Willem de Vlaming (April 2025)
The trumpist flavoured 'dog eat dog' mindset is in part defined by the idea that: realization of individual / national success is blocked by any form of organized domestic or international solidarity, empathy, diversity, equity, inclusion or rule of law.
It strives to optimize the individualization of the competition of the zero-sum fight for a piece of the pie of wealth and happiness — in which one person's / nations gain must come at the expense of another's loss. This requires desconstructing any form of organized domestic or international solidarity, empathy, diversity, equty, inclusion or rule of law.
It is looking at mitigating its trade deficit with a zero sum approach, but not at redistributing its internal wealth diztribution to mitigate the wealth deficit of large parts of its population. It approaches external imbalances, like the trade deficit, with aggressive, zero-sum tactics: tariffs, protectionism, currency manipulation accusations, etc. — as if the key to national prosperity lies in beating other countries in a global competition, or submission.
But internal imbalances, like extreme wealth inequality or the erosion of the middle class, are largely left to "market forces." Redistribution—via taxation, public services, or wealth taxes — is painted as un-American or even socialist. So instead of addressing the internal "wealth deficit", the system prioritizes defending national wealth from outsiders rather than sharing it more fairly within.
This mirrors the belief that success is a personal or national competition, not a collective enterprise. The idea of lifting all boats through solidarity or equitable policy is viewed with suspicion, while domination in global trade is pursued as if it will fix what are really domestic structural issues.
It is almost the direct opposite of the Rhinelandic view on society and business. Which emphasizes social responsibility, fairness, and cooperation. the Rhinelandic view values a balanced approach to economic and social life, where personal success is seen as interconnected with the well-being of the community. In business, the focus is on ethical practices, long-term sustainability, and the welfare of employees and society. The model encourages collaboration over competition, where businesses contribute to social stability and economic equality, and fairness is prioritized over purely individual gain. This approach fosters trust, solidarity, and a strong sense of community, social solidarity, fairness, and collective well-being.
The trumpist flavoured 'dog eat dog' mindset also contrasts with the concept of 'it takes a village to raise a child', which embodies the idea that individual well-being, growth, and success are communal responsibilities. Reflecting values like: shared responsibility; interdependence; empathy and support; long-term investment in collective outcomes
It implies that children (and by extension, people) thrive when surrounded by a supportive, caring community, and institutions.
The trujmpist mindset can lead to systemic neglect: schools underfunded, childcare unaffordable, healthcare tied to personal income, and so on. Because if society doesn’t believe in the "village," then there’s no moral imperative to build or maintain one. The “village” model supports sustainability, equity, and human development, while the hyper-individualist model often maximizes short-term competition and inequality.
Willem de Vlaming, january 2026
MAGA is an authoritarian project, not 'just another' political movement respecting the democratic framework.
MAGA rejects rules-based governance in favor of authoritarian discretionary, disproportionate, and often unaccountable uses of power, including the normalization of (lethal) force. Weaponizing law and lawenforcement. Normalizing extortion and intimidation — directed at citizens, officials, cities, states, allies, and adversaries — as structural features of its political practice. At its core, MAGA entails the intentional erosion of democratic rule of law, pluralistic open society, and internationally recognized human rights. intentional erosion of democratic rule of law, pluralistic open society, and internationally recognized human rights.
Narcissistic Antisocial Personality
(traits match narcissistic pathology, especially in positions of absolute power)
> Grandiosity (believing himself as the greatest ... )
> Need for admiration in extremis
> Sensitivity to criticism
> Impulsivity and recklessness
> Disregard for social norms and laws
> Lack of remorse
> Lack of empathy
Potential risk of developing Paranoid traits
> Increasingly suspicious
> Obsessed with plots and conspiracies
Malignant Narcissism (descriptive, not a DSM diagnosis)
When grandiosity + entitlement + callousness + aggression + antisocial behavior combine, clinicians often descriptively refer to this as malignant narcissism. Key features of this overlap:
> Exploitation without guilt
> Hostility when ego is threatened
> Manipulation for power or dominance
> Emotional coldness paired with arrogance
Placing someone with strong narcissistic and antisocial traits into a position of near-uncontrolled power tends to produce a predictable and escalating pattern. Political psychology, clinical theory, and historical cases converge strongly on this outcome.
Theatrical narcissist leaders are best managed not by persuasion or appeasement, but by denying spectacle, enforcing predictable consequences, embedding interactions in institutions, and making coercion costly while preserving face-saving exits.
Understand the psychology, theatrical narcissist leaders typically:
> Crave attention, dominance, and public validation
> View politics as zero-sum and personal
> Prefer bilateral deals they can control over rules-based systems
> Use fear and unpredictability as leverage
> Mistake conciliation for weakness
Implication: You cannot “convert” them with norms or moral appeals. You must shape incentives and constraints.
Control the stage (deny narcissistic supply)
> Avoid public humiliation and public appeasement
> Do not negotiate in media-saturated settings they can exploit
> Keep responses boring, procedural, and collective
Tactic: Use quiet diplomacy + loud multilateralism. Let institutions, not individuals, deliver messages.
Make intimidation expensive and predictable, break their leverage over time.
> Respond consistently, not emotionally
> Pre-signal consequences clearly and privately
> Follow through every time, even on small violations
Rule: Unpredictable actors must face predictable responses.
Shift from bilateral to multilateral containment, transactional strongmen excel at one-on-one coercion.
> Lock interactions into treaties, alliances, and institutions
> Share intelligence and coordinate sanctions
> Use joint statements and collective red lines
This removes their ability to pick off weaker actors and play allies against each other
Decouple cooperation from personal loyalty, Response strategy:
(They often demand, personal allegiance, political favors, bribes disguised as “deals” or “support”)
> Tie cooperation strictly to verifiable actions
> Use mechanisms, not trust (escrow, phased benefits, snapback clauses)
> Avoid discretionary rewards they can later claim as tribute
Domestically: strengthen institutions, not leaders Key defenses:
(At home, they weaponize patronage and fear.)
> Independent courts and prosecutors
> Protected civil service and military professionalism
> Transparent budgeting and procurement
> Decentralization of power
Insight: Narcissistic rulers are strong against people, weak against systems.
Use asymmetric pressure, not moral lectures, public shaming often backfires. More effective:
> Targeted sanctions on inner circles
> Legal exposure (corruption, money laundering, travel restrictions)
> Strategic leaks through credible third parties
> Economic diversification to reduce dependency
Preserve off-ramps (without rewarding bad behavior), They fear humiliation and loss of control. So:
> Offer face-saving exits
> Avoid cornering them rhetorically
> Separate behavior from identity
> This reduces escalation while maintaining firmness.
Think in time horizons, not events
> These leaders often: Burn bright, Overextend, Alienate allies, Hollow out institutions
> Winning strategy: patience, cohesion, and endurance.
PHASES OF NARCISSIST LEADERSHIP
1. Early Phase: Charisma, Energy, and Apparent Strength
At first, such individuals often thrive in power. What observers see
> Confidence mistaken for competence
> Decisiveness mistaken for leadership
> Grand visions framed as destiny or greatness
> Rule-breaking framed as “necessary boldness”
Why this works
> Narcissistic grandiosity aligns well with leadership symbolism
> Antisocial fearlessness reduces hesitation
> Early success reinforces the belief of personal infallibility
➡️ This is often the phase where supporters become emotionally invested.
2. Consolidation Phase: Centralization of Power
As power increases, tolerance for constraints collapses.
Behavioral shifts
> Institutions are bypassed or hollowed out
> Loyalists replace experts
> Laws are selectively enforced or ignored
> Personal loyalty becomes more important than competence
Psychological drivers
> Rules are experienced as narcissistic injury
> Opposition is felt as humiliation, not disagreement
> Empathy is absent, so harm to others carries no internal cost
➡️ Checks and balances are reframed as “obstacles” or “enemies.”
3. Escalation Phase: Punishment of Criticism
Sensitivity to criticism becomes the central organizing force.
Typical responses
> Retaliation against critics
> Public shaming, legal harassment, or violence
> Information control (propaganda, censorship)
> Increasing personalization of power (“I am the state”)
Key dynamic
Criticism → perceived threat → impulsive retaliation → increased fear → more criticism → more repression
➡️ The system begins orbiting the leader’s ego.
4. Moral Collapse: Normalization of Harm
With no remorse or empathy, cruelty becomes instrumental.
Outcomes
> Violence or coercion justified as “necessary”
> Human lives reduced to tools or symbols
> Corruption escalates without restraint
> Risk-taking increases (wars, purges, economic gambles)
Why it worsens
> No internal brakes
> No learning from failure
> Failures blamed on betrayal rather than error
➡️ Suffering becomes invisible to the decision-maker.
5. Paranoid Turn: Power Creates Enemies
Over time, paranoid traits often emerge, even if they weren’t present initially.
Mechanism
> The leader knows they exploit, lie, and violate norms
> This creates constant expectation of retaliation
> Suspicion becomes adaptive—then pathological
Behavioral signs
> Obsession with plots and conspiracies
> Purges of former allies
> Loyalty tests
> Increasing isolation and echo chambers
➡️ Fear replaces confidence.
6. Endgame Patterns (One of Three)
A. Violent Collapse: Overreach triggers rebellion, coup, or assassination
B. Entrenched Tyranny: System survives but stagnates under repression and fear
C. Self-Destruction: Impulsive decisions accelerate downfall
Leader becomes increasingly detached from reality
In all cases, the damage is asymmetric: the population pays the highest cost.
7. Why This Pattern Is So Consistent: It’s driven by core psychological mechanics
Power removes external brakes, and these personalities lack internal brakes.
Trait Effect in Absolute Power
Grandiosity Reality distortion
Lack of empathy No moral restraint
Lack of remorse No learning
Sensitivity to criticism Repression
Impulsivity Catastrophic decisions
Paranoia Purges and instability
Near-uncontrolled power does not corrupt this personality type — it reveals and amplifies it.
Such individuals:
> Become increasingly authoritarian
> Cause escalating harm
> Grow more paranoid and unstable over time
> Are rarely satisfied, secure, or benevolent rulers
> This is why stable systems are built around limiting power, not trusting character.
january 2026
Willem de Vlaming
Critics perceive that some MAGA-aligned leaders and voters are more tolerant of intimidation, coercion, or threats — both domestically and internationally — than earlier mainstream U.S. political traditions. Several factors help explain why this can seem acceptable to them.
Note: Not all Republicans, conservatives, or even MAGA voters endorse intimidation or coercion. Some oppose these methods and argue they damage democracy, alliances, and long-term U.S. interests. The divide reflects a real ideological fracture within the American right.
IDEOLOGICAL COMPONENTS
A transactional view of power and politics
MAGA politics often frames governance as a zero-sum deal-making arena, closer to business negotiations than institutional democracy. In this worldview: 1) leverage matters more than norms; 2) threats, pressure, and “hardball” tactics are seen as legitimate tools; 3) outcomes justify methods if they “win” or “protect national interests.” This makes coercion feel pragmatic rather than unethical.
Strongman and authoritarian preferences
Many MAGA supporters express admiration for leaders who: 1) “dominate” opponents; 2) ignore procedural constraints; 3) Act decisively without compromise. Authoritarian political psychology tends to prioritize order, loyalty, and force over pluralism and rule-based restraint. Intimidation can therefore be reframed as “intimidation is strength.”
Deep distrust of institutions and norms
There is widespread belief in MAGA circles that: 1) courts, media, intelligence agencies, and elections are rigged; 2) traditional norms only protect elites and enemies; 3) rules are selectively enforced against conservatives. If institutions are viewed as illegitimate, then breaking norms feels justified, even necessary.
Moral tribalism and enemy framing
Politics is often framed as: 1) “Us vs. them”; 2) patriots vs. traitors, 3) friends vs. enemies of the nation. When opponents are cast as existential threats, coercion becomes morally permissible, because it’s aimed at “bad actors,” not fellow citizens or good-faith allies.
Media ecosystem reinforcement
Right-wing media ecosystems frequently: 1) normalize threats and aggressive rhetoric; 2) portray coercive behavior as toughness; 3) downplay or justify abuses when committed by “their side”. This repetition can desensitize audiences and redefine what counts as acceptable conduct.
Rejection of liberal internationalism
In foreign policy, many MAGA-aligned figures reject: 1) multilateralism; 2) diplomacy-first approaches; 3) alliances based on shared values. They instead favor power-based realism, where pressuring allies, threatening rivals, or withholding support is viewed as smart leverage rather than extortion.
Grievance and perceived victimhood
A sense of being culturally, politically, or economically “under siege” leads some supporters to believe: 1) normal rules no longer protect them; 2) extraordinary measures are justified; 3) retaliation is self-defense. This mindset lowers resistance to coercive tactics.
Core Pattern: “Ends Justify Means” Politics
Across authoritarian movements, intimidation, coercion, and blackmail are framed not as moral failings but as **necessary tools** in an existential struggle. MAGA-aligned politics shares this logic with several historical and contemporary cases.
MAGA-style tolerance for coercion fits a well-documented historical pattern, not an anomaly. What distinguishes it is context, not logic: The logic is authoritarian. The context is "democratic", although hanging by a thread.
Authoritarian Reasonings:
> Moral legitimacy comes from loyalty to the nation, not adherence to rules.
> Fear of infiltration justifies intimidation.
> Power is personal, not institutional; loyalty outweighs law.
> Democracy is redefined as winning elections, not respecting constraints.
> Emergency mentality becomes permanent governance.
> Moral certainty eliminates ethical restraint.
---
# Interwar Fascism (Italy, Germany, Spain)
Shared traits:
> Politics framed as a struggle for national survival
> Enemies labeled as traitors, degenerates, or subversives
> Legal norms dismissed as weak or corrupt
> Violence or threats justified as “restoring order”
Comparison:
> Fascists openly embraced state violence.
> MAGA politics is constrained by democratic institutions, so coercion is often **informal, rhetorical, or procedural** (threats, pressure campaigns, withholding aid, legal intimidation) rather than paramilitary.
Key similarity:
> Moral legitimacy comes from loyalty to the nation, not adherence to rules.
# McCarthyism / Cold War Authoritarianism (U.S.)
Shared traits:
> Loyalty tests
> Guilt by association
> Accusations replacing evidence
> Career and reputation destruction as political weapons
Comparison:
> MAGA rhetoric echoes McCarthy-era logic: *“If you dissent, you’re helping the enemy.”*
> Coercion is framed as **defensive purification**, not aggression.
Key similarity:
> Fear of infiltration justifies intimidation.
# Putin’s Russia
Shared traits
> Strongman leadership
> Transactional foreign policy
> Use of leverage, threats, and kompromat
> Blurred line between state power and personal loyalty
Comparison
> Putin uses actual blackmail and state violence.
> MAGA politics often **praises** this model rhetorically while lacking the same enforcement capacity.
Key similarity
> Power is personal, not institutional; loyalty outweighs law.
# Orbán’s Hungary
Shared traits
> “Illiberal democracy” framing
> Attacks on courts, media, and NGOs
> Electoral legitimacy used to justify norm-breaking
> Pressure on allies and institutions rather than outright force
Comparison
> Orbán provides perhaps the **closest structural parallel**.
> Coercion is legalistic and procedural, not openly violent.
Key similarity
> Democracy is redefined as winning elections, not respecting constraints.
# Erdoğan’s Turkey
Shared traits
> Permanent crisis narrative
> Purges justified as national defense
> Opposition cast as terrorists or coup supporters
> Heavy use of intimidation and prosecutions
Comparison
> Erdoğan consolidated power after a real coup attempt.
> MAGA politics treats perceived threats (elections, courts, media) as equivalent existential dangers.
Key similarity
> Emergency mentality becomes permanent governance.
## Maoist and Revolutionary Authoritarian Movements
Shared traits
> Moral absolutism
> Ends justify means
> Enemies dehumanized
> “Correct” ideology overrides legality
Comparison
> Ideology differs completely, but the logic is identical
> Coercion is righteous if aimed at “wrong thinkers.”
Key similarity
> Moral certainty eliminates ethical restraint.
## Key Differences Worth Noting
To avoid false equivalence:
> MAGA operates (still) within a still-functioning democratic system (but under threath)
> Violence is (still) mostly rhetorical or indirect --- but law enforcement is being weaponized
> Opposition still exists and wins elections
> Courts, states, and civil society (still) retain autonomy
This places MAGA politics (for the time being) in the category political scientists call:
> Competitive authoritarianism or authoritarian populism — not full authoritarian rule. (Yet)
## Why This Pattern Repeats
Authoritarian movements tend to:
1. Treat politics as war
2. Define enemies broadly
3. View norms as obstacles
4. Elevate loyalty over law
5. Normalize coercion as strength
Once those conditions exist, intimidation and blackmail no longer feel unethical — they feel responsible.