Netanyahu's visit to Donald Trump—and, among other issues they discussed, the push for the International Peace Council, which Trump himself would chair—has brought us back to the American president's character—for the umpteenth time. We see, at first glance, changes in his leadership style compared to his previous term. We've been talking about his highly complex personality for years, but it's worth returning to it now that he's emerging as an even more prominent leader than before.
Trump's foreign policy during this term isn't just a diplomatic proposal: it's a performance intended to be seen as a global statesman. The great conflict Trump is leading isn't between states, but between his image, reality, and the desire of who he wants to be. This is key to understanding what's happening with his second term. Insecurities, narcissistic wounds, and delusions of grandeur are intertwined. He finds himself trapped in a leadership characterized by an overwhelming need for control (insecurity), external validation (acceptance), and public success (recognition). His contradictory attitudes range from the grandiose promises he continues to make, which connect him with his electoral base (because he shows a high level of conviction in what he says), moments of visceral reactions with bouts of impulsiveness (off-key statements and incendiary tweets), and a strategy that is contrived and advisory to international pressures and balances. This amalgamation of conflicting responses makes the character highly disconcerting.
Psychologist Bob Altemeyer pointed out that authoritarian leaders do not need a coherent ideology because what they seek is to maintain control through fear, the projection of force, and symbolic enmity. Trump is a prime example of this. And to this we must add a clear functional narcissism. According to Paulhus and Williams (2002), narcissism is part of the dark chosen one personality, along with Machiavellianism and subclinical psychopathy. A mixture that we unfortunately see lately in many political leaders (including Trump). All of this generates a lot of instability. For example, regarding his peace proposals: There is a lack of authenticity and consistency between what he does and what he says. They seem to be really symbolic gestures of self-aggrandizement, out of the need for admiration, for recognition (the desire for the Nobel Peace Prize), to be perceived as savior.
And all of this is wrapped up in a narrative in which he always wins, even when he concedes. A communicative strategy with one goal: to reaffirm his identity and retain his voters. As Lakoff points out, populist leaders don't argue: they frame what happened within an emotional structure that strengthens the bond with the public. If you notice, Trump doesn't argue or reason; he dramatizes and imposes an alternative reality. His own.
