A Review of The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump

By Armando Simón

Some years back I finally broke down and purchased psychiatrist Bandy Lee’s The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, because Barnes and Nobel had it at 50% off a month after it went on sale. Apparently, they were trying to get rid of it. And I freely confess that I began the book with a hostile outlook because I had not liked her unethical accusations, flying left and right, of Trump being mentally ill that I had read. You may remember her from the first year of Trump’s administration, she kept intruding herself in every news program and politician’s office insisting to get the president removed on grounds of mental illness, never having even met him. One could characterize her as having been patient zero for Trump Derangement Syndrome.

This review may appear belated, but not so considering the present circumstances in society.

I was deeply, deeply disappointed. I had expected to sink my teeth into something substantial that I could analyze and critique. But, as I said, I was disappointed. The book doesn’t even rise to the level of malpractice—it’s just crap. There is A LOT of insinuation. There is also a lot of bringing up Hitler and Nazis (something leftists always do whenever discussing political opponents). And the last two thirds of the book is just filler.

I’ll go chapter by chapter, according to the author (supposedly, there are 27 psychiatrists and psychologists, but that’s not quite true).

The book has a Foreword, a Prologue and an Introduction.

In the Foreword, Lifton brings up Nazis and promotes “professional activism” based on “professional responsibility”

In the Prologue, Herman and Lee write about the Goldwater rule and why they are violating it.

In the Introduction, Lee herself makes the case of A Duty to Warn. One could argue there is a bit of narcissism here.

Part 1

Zimbardo & Sword start by complaining that Trump was not a career politician and that he has no interest in philanthropy. They accused Trump of being an “unbridled present hedonist,” (a diagnosis new to me and not found in the DSM), as showing paranoia and racism. Sword practices Time Perspective Therapy (whatever that is) and Hawaiian psychology, called ho’oponopono, based on her Hawaiian heritage (she is blonde, blue eyed, just like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who falsely claimed to be Native American).

Malkin spends most of the time in his chapter badmouthing Richard Nixon, whom he calls a “paranoid tyrant,” a president that leftists hate as much as Trump because Nixon uncovered an active Communist conspiracy inside the government. But Malkin does bring up Trump to say that he is losing his grip on reality, is psychotic and paranoid.

Schwartz was the co-author of The Art of the Deal. He doesn’t like Trump.

Sheehy is neither a psychologist nor a psychiatrist. She is a writer. She claims that Trump’s policy regarding NATO and NAFTA indicates pathology. She also brings up sadism as well as Richard Nixon.

Dodes claims that Trump is a sociopath, with paranoia, and is losing his grasp on reality.

Gartner says Trump has antisocial personality disorder, paranoia and sadism. Gartner quotes from Erich Fromm, the Communist psychiatrist. Gartner is generous in saying that Trump is not schizophrenic—but he is hypomaniac. And, of course, those who voted for him are racist.

Tansey says Trump is delusional and contrasts him to admirable (to him) presidents like Carter and Kennedy. He claims that Trump has “admiration” for dictators for stating facts, like saying Kim Jong-un was successful in consolidating power, that Saddam Hussein was efficient at eliminating terrorists, Putin has strong control over Russia, and Bashar al-Assad was able to survive. All of which are true.

Reiss has a novel diagnoses for Trump: dementia.

Herb is a lawyer and not a psychiatrist. He shifts back and forth in attributing narcissistic personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder for President Trump.

The remaining Parts 2 & 3 are just filler.

Part 2

Glass (who resigned from the APA over the Goldwater rule) writes on whether psychiatrists should comment on public figures.

Friedman writes on whether psychiatrists should comment on public figures.

Gilligan writes that he does not like Trump.

Jhueck writes in general about human rights abuses, that Trump is “unhinged,” about Nixon, and whether Trump will start nuclear war.

Covitz claims that Trump has “severe character pathology,” but he just cannot decide on what diagnosis to give him. He must have mental illness because Trump’s  politics are contrary to his.

Part 3

Teng writes about how terrible it was when the poor snowflakes became a nervous wreck when Trump got elected (the reader may remember seeing the women screaming to the skies for long duration when they got the news). It’s Trump’s fault for winning the election. Ironically, she brought up up a new diagnosis for those people: Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Panning spends the chapter simply badmouthing Trump. Nothing of substance (even less than the above).

Wruble’s chapter is entitled “Trump’s Daddy Issues,” then spends over half the chapter openly writing about his own daddy issues.

Singer writes nothing of any importance or substance.

Mika writes about psychopaths, tyrants, narcissists, and of course Hitler.

Fisher writes about how wonderful was Kennedy, then about psychopathology and cites quotes about Trump’s—from hostile political commentators.

Gartrell & Mosbacher complain about Trump “provoking” North Korea and say nothing bad about the dictatorship there but claims that Trump admires dictators, and then brings up what has become a fetish with some, the 25th Amendment for removing the president.

Lastly, Chomsky (a linguist and an anti-American leftist) and Lee (the editor) close the book with a chapter full of empty verbosity and general badmouthing of Trump.

I will now quote from the American Psychiatric Association’ reaction to Bandy Lee’s antics:

“A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments. Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease. The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status. Often collateral information from family members or individuals who know the person well is included, with permission from the patient.”

“Using psychiatry for political or self-aggrandizing purposes is stigmatizing for our patients and negatively impacts our profession.”

In short, it has called for the end of malpractice and quackery. I’m old enough to remember when Goldwater was called mentally unstable, paranoid, and schizophrenic by leftist psychiatrists because he had the audacity to openly state that Communism was evil. Back then, saying that was to state a Politically Incorrect truth. Historically for leftists, opposing their policies and tactics, be it on covid, Communism, freedom, illegal immigration, campaigning for the wrong candidate, or fraudulent elections results in their opponents being labeled mentally ill who should be put in a mental institution.

The word “projection” leaps to mind.”

 

Armando Simón is a retired psychologist, author of Very Peculiar Stories and This That and The Other.