subscribe.

Subscribe now

Want to find out more?

My main sources for this article:

Voting test

Dambisa Moyo: Across the world, democracy is in crisis. Here’s my plan to save it

Can we help save democracy by requiring voters to pass a test of political knowledge?

This writer also uses driving licence to compare, but conclude that education in school can replace a test to vote. I don’t agree:

Christopher Cowley, Centre for Ethics in Public Life, University College Dublin

Civic education

Civic education sparks connection in the classroom and beyond

Critical thinking in schools

Critical thinking in education

Inoculate Against Misinformation

Critical thinking games

Bad News

Crancky Uncle

How to use Cranky Uncle:

Cognitive Biases and Heuristics

Guide to the Most Common Cognitive Biases and Heuristics

Weighted voting - epistocracy

“Epistocracy is a system in which the votes of people who can prove their political knowledge count more than the votes of people who can’t. In other words, it’s a system that privileges the most politically informed citizens.”

Op-Ed: Can epistocracy, or knowledge-based voting, fix democracy?

Roosevelt - “Looking Forward”

Looking Forward by Franklin D. Roosevelt

Mandatory voting

22 countries where voting is mandatory

Hungary

Eurostat: Actual individual consumption per capita in 2023

♦️ This is part 3 of the series: Grown-Up Democracy — on voters, politicians, and who should be allowed to run the world. Read part 1 here: The Problem Isn’t Trump or Orban. It’s Everyone Who Made Them Possible. Read part 2 here: A Test to Vote? Could That Save Us from Narcissistic Maniacs? Read part 4 here: The Narcissist Is Never Alone.

Anyone can enter politics and make decisions that affect millions. And you can do so without any proof of your knowledge, skills or capabilities. You can call a meeting and claim, ‘Only I can fix it.’ If enough people believe you, you will get hired.

Apart from narcissistic maniacs and other exquisite egoists, we have politicians who are not up to the job. They may have good hearts, but that says little about their capabilities.

A friend of mine worked for the government in Sweden. She was asked to write a primer on the European Union for a politician about to assume a high-profile job in Brussels. Her Head of Department sent it back to my friend several times: ‘This is still too difficult for XX.’

What if that Swedish politician had been required to acquire knowledge on the EU and show proof of the ability to handle information before landing that job in Brussels?

What if that person, and everybody else, had to pass a test before being allowed to enter politics at all?

Many have to pass tests to be hired, so why not politicians?

Imagine if politicians in Brussels had to undergo the same rigorous testing as the civil servants who work for them.

Subscribe now

A civil servant in Brussels

To become a civil servant at the European institutions, you need to go through a long and hard selection process.

Many practice for these tests for years, and many fail — I did.

Firstly, you have to pass computerised tests in verbal, numerical and abstract thinking.

Within 90 seconds, you must draw the right conclusions based on a complex statement. ‘What are the conditions for making a complaint to the Ombudsman? In which way are the oceans overexploited?’

Just as quickly, you have to combine different figures and calculate the ratio of the Netherlands’ GDP to that of Finland.

After that, you will be given a multiple-choice test in EU Knowledge or your field of expertise.

And finally, you will do a written test. You will be assessed on how well you can present your ideas in a way your audience will understand.

Politicians, however…

In contrast, politicians in the European Parliament —and any politician—get the job through an arbitrary selection process. Firstly, within their own political parties, and secondly, through elections.

So, without any real demonstration of competence, politicians make decisions on our behalf.

On a grey November afternoon, a lawmaker presses a button—and with it, shifts the course of a country or a continent. They hold referendums on EU membership, make us switch from nuclear to wind and solar, and set conditions for who and how many get to enter our borders.

Locally, politicians decide on how well Granny will be taken care of, how frequently the trams and buses run, and whether your town centre is full of soulless boxes or beautiful and welcoming.

Wouldn’t it be reassuring to know that all our honourable representatives are capable of making sound decisions on the issues that shape our lives? That they didn’t bluff or stumble their way into power? That they can not only read technical reports and scientific papers—but actually understand them, and can draw the right conclusions?

Like knowing that a survey of 100,000 people carries more weight than one with just 1,000. Or understanding that correlation doesn’t imply causation. Watching a lot of TV does not cause an early death. And yes, that they realise, unlike Marjorie Taylor Greene, earthquakes are not caused by climate change.

Wouldn’t it also be reassuring to know that all our lawmakers comprehend statistics? Particularly, since they draw so much on statistics in their arguments. That they understand that a drop in the inflation rate from 6 % to 3 % does not mean lower prices? That they know the difference between average and median?

We demand years of education to become a lawyer or a doctor. A politician seldom has the same palpable impact on an individual as a doctor or a judge has. On the other hand, politicians make decisions about almost everything in our lives, decisions that may affect us for years to come.

So why should they be allowed to do that without any proof that they are up to the job? Why not demand testing similar to that of civil servants in Brussels?

Yes, I know, being able to inspire and persuade is a big part of politics. The same goes for courage, determination and stamina. ‘We shall never surrender,’ Churchill said and lifted the British people through the war.

But the kind of evaluation I am suggesting would only cover the basic requirements. To show that you are fit to enter the race, but not how well you will succeed. It would be like an admission test to a university, something even people of Winston Churchill’s calibre would have to sit.

And no, this wouldn’t exclude less educated candidates — preparation materials should be free and open to everyone.

Subscribe now

Will politicians accept this?

But would any politician agree to this? Some would, especially those confident they would pass. ‘A piece of cake,’ they might say.

We could even start by making it voluntary. Those who take the test could wear it like a badge of honour —and use it as political ammunition. ‘I took the test. What about you, Sam? Not quite up to it?’ After all, politicians often introduce programs as voluntary before making them mandatory, just like they did with child vaccinations or seat belts.

Once we gain enough support both from politicians and the public, the resistance will peter out.

In a previous article, I suggested a test to vote. If that comes to pass, politicians will find it hard to argue against them being tested, too.

Will this work?

Will an evaluation test ‘à la Brussels guarantee’ competent politicians? Who will always make sound decisions? No. But we have a better chance of sifting the potential wheat from the obvious chaff.

------

Yet, we have a worse problem than faltering mental faculties when it comes to politicians. Among those who seek power, we find the ones who should never, ever be granted any power.

Narcissism is much talked about, but few seem to understand what it actually is. Or how dangerous it is. And narcissism in politics is what I’ll talk to you about another time.

Thanks for reading!

Please, subscribe and follow the next episode of 'What should be required to become a politician?'

Subscribe now

Want to find out more?
My main sources for this article:

European Personnel Selection Office

Marjorie Taylor Green

Four tips to avoid being bamboozled by political statistics and data

Our nine-point guide to spotting a dodgy statistic

Vaccine mandates

♦️ This is part 4 of the series: Grown-Up Democracy — on voters, politicians, and who should be allowed to run the world. Read part 1 here: The Problem Isn’t Trump or Orban. It’s Everyone Who Made Them Possible Read part 2 here: A Test to Vote? Could That Save Us from Narcissistic Maniacs? Read part 3 here: What Should Be Required to Become a Politician?

Anyone who has ever worked with a narcissist, and that is most of us, knows what whirl-winding energy suckers they are. While sipping a quiet cup of coffee on a Saturday morning, you may catch yourself rehearsing what to say to your narcissistic boss at Monday’s meeting, how to evade a scolding or whether to accept that boring business trip just to avoid her for a few days. The narcissist has entered your head.

Subscribe now

Narcissists in Politics

Politics is the perfect playground for narcissists, offering them millions of heads to enter. That ensures them a supply of what they are dependent on: Attention. Along with that comes the satisfaction of another prominent urge: Power.

In politics, they can also bring to bear all their charm and manipulation tactics. Their talents for blame-shifting and back-stabbing can find their right elements.

Narcissists have no values or convictions. Hence, as politicians, they are only interested in results that make them look good. They don’t care about hospitals, affordable housing or railways. They break agreements and betray people, often without noticing. Responsibility and consequences are words to be used against other people. They don’t read, they don’t reflect, they don’t listen. As a result, they have very poor judgement.

Narcissists love politics but detest democracy, because the latter puts strains on what they can do.

All of this may sound familiar to you, but one thing is often overlooked when it comes to narcissists.

The narcissist is never alone

The self-serving narcissist who ends up running a country is just the tip of an iceberg.

They are the products of a narcissistic culture. A culture they themselves have helped create, spread and reinforce.

It’s like finding an ant in your house. That ant is never alone. And you probably have a huge and costly problem to deal with.

The man in the White House is the predictable result of an American culture that celebrates narcissism—the race for “success,” the worshipping of fame, the I-am-stupid-and-proud-of-it mentality, the ruthless competition—in short, the me-me-me culture where Jesus and machine guns are a fine combination.

And voila! Out of that hat springs the Orange Man—the leading actor in his reality show called POTUS.*

But Trump is far from the only narcissist ending up in a position of power. It’s quite common. Leaders are more likely to be narcissistic than the rest of the population.

But how exactly does that happen?

The short answer: He or she had cohort after cohort of enchanting enablers.

*POTUS = President Of The United States.

Who are these enablers?

In politics, the obvious enablers are, of course, the voters. I have written about ignorant, enabling voters, so let’s look at other types of enablers. The ones you find within an organisation, be it a company or a political party.

Such enablers come in many flavours, but we can usually distinguish two main groups.

THE EXCUSERS

Firstly, you have the ardent excusers.

They are often idealists, dreaming of a better world, whatever that means to them. However, with strong idealism comes idealising. Idealists put people on pedestals to have objects that can bring about their wonderful world.

And that is what the ardent excusers do.

Hence, they frown upon any hint of criticism of their idols. “You misunderstand her.” “You are too critical of him.”

Before long, the charming facade of the newly arrived narcissist in the office begins to crack. The bullying starts to show itself. So do the terrifying outbursts, the need to have everything their way, the refusal to admit mistakes.

The ardent excuser knows something is wrong but pushes such disturbing thoughts away.

All is well if you pretend hard enough.

The excuses shift to “But she attracts voters.” “She is so capable.”

And the more the facade of the idolised narcissist cracks, the more the excusers double down to avoid their illusion from collapsing like a house of cards. An illusion they have invested so much of their being to uphold.

The excusers become victims of their own consistency. They hide “inside the walls of consistency to protect themselves from the troublesome consequences of thought,” as Robert Cialdini writes in his book “Influence.”

The longer you hang on to that excusing carousel, the more difficult it is to jump off. The excuses move further and further away from the truth, until the excusers hang sideways from the carousel.

Rumours about the narcissist’s sexual assaults are “Nothing but rumours.” Illicit means of funds “Can’t be verified.” Lies become “We all make mistakes.” Making fun of a junior staff member who started to cry is “A bad joke.” Temper tantrums are “Being passionate.”

THE NARCISSISTIC ENABLERS

The other prominent group of enablers are those with narcissistic traits themselves. Like the excusers, they dream of a wonderful world—but with little room for anybody other than themselves.

They are not fully fledged narcissists, but they have self-centred, attention-seeking and thin-skinned tendencies whose moral compasses can swirl in any direction.

The true adults in the organisation have held these people in check, telling the narcissistic Neds and Nancys to act like team players, to let other people shine, so that the whole office can shine together.

But now (finally!) this new guy allows them to be themselves.

Now, the narcissistic enablers understand how underappreciated they have been.

So, when Susan suggests they should consider the results from the Environmental Impact Assessment, the narcissistic enabler leans over, puts on a condescending look and says, “You must understand, Susan, that there are more important issues than the environment.” The real narcissist nods and grunts, “Well, Susan, perhaps you should consider becoming more like Greta? We are looking forward to the pictures of you being chained to a motorway.” The narcissistic enablers do their best to make the laughter sound natural.

There is a pity on Susan, of course, but being nice is so yesterday. And by the way, she is not that good. None of the others is. The narcissistic enablers feel that their shackles are off.

Their walk changes. From cautiously looking to the left and the right, they now stride, telling people to get out of their way.

Don’t come to them with any of that “in this together” nonsense anymore, or the “wider consequences” rubbish.

They are part of the booming band, and don’t you forget it.

Subscribe now

The adults

But what about these true adults I have mentioned?

The true adults have had their doubts about this narcissist from the very beginning, but since they often constitute the minority in any organisation, the majority ignore their objections. “Come on! Look at him. Have you ever seen such talent?!”

And with the narcissist’s booming popularity, drawing the circle of enablers closer, the adults are shut out. It may begin with hints about the adult’s inabilities. That leads to rancid remarks. Followed by ostracism and open bullying. Soon, the adults leave, are being pushed out, or stand alone in a corner, tipping their toes with a mug of lukewarm coffee in their hand.

The true adults may have started their careers because they wanted to create something better. They liked to help people. They made great friends. Now, all that is gone out of the window.

When those adults disappear, the narcissistic party can start.

The narcissistic culture

The party doesn’t last long.

When the narcissists have gathered their cosy circle of yes-saying enablers, love-bombed senior managers, and made sure they get those promotions they are oh, so entitled to, the enablers wake up to the strict rules they must follow.

Don’t criticise the narcissist — not even inadvertently, by mentioning you dislike the colour purple, his or her favourite. “So, purple isn’t good enough for you?!”
Don’t ask inconvenient questions, not even a mild “Why are we doing this?

And always praise. Never, ever forget that. “As Mark suggested — originally an excellent idea of yours, sir...”

Break any of these rules, and you will find yourself in the out-group before you know it.

Some of the ardent excusers may start to get cold feet when reality creeps in, but where can they go? The narcissistic enablers, on the other hand, still believe they are on the winning team. The king or queen of the mountain throws other people under the bus at a whim, but what happens to others will not happen to them. They are too smart.

Before anyone realises what is happening, a transformation has taken place.

Trust is out, fear is in. Next year is out, now is in. Doing the right thing is out, cheating is in. Hearty laughter is out, hurtful jokes are in. Thought-through arguments are out, catch-phrases are in.

A narcissistic culture has been established.

Over time, that culture becomes more and more entrenched.

This is how Ramani Durvasula describes it in her excellent book “Don’t You Know Who I Am?”

Narcissistic and toxic leaders are also masterful at squeezing out dissenting voices.

And she continues … they are able to attract subservient lackeys who keep pumping them up. In this way, toxic leaders end up with toxic colleagues and toxic or brainwashed employees, with everyone joining the delusional chorus of voices to support the regime of the narcissistic leader.

The problem with narcissists is not about a toxic individual coming in and moving out. Enablers let the narcissists in, and once inside, they create a narcissistic culture or strengthen the narcissism that is already there. Unless we see a profound change in the American culture, we can only brace ourselves for the next Trump.

A narcissistic culture­–­­–within his party and beyond––is also why a much less dangerous, but narcissistic Boris Johnson could become prime minister in the UK. And the reason why a populist womaniser like Berlusconi could hold the same position in Italy. Or why a corrupt Sarkozy could be the president of France.

And to clarify: Narcissism is not a left versus right thing. Narcissism can come in any political colour. If anti-materialism and environmental activism are what give the narcissists power and attention, they go for that. They go for anything.

But is it possible to turn this around?

I say yes. As with corruption, it takes many years of hard work, even generations, but it is possible.

A first step in rooting out a narcissistic culture is to prevent new narcissists from getting through the door. That forces the organisation to hire more mature people.

And when it comes to politics, I have suggested that anyone entering politics should undergo testing for mental competence.

Likewise, they should be screened for narcissistic and psychopathic traits.

By the way, there is a strong link between narcissism and psychopathy. As Dr Ramani Durvasula notes, psychopathy can be seen as a more extreme form of narcissism. All psychopaths are narcissists to some extent, though not all narcissists are psychopaths.

Back to screening.

The Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) is a widely recognised and reliable tool, often used in hiring processes.

So, why not make it mandatory for politicians?

It’s about time we ensure our leaders are not dependent on admiration, are contemptuous of democracy, fundamentally untrustworthy and cannibalistic—eating anyone for breakfast, and spitting out the leftovers.

And no matter how much they beg, cry or rumble about going to therapy and “fix” their problems, people high in narcissism or psychopathy should never ever be allowed to run for office.

But one test is not enough. That is why politicians should be evaluated for narcissism and psychopathy every time they take up a new position.

And the higher the office, the more rigorous the evaluation should be. Apart from the NPI test, they should even be evaluated by one or more psychologists.

During such a session, the politician would be tested on issues like:

Does he/she…

· fantasise about unlimited power?

· feel they deserve special treatment?

· recognise their responsibility when something goes wrong?

How does he/she…

· deal with others’ emotions? When somebody is sad or afraid?

· handle criticism?

In such a system, the Orange Man wouldn’t have stood a chance.

The question isn’t whether we can keep narcissists out. We do. The question is whether we have the will.

Links

Symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

Narcissistic Personality Inventory

Pathological power: The danger of governments led by narcissists and psychopaths

Trumps self-admiration

Trump never makes mistakes

A book about narcissism: “Don’t You Know Who I Am?” by Ramani S. Durvasula.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading! Please consider subscribing to learn more about enablers and what we can do to stop the worst among us from becoming our leaders.