Tuesday, March 10, 2026

Is Trump a Lunatic?

“Not since Adolf Hitler blew his brains out in a bunker beneath the garden of the German Reich Chancellery on April 30, 1945, have the lives of so many people around the world been so buffeted by the psychosis of a single man.” Those striking words posted by David Rothkopf on March 7 led to the writing of this blog article. 
David Rothkopf

It was early on the morning of March 8 that I read Rothkopf’s words cited above, and I have been thinking about them ever since. Heather Cox Richardson included those words in her March 7 Substack post, and when she quotes and makes positive statements about someone, I pay attention.

I had never heard of David Rothkopf before reading his March 7 Substack post, which began with the words cited above. The title of his article is “Living in a Time of Lunatics and Monsters,” and he has good reason to call Hitler a lunatic/monster. Rothkopf is Jewish, and during the Holocaust, his father, Ernst, was able to escape from Europe and come to the United States.

However, more than three dozen of Ernst’s (and, thus, David’s) relatives were killed, as were most of his childhood friends. One aunt had the misfortune to live with her husband and children in Oswiecim, Poland—the town the Germans called Auschwitz.

Even though I had not heard of David Rothkopf (b. 1955), he has written ten books and more than 1,000 articles on international themes for many mainstream publications such as The New York Times and Foreign Affairs.

It is quite clear to me that what he posted in his March 7 “Need to Know” Substack article should be considered with resolute seriousness.

Rothkopf’s article is the sharpest criticism of a U.S. President that I have ever read—and for good reason. That is what makes his piece so important—and so alarming. In his second paragraph, he asserts that

[indent] at this moment in history, the fate of virtually everyone on the planet is being impacted by the toxic cocktail of character flaws, insecurities, and pathologies that are shaping the actions of the President of the United States.

Many of us are incensed that the POTUS has started a war against Iran, and Rothkopf’s criticism is strong, indeed. He says that Trump launched that war “on a whim.” Why? Not only because “he’s insane,” but also because “he’s a malignant narcissist,” “a sociopath,” and “has a fragile ego.”

Trump’s “lunacy,” referring to Rothkopf’s term, is seen in the following ways (among a multitude of others):

** The reason/purpose for his ordering the bombing of Iran is completely unclear. Trump has suggested various reasons, but it seems that even he doesn’t know why he decided to do that—or that he won’t admit what his motive was. (Epstein files? Increasing cost of living prices? Falling polling numbers? All of the above? Something else? Who knows!)

** His calling for an “unconditional surrender of Iran” and even suggesting that perhaps he should pick the new ayatollah—which certainly would not have been the son of the ayatollah who was chosen to rule just two or three days ago.

** And now, he has suggested the takeover of Cuba, perhaps in a manner similar to the U.S. intervention in Venezuela on January 3. Perhaps that would align well with his changing the name Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, a name nobody outside the U.S. uses.

In addition, there is the whole problem of Trump’s love for and use of tariffs, his current insistence on the passing of the SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) ahead of the midterm elections, and the possibility that he will do whatever it takes to keep a “big Blue wave” from happening in the November elections.

In light of all I have mentioned above, it is appalling that Trump’s term of office doesn’t end until January 20, 2029, nearly three years from now! “Heaven help us!” as the old-timers used to say.

But don’t forget the No Kings! protests planned for March 28. The promoters explicitly expect it to be the largest political protest in U.S. history. Surely that will have significant ramifications for the November elections.

14 comments:

  1. A few minutes ago, a local Thinking Friend sent the following brief comment by email:

    "Good article Leroy. I hadn’t heard of Rothkopf either, but his message is right on."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just now saw in this morning's online edition of the Kansas City Star:

    "There are 10 No Kings Day rallies scheduled in the Kansas City area on Saturday, March 28."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rothko and others have the deepest existential motivation to pay attention to deeply disturbed men in command of armies that have been soaked in racial and political ideologies. Those disturbed men destroyed not only persons in generations, vertically and horizontally, that is, immediate families, chronologically and relationally. The murder of Rothko's ancestors occurred again and again into the millions. The echoes with Nazi Germany are not new, and they include the senseless, abject murder of innocents under cover of war. Sheer, incalculable, irrational arrogance makes a dictator, or a king, to act without consideration of the human consequences of his and his minions' words and actions. He who destroys and renders wretched those who are defenseless is a least, un- and anti-human: the self-absorbed dictator does not see faces, just counterexamples to his own profound narcissism, personal and public deceit, that blocks any hope of being found a responsible elder, trustworthy, true. Just a blurb here from James Hillman on "The Force of the Face"--"What the old can do for society lies in their hands: They can help, they can give, they can instruct. It also lies in their feet: They can march, they can vote, they can go out to local meetings. Mostly it lies in their faces, in the courage to be seen." (p. 51, James Hillman, The Force of Character and the Lasting Life.)
    I simply cannot see Mr. T "facing up" to the realities of the world, of himself. I cannot see him as the supreme servant of his country. I cannot see him as being truly "present" to anyone else in any way that makes human sense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I meant to say, "and extended families, chronologically and relationally." in line two.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And here are comments a Thinking Friend in Virginia:

    "I loved this blog. I have wondered many times if our nation can survive another three years under Trump. I am fearful it may not."

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Leroy. Thinking of DT as a "lunatic" indeed evokes thoughts of irrational and erratic behavior of the sort we are seeing in his presidential actions, but to me lends the possibility of sympathy towards him analogous to that we might extend to a person with a serious mental illness. We might say, "he needs help", not condemnation. Alternatively, thinking of the president as a "con-man" who utilizes his awareness of his fellow citizens' own "false consciousness of reality" (to allude to your last blog on Peter Berger) in bad faith, to deceive us further for his own profit, evokes a very different response from me. I have no compassion for a "con-man" who takes advantage of his office to prosper through deceit. And this is what I believe to be the truer situation; and he's successfully deceived his followers in the Cabinet, too. And, I'll concede that there is a certain kind of psychopathy that also applies to the latter case. Yet, in both cases, he's wreaking havoc on the planet and its inhabitants and needs to be removed from office along with his minions. No Kings, indeed!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you Leroy. I have wrestled for months with what terms to use to describe DJT. I have long had no doubt that he is an extreme narcissist. People knowledgeable about age-related dementia also point out recognizable symptoms. I don't like to categorize people and I don't want to offend. Yet I think the patterns are so clear that we have to use words that are adequate. I'm not sure about one term, but support the move "harden" the language we use!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous, I don't know who you are, so I can't contact you directly. But I didn't understand your last sentence and would like for you to clarify what you meant. -- Thanks!

      Delete
  8. I had never heard of Rothkopf, but then there are many scholars I have never heard of. I personally would not use the word "lunatic" of Trump. I think he has advanced senile demential. He is/was very intelligent in his own way, but sought to use his intelligence solely for his own benefit. Congress needs to do 25th amendment on him. They are not ready to do that yet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here a couple of short comments received in the last 45 minutes:

    "Heaven help us, indeed! Such an awful time in human history" (from a Thinking Friend in the Southwest).

    "I will be marching…And working on the midterm elections…" (from a Thinking Friend in the Southeast).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Earlier this morning, Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago sent the following comments by email:

    "Whether our president is insane depends on how one defines insane. Trump clearly suffers from some sort of personality disorder as his niece, Mary Trump, has explained. What I find particularly disturbing about Trump is that his decisions are not based on evidence and rational thought but rather on whim, gut instincts, and a desire for revenge. He listens, to the extent that he listens at all, to sycophants rather than experts.

    If Trump thinks that he can foment regime change in Iran through bombing, he is seriously delusional. So what is the point? Iran’s military capabilities may be severely degraded, but Iran can quickly recover. This is a senseless war of choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eric, I fully agree with what you wrote--except for your use of one word. I think it is considerably better to refer to Trump as a lunatic rather than saying he is insane. The reason I think that was confirmed by the following response I received from Claude (whom I often call my AI "buddy"):

      "Lunatic" has become more detached from its medical origins ... and now functions primarily as a colorful insult meaning extremely foolish or reckless. It's less likely to be read as a clinical assessment.

      "Insane" still carries stronger psychiatric connotations, even in casual use. While legally and medically outdated, it more directly invokes mental illness, making it more problematic when used as a rhetorical attack.

      Delete
  11. And then there are these pertinent comments from Thinking Friend Michael Olmsted, a retired pastor in Springfield, Mo.:

    "Shades of WW II ... a psychopath leading the world into multiple conflicts and claiming for himself a fantasy that spells more darkness. History gives us a clear warning but we are not listening!"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Another retired pastor, Ed Kail, who is a local Thinking Friend, comments,

    "I share your concerns.
    "I called our congressmen again today: against the war, for the reform of immigration enforcement, and against the SAVE Act.
    "Lunatic Trump, indeed!"

    ReplyDelete