10 COMMON MISTAKES WITH HIGH-CONFLICT POLITICIANS

In the examples in the prior chapters in this book, a minority of enthusiastic citizens made the mistake—or are currently making the mistake—of following Wannabe Kings to their own doom as well as everyone else’s. In most cases, this minority was only 30 to 40 percent of the adult population. The other 60 to 70 percent of the potential electorate either opposed or came to oppose these HCP Wannabe Kings, but they too made many mistakes that no one should make in the future.

Mostly, they either believed and followed the Wannabe King, or allowed themselves to be split into at least three other groups, which allowed these Wannabe Kings to take power, and then gain more power, until they became unstoppable. As we have seen, after HCPs are elected and dismantle their democracies to impose authoritarian rule, it takes outside forces to stop them. We can no longer afford to let that happen anywhere in the world, so we must learn from the common mistakes so many have made.

Mistake 1: Missing the Warning Signs

In every case in this book, voters missed how dangerous and deceptive these HCP Wannabe Kings were until it was too late or almost too late. Some never varied from supporting their narcissistic and/or sociopathic leaders. In some cases, voters paid with their lives for not realizing that their endlessly aggressive HCP would turn on them eventually. You might wonder whether these voters and leaders saw any warning signs and had any doubts about the HCP early on when they could have voted against them.

The reality is that most didn’t. They saw individual behaviors in isolation (a serious insult, a physical assault against someone else, a cruel joke, and so on) and didn’t recognize that these individual behaviors were warning signs of patterns of future behavior. When you hitch your wagon to someone as grandiose, cruel, and lacking in empathy and remorse as these Wannabe Kings, you’re going to get worse behavior in the future, not better. These voters naively believed the opposite.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao routinely killed their closest colleagues to remove any perceived threats. Putin, Orban, Trump, and others appear to fire their closest colleagues on a regular basis to remove perceived threats or simply to show everyone who’s boss. If everyone knew that high-conflict politicians are always adversarial and endlessly aggressive toward everyone (as you now know), then they would realize what was coming and that their loyalty means nothing to a Wannabe King even though the Wannabe King demands it all along.

I am hoping that this book will provide this general awareness and specific knowledge. It’s important to know that this is an area of knowledge that you may not have needed in the past when there were fewer of these personalities present and they had less ability to impact your life. Now everyone needs to know these personality patterns and the warning signs.

Mistake 2: Believing in Fantasy Crises

Most of the high-conflict politicians described in this part of the book spent very little time explaining why their “crisis” was real and needed emergency action. They just presented it emotionally and quickly moved on to talk about their alleged villains and how they, the HCPs, were the “heroes.” The crises became a given, an assumption.

In Germany, Loyalists just accepted that their loss of World War I, the reparations they had to pay to France, and the shambles of their economy were crises that could be blamed on a small group (1 percent) of people: Jews. Stalin and the Soviet government created famines in Russia and Ukraine, and then blamed them on the uncooperative peasants, the successful small farmers—the kulaks—who had worked hard doing what they thought was right. Mao created a devastating famine as well and destroyed the administrative and professional classes in an effort to protect the country from his own fantasy crises.

Orban and Trump have their immigrant “crises.” Putin has his propaganda of homosexuals “crisis.” Maduro’s “crisis” was the counter-revolutionaries who were elected to the legislature among others.

Nowadays, this is where other politicians and the media make some of their biggest mistakes. They don’t explain to the public why the supposed crisis is or is not a crisis—and that it might not even be a problem that needs solving. Instead, they uniformly focus on emotions—how people feel about the crisis, the villains, and the heroes. Journalists often interview alleged villains, alleged heroes, and everyday people and then ask how they feel.

And how does that make you feel? they ask. And how do you feel about what so-and-so said about you-know-who today? And how do you feel about this politician? Would you still vote for him today? Thank you. No useful information is provided in these types of conversations.

It’s all about high emotions and high-conflict behavior that grab your attention. It’s rarely about thoroughly examining the facts and honestly reporting that many of these alleged crises are actually nonexistent—or are problems that are already being or can be well-managed or solved.

Mistake 3: Believing in Fantasy Villains

Many people come to believe that the alleged villains really are villains. In the 1930s in the Soviet Union, the urban-based young revolutionaries went to the rural peasants in Ukraine to convince them to give up their small plots of land and join collectivized farms. They were convinced that these farmers were counterrevolutionaries and the cause of people being at risk of starving in the cities, when it was actually the Soviet government’s policies that were causing food shortages.

A more recent example of this is the highly negative views of Hillary Clinton that were evoked by Donald Trump during the 2016 presidential election campaign. Trump said she was the most corrupt politician that had ever run for president, and he lead his followers in chants (even at the national Republican Party convention) to “Lock her up!” over her emails. Through this emotional repetition of such strong language, he gradually persuaded many people, even people who had decided that they would never vote for Trump, that Clinton was equally awful, so they would never vote for her either.

It is also amazing to see how successfully Vladimir Putin ran against his American villains (Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and US Ambassador McFaul) in his successful 2012 election bid for a third term as president.

Mistake 4: Believing in the Fantasy Hero

It was and is tempting to want a strongman form of leadership during a crisis. Narcissists and sociopaths know this, so they start their rise to power by persuading the nation there’s a crisis that requires them to be the hero. If a population believes in this fantasy crisis, then they are much more likely to look for and accept a high-conflict politician as a good choice for leader. This is the message that Wannabe Kings have promoted through the ages—I alone can fix this. Many people believe that this is true—We need a strongman like this—and that this is the person who should fulfill that role. But instead, they should recognize this statement as a warning sign.

Appearing strong helps Wannabe Kings gain and keep support from their followers. This appearance seems to be more important than actually doing things well. The following was written in May 2018, sixteen months into Trump’s presidency and five months after he got a tax cut bill through congress:

Wannabe Kings know that, above all else, they need to appear strong. And, as con artists, they are particularly skilled at making themselves into what their followers are looking for.

Mistake 5: Believing the HCP Has Been Victimized and Needs to Be Defended

From day one, Wannabe Kings present themselves to their followers as being victimized by their “villains.” They ask for their followers’ assistance in attacking these fantasy villains. This is a standard tactic of most narcissists and sociopaths, even those who have no interest in politics or leadership. It appears to be a natural trait for them: the HCPs get sympathy from others and then use it to get assistance in attacking the HCPs’ Targets of Blame. This tactic works most of the time on the unwary. This is why understanding the traits of narcissists and sociopaths is such necessary knowledge for everyone in our modern times.

In Turkey, President Erdoğan appears to have traits of an HCP Wannabe King. He has repeatedly emphasized that the European Union is treating him unfairly and therefore, by extension, treating the citizens of Turkey unfairly, since the EU is reluctant to accept Turkey as a new member. In 2018, President Trump tried to isolate Erdoğan by imposing economic sanctions and public rebukes in an effort to quickly free a Christian minister who was being detained there. This tactic ended up helping Erdoğan:

So far, being attacked by Trump appears to have brought Erdoğan sympathy, not only with his own country’s citizens, but with other leaders. But as the reality of economic problems increases, at some point his followers may realize that he is a fantasy hero and not a victim—and not the wonderful leader they thought he was.

Mistake 6: Believing the HCP Can Be Controlled

This common mistake is made with all narcissists and sociopaths. In the case of Adolf Hitler, many of those in business and government saw him as relatively harmless and controllable.

One banker with a history of working with the democratic government in the 1920s, Hjalmar Schacht, told an American reporter, Edgar Mowrer, that he was going to be meeting with Hitler in 1932:

How wrong they were.

Likewise, when Donald Trump became president, many who elected him said that he would act “more presidential” once he got into office. He even made fun of this idea at rallies after being elected by pretending to be a serious and staid politician and then asking the crowd “You don’t really want me to be like that, do you?” And of course, the crowd would respond with a resounding “No!”

Such actions reinforce the idea that now the number one goal of a president is to be entertaining. The idea that politics has completely merged with entertainment is continually reinforced by Trump’s public behavior and the media’s response to it. Yet few see this as a predictable part of the endlessly aggressive pattern of a Wannabe King. Power makes them more aggressive, not less.

Mistake 7: Treating Moderate Opponents as Enemies

In all of the cases described in this part, opposition to the high-conflict politician is divided. In the case of Hitler, the Social Democrats and other parties in Berlin were constantly squabbling and he took great advantage of that. Both the Nazis and the Communists attacked the Social Democrats and weakened them significantly. If the opposition had somehow joined together with the Moderates, rather than attacking them and each other, they could have stopped him.

In the 2016 primaries for the presidential election in the United States, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party attacked the moderate candidate, Hillary Clinton. And the Democratic Party apparatus apparently manipulated the primary process against the progressive candidate, Bernie Sanders. As described in Chapter 8, if they had stopped fighting earlier, they might have been able to beat Donald Trump.

It appears essential for those who don’t want an authoritarian leader to avoid dividing themselves, including attacking moderate opponents as if they are an enemy. Doing so just reinforces the process of weakening Moderates and strengthening the likely authoritarian party.

Mistake 8: Treating the Resisters as Enemies

By the same token, Moderate opponents of a potential authoritarian leader should be careful not to treat the more angry or extreme opponents (Resisters) as enemies. In the Sanders-Clinton primary contest, enough negative things were said about Sanders by the Moderates that many of his followers were pushed away. As we saw, the Moderates needed these votes if they were going to defeat the authoritarian candidate (Trump).

Likewise, it’s important not to try to shut down the angry energy of strong opponents for fear of upsetting the Wannabe King’s followers. After all, these Loyalists are unlikely to be swayed to vote against their candidate anyway. Their bond is emotional; any logical criticism of their HCP’s policies will miss the mark, and any personal criticism of their HCP will just cause the Loyalists to circle the wagons to defend their candidate.

The success of the “resistance” in holding massive peaceful demonstrations after Trump was inaugurated in January 2017 appears to have set limits on his extreme policies in several areas, for a while at least. It also energized the Democratic Party to run many new candidates for office, especially women. Whether on the right or on the left politically, it’s important for Moderates to work with the more angry/energized members of their parties in order to block a Wannabe King. The mid-term election in 2018, as described above in Chapter 8, appeared to be a successful coming together of Moderates and Resisters.

Mistake 9: Treating Dropouts as Enemies

In many of these elections, many eligible people avoided voting. If these nonvoters knew then what they know now, they probably would have voted against the Wannabe King. As described in Chapter 8, only 61 percent of eligible voters took part in the 2016 US presidential election. Only 49 percent of millennials voted.²⁵⁷ Yet these elections will determine their future the most.

It’s common for Wannabe Kings to attack the democratic process of elections and to say that they are rigged, in order to discourage their opponents from voting. This apathy helps them get into power. Such a candidate may go on to justify their antidemocratic policies by saying that people don’t want to bother with democracy. “It’s too much squabbling,” as Hitler used to point out about democracy before he took power and became a dictator.²⁵⁸

It is tempting for party politicians and campaigners to be highly critical of those who don’t vote. However, rather than treating Dropouts as enemies, it may be better to educate them more about the dangers and warning signs of high-conflict politicians. After all, if one is elected without their vote, they will live many more years under a repressive government. All of the stories in this book show how which personality gets elected really does make a difference. It just takes one to alter history, and not for the better. There is a “difference between a Stalin and a Gorbachev,” as Steven Pinker has pointed out.²⁵⁹

Mistake 10: Treating Loyalists as Enemies

As I have stated before, it’s important not to speak negatively of the HCP’s Loyalists, as nothing positive is accomplished by doing so. Treating them as enemies just strengthens their bond with the HCP. Be respectful in all your statements about them, just as you would be about any other group. The worst thing is to call them “deplorables,” or stupid, or use words like “crush” or “destroy” in relation to them in an election. Even when these are stated to small supportive groups, word gets out. It’s better to speak as though your words will show up in the daily news. And sometimes they do!

Conclusion

The takeaway from all of this is that we need to be aware of and respectful of all voters. At the same time, we need to communicate the dangers and deceptions a Wannabe King can present. Part III looks at what we can do to communicate with people about this subject without offending them. There is no benefit for anyone in making enemies while we are trying to prevent another Wannabe King from taking or staying in power.