DISORDER(S): One type is part of medical science!

SATURDAY, AUGUST 24, 2024

A second type is not: Today, as we finish a week on disorder, we'll largely blow past the latest unusual plan. 

We'll move on that (latest) very strange statement. Still, the brief report on that plan by the New York Times started off like this:

Fund-Raiser for Jan. 6 Defendants Will Be Held at Trump’s Golf Club

A nonprofit organization that supports people charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is set to hold a legal fund-raiser for the rioters next month at former President Donald J. Trump’s private golf club in Bedminster, N.J.

The event—billed as the J6 Awards Gala and hosted by the Stand in the Gap Foundation—is scheduled to take place at the golf club on Sept. 5, according to an online announcement, with tickets costing up to $50,000 for a table for 12. The money is being raised to pay for legal fees for those being prosecuted for their roles on Jan. 6, when a mob stormed the Capitol to protest Mr. Trump’s loss in the 2020 election.

While the announcement lists Mr. Trump as an “invited guest speaker,” Mr. Trump does not plan to attend the event, according to a person familiar with his plans. Mr. Trump’s former lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, is also listed as an invited speaker, but a representative for Mr. Giuliani did not respond to a request for confirmation.

Regardless of whether Mr. Trump will be present, it is an unusual—and potentially risky—move to permit a soiree supporting those who stormed the Capitol to be held at one of his most recognizable properties just as his presidential campaign goes full speed for its final few months.

Does it make sense to hold an "Awards Gala" of this type? As always, opinions will differ.

Will the proceeds support people who are accurately described as "rioters?" At this point, we can't say. For the record, we find no sign that the Washington Post—or the Associated Press—has published a report on this "unusual move" at all.

For now, we set this matter aside. Today, as we finish a week's rumination, we return to a very strange statement by Candidate Trump. As noted, the statement was so extremely strange that it's hard to know how to describe it:

Has anyone noticed that Kamala CHEATED at the airport? There was nobody at the plane, and she “A.I.’d” it, and showed a massive “crowd” of so-called followers, BUT THEY DIDN’T EXIST! She was turned in by a maintenance worker at the airport when he noticed the fake crowd picture, but there was nobody there, later confirmed by the reflection of the mirror like finish on the Vice Presidential Plane. She’s a CHEATER. She had NOBODY waiting, and the “crowd” looked like 10,000 people! Same thing is happening with her fake “crowds” at her speeches. This is the way the Democrats win Elections, by CHEATING—And they’re even worse at the Ballot Box. She should be disqualified because the creation of a fake image is ELECTION INTERFERENCE. Anyone who does that will cheat at ANYTHING!

"Behold the full lunacy of this message," Jonathan Chait wrote at New York magazine. Stating the obvious, Chait's assessment is perfectly understandable. 

On its face, Chait's statement make perfect sense. Also, like many others, Chait spoke colloquially, avoiding clinical language.

Within the past few weeks, the euphemisms have been general over the mainstream press corps as Candidate Trump has engaged in strange behaviors and has issued extremely strange statements. Before the fall campaign gets started, we think we should restate a basic, blindingly obvious point—a point we've discussed, in more detail than we'll offer today, many times in the past.

We return to a point we've made about a clinical type of "disorder." The point we'd make is this:

Routinely, Candidate Trump engages in behavior which seems to match established symptoms for at least a pair of (severe) "personality disorders." We're referring to clinical types of "disorder"—to disorders which are an established part of contemporary medical science,

For better or worse, the news orgs of the mainstream press have agreed that this topic cannot be discussed. That said, averting our gaze from an obvious possibility doesn't mean that it's not so.

Presumably, (clinical) "personality disorders" are part of modern medical science. That said, the standard list of symptoms for "antisocial personality disorder" reads like a checklist of the stranger behaviors of Donald J. Trump—like a checklist of symptoms of the man who engaged in "the full lunacy" of that latest statement.

For the Mayo Clinic's list of such symptoms, you can just click here. For the Cleveland Clinic's list of symptoms, you can just click this. 

For the record, and for what it's worth:

According to this report in Psychology Today, the presence of "sociopathy" may not be as rare as a layperson might think. It's generally said that "antisocial personality disorder" is the clinical term associated with the syndrome which is colloquially described as "sociopathy."

All "sociopaths" aren't Hannibal Lectors! According to this report in Psychology Today, their prevalence in the society may be greater than you might think: 

Are Narcissists and Sociopaths Increasing?

Personality disorders are a significant, but barely recognized, public health problem in the United States and around the world. Two personality disorders, in particular, cause a great deal of disruption in the workplace, conflict in marital relationships, and are prevalent in criminal populations. And they appear to be increasing.

In 1994, the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published (the DSM-IV). It stated that estimates of the prevalence of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) were “less than 1% in the general population.” Regarding sociopaths (the DSM uses the equivalent term Antisocial Personality Disorder or ASPD), it said that overall prevalence “in community samples is about 3% in males and 1% in females.”

Between 2001 and 2005, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded the largest study ever done regarding the prevalence of personality disorders in the United States. Structured interviews were done with approximately 35,000 people who were randomly selected to be representative of the U.S. adult population in a variety of ways including age, income, gender and region. This study found that 6.2% of the general population would meet the criteria for NPD3 and 3.7% would meet the criteria for ASPD (5.5% male and 1.9% female).

According to that large study, 5.5% of adult males could be diagnosed with that particular (clinical) disorder. Presumably, some such people are more strongly affected that others, though we see almost no discussion of such matters within the mainstream press.

Is "something wrong" with Donald J. Trump? Is something wrong with Candidate Trump in the clinical sense?

Like many other statements, that latest statement by Candidate Trump qualifies, in colloquial terms, as being completely crazy. Chait said the statement displays a "full lunacy"—and Chait's assessment make obvious sense.

With many such manifestations in mind, we ask an obvious question:

Is presidential candidate Donald J. Trump in the grip of some (clinical) disorder? 

Is Trump disordered in some clinical sense. If so, what exactly does that mean? What might some such assessment suggest?

This nation's major news orgs have agreed that this obvious possibility, and those obvious questions, must never be discussed. For that reason, the best-selling 2017 book edited by Dr. Bandy X. Lee was almost completely disappeared by the mainstream press. 

Indeed, before the entire episode was done, Dr. Lee had lost her position at Yale.

We've discussed this state of affairs many times in the past. We cite it again today out of a sense of responsibility to the possibility that something resembling a history of this political era will be written in some future century.

It seems to us that attention must be paid! At present, for better or for worse, the mainstream press has agreed, almost without any exception, that medical specialists must not be consulted about the former president's transparently "lunatic" conduct.

It seems to us that a second type of "disorder" may thereby be rearing its head. It's a disorder of modern mainstream journalism—or it may just be a defect.

How is it possible? How is it possible that a nominee for president can make transparently lunatic claims without the profusion of such claims receiving full focus within the mainstream press?

"Behold the full lunacy of this message," Chait quite sensibly said. By now, though, something else must be said:

"Full lunacy" has been widely normalized within the mainstream press.

No politician is perfect. That said, very few are visibly crazy in the colloquial sense.

Very few publish statements which are so transparently crazy that they can be said to traffic in "full lunacy." This particular candidate does.

In Dr. Lee's best-selling book, thirty-seven medical / psychological specialists said that this particular candidate's behavior suggested the existence of a "dangerous" type of (clinical) disorder.

The best-selling book was disappeared within the mainstream press. Today, the candidate's statements are often even crazier, and they've been widely normalized.

In his latest peculiar bit of behavior, the candidate is allowing his Bedminster property to be the site of a seemingly strange "Awards Gala." To our ear, this seems like very strange behavior. 

Needless to say, there is no law which says that everyone must agree with that assessment. That said, the report in the Times was rather brief, and it never appeared in print editions. We find no sign that the Washington Post or the Associated Pres have reported on this matter at all.

Has "full lunacy" been normalized in this unusual era? Among other manifestations, this era started with the mainstream press corps inventing weird statements by one White House contender and repeating those invented statements for two years.

Now, the further unraveling which defines the era has brought us to this:

The candidate says that no one was present at a jam-packed event, then agrees to hosts an Awards Gala, apparently for violent rioters. The New York Times posts a short report. The AP and the Post don't bother.

Dearest readers, think way back:

"Rappaccini! And is this the upshot of your experiment?"

So Hawthorne's Giovanni cried, at the end of a chain of events which ended very poorly.

Next week: On the verge of the fall campaign, a wide array of concerns