What Kind of People Love Narcissistic Tyrants?
By Goldsea Staff | 04 Oct, 2025

Those of us baffled and irked by people who support the likes of the current White House occupant can find the answer in psychology, genetics and history.

Americans supposedly cherish liberty above all else.  "Give me liberty or give me death", is the celebrated quote from the end of a short but rousing speech by Patrick Henry at the Second Virginia Convention in 1775.  It became the rallying cry of the American War of Independence.  

(Image by Grok)

Patrick Henry and the whole revolutionary gang who fought so hard to secure self-rule and guaranteed liberties from tyranny would turn over in their proverbial graves if they could see today's United States.  

We now have a President who suppresses the free media, punishes liberal universities and other perceived political enemies, tries to take away birthright citizenship and due process from immigrants, declares economic war on the rest of the world, and imposes military oversight on liberal cities.  

It goes without saying that these abuses of power are in direct violation of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution's clear separation of powers among the three branches of government and between the federal and state governments.   Congress is now controlled by representatives and senators who have been compliant, even complicit, during the past eight months of gross presidential overreach.  We can only attribute their utter loss of integrity to fear of  reprisal from an electorate that seems to revel in the overturning of traditionally sacred American values as perhaps a way to assert their place in a society that seems to bewilder them.

To understand this mindset, we enlisted the help of a couple of hyper-efficient AI researchers with the prompt:

Historically and psychosocially what is the mindset of populations that have willingly elected narcissistic leaders who seek to exercise dictatorial powers and take away liberties. 

Grok, unbidden, included Trump in the analysis.  With Copilot we had to provide an additional prompt: 

Does Trump's election fit that pattern?

Grok:

Historical Context

Throughout history, populations have elected or supported leaders exhibiting narcissistic traits—such as grandiosity, lack of empathy, and a drive for unchecked power—often during periods of social, economic, or political instability. These leaders frequently rise by promising stability, national revival, or protection from perceived threats, while gradually eroding democratic institutions and personal liberties. Key examples include:

- **Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1930s)**: In the Weimar Republic, amid economic depression, hyperinflation, and humiliation from World War I, Germans voted for the Nazi Party in increasing numbers, leading to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933. His charisma and promises of restoring German greatness appealed to a populace feeling victimized, fostering a cult of personality that enabled the Enabling Act, which granted him dictatorial powers and dismantled freedoms like free speech and assembly. Psychosocially, this reflected a collective desire for strong leadership to resolve chaos, even at the cost of authoritarianism.

- **Benito Mussolini (Italy, 1920s)**: Post-World War I Italy faced economic turmoil, strikes, and social unrest. Mussolini's Fascist Party gained support through marches and violence against socialists, culminating in his appointment as Prime Minister in 1922 after the March on Rome. Voters and elites backed him for his pledges to restore order and national pride, leading to the suppression of opposition parties and civil liberties. This support stemmed from a mindset prioritizing security over democracy amid perceived anarchy.

- **Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union, 1920s–1950s)**: While not directly elected, Stalin consolidated power within the Communist Party with broad popular support through propaganda, purges, and a personality cult. In a society recovering from revolution and civil war, many Russians embraced his vision of rapid industrialization and strength against external threats, tolerating the Gulag system and loss of freedoms like expression and movement. The mindset here involved collective submission to authority for perceived communal progress.

- **Mao Zedong (China, 1940s–1970s)**: Mao's Communist Party rose to power after civil war, with widespread peasant support for land reform and anti-imperialism. His Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, which curtailed individual rights and caused mass suffering, were initially embraced as paths to utopian equality. This illustrates a population's willingness to sacrifice liberties for ideological purity and national rejuvenation.

More recent cases include Vladimir Putin in Russia, who has maintained power through elections amid economic challenges and nationalism, and Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, elected on promises of cracking down on crime despite human rights abuses. In the U.S., figures like Donald Trump have been analyzed for narcissistic traits, with support in 2016 tied to economic anxiety and anti-establishment sentiment. These patterns show that crises—real or manufactured—often catalyze support for such leaders, who position themselves as saviors while centralizing power.

Psychosocial Mindset

From a psychosocial perspective, populations electing narcissistic authoritarian leaders often exhibit a combination of individual vulnerabilities, group dynamics, and situational factors that prioritize short-term emotional gratification over long-term democratic values. Research draws on evolutionary psychology, personality traits, and social influences to explain this.

- **Perceived Threats and Dangerous Worldviews**: Many supporters hold a "dangerous worldview," seeing society as unstable and threatening due to economic downturns, immigration, terrorism, or cultural shifts. This activates a motivational need for collective security, leading to submission to strong authorities who promise order through conformity and aggression against "deviants." Evolutionarily, this traces to ancestral adaptations for group cooperation under threat, where conformity enhanced survival but at the cost of individual autonomy. Traits like low openness to experience, high need for closure, and cognitive inflexibility make individuals more susceptible, especially in harsh developmental environments.

- **Seductive Charisma and Emotional Bonding**: Narcissistic leaders excel at seduction through exaggerated promises, charm, and an "us-vs-them" narrative, fostering emotional bonds with followers. They exploit high-emotion media (e.g., social platforms) that reward dramatic conflict over substance, drawing in voters hooked on fear and excitement. Psychosocially, this creates a "fantasy crisis triad": inventing crises, blaming villains (e.g., elites, minorities), and positioning themselves as heroes with simple solutions. Followers, feeling empowered by this drama, overlook the leader's empathy deficits or power grabs.

- **Collective Narcissism and Group Division**: Populations may display "collective narcissism," an exaggerated belief in their group's superiority coupled with sensitivity to threats, which correlates with support for authoritarian figures promising to restore glory. This mindset splits voters: loyalists (30-40%) bond emotionally and defend the leader; resisters oppose but alienate moderates; moderates absorb negativity and sometimes vote against their interests; dropouts disengage entirely. Historically, this division allows minority support to prevail, as seen in the rise of Hitler or modern populist elections.

- **Biological and Situational Triggers**: Genetic factors (up to 50% heritability), heightened stress reactivity, and disgust sensitivity predispose individuals to authoritarianism, amplified by real threats like pandemics or unemployment. In such states, people trade liberties for perceived safety, tolerating policies like surveillance or censorship.

Overall, this mindset reflects a trade-off: immediate emotional relief from uncertainty via a "strongman" figure, despite eventual societal costs like eroded rights and increased division. While often linked to right-wing contexts, similar dynamics can appear in left-wing authoritarianism under progressive guises. Substantiated views suggest this is not inherent malice but a response to unmet needs for security and belonging.

**

Copilot:

Populations that elect narcissistic, authoritarian leaders often do so under conditions of fear, uncertainty, and perceived loss—seeking strength, identity, and control through a charismatic figure who promises restoration and protection.

Here’s a deeper look at the historical and psychosocial dynamics behind this phenomenon:

🧠 Psychosocial Mindset of Populations

• Fear and Uncertainty
  In times of economic crisis, war, cultural upheaval, or rapid change, populations often feel vulnerable. This creates fertile ground for authoritarian figures who offer certainty, strength, and simple solutions to complex problems.

• Desire for Order and Identity
  People may gravitate toward leaders who promise to restore national pride, traditional values, or social cohesion. Narcissistic autocrats often present themselves as saviors—embodying the nation’s identity and claiming exclusive insight into its destiny.

• Projection and Idealization
  Citizens may project their unmet needs onto the leader, idealizing them as heroic, infallible, or uniquely gifted. This mirrors psychological dynamics seen in childhood—where a powerful parental figure is trusted to protect and guide.

• Authoritarian Personality Traits
  Research shows that individuals with high authoritarian tendencies—favoring obedience, conformity, and hierarchy—are more likely to support dictatorial leaders. These traits are often reinforced by early socialization, trauma, or rigid cultural norms.

• Distrust in Institutions
  When democratic institutions are perceived as corrupt, inefficient, or elitist, people may turn to outsiders or strongmen who promise to “drain the swamp” or bypass bureaucracy. Narcissistic leaders exploit this distrust to consolidate power.

📜 Historical Patterns

• Germany in the 1930s
  Post-WWI humiliation, economic collapse, and fear of communism created conditions ripe for Hitler’s rise. His narcissistic charisma and promises of national rebirth resonated deeply with a traumatized population.

• Russia in the 1990s–2000s
  After the Soviet collapse, chaos and poverty led many Russians to embrace Putin’s authoritarianism. His image as a decisive, masculine protector appealed to a population craving stability and pride.

• Latin America and Southeast Asia
  Leaders like Perón, Marcos, and Chávez rose by blending populism with narcissistic authoritarianism—offering emotional connection, anti-elite rhetoric, and promises of justice or prosperity.

🔄 The Narcissist’s Playbook

According to Psychology Today, narcissistic autocrats often:

• Start as relatable patriots, building trust through emotional appeal.
• Exploit media and spectacle to dominate attention.
• Create enemies—internal and external—to justify repression.
• Demand loyalty and suppress dissent, often with no remorse.

Would you like to explore how these dynamics might play out in a fictional setting—say, in 1970s Korea or a diasporic community facing political upheaval? I’d love to help you build that out.

Yes—Donald Trump's election fits the historical and psychosocial pattern of populations electing narcissistic, authoritarian-leaning leaders during times of perceived crisis, identity threat, and institutional distrust.

Here’s how Trump’s rise aligns with that pattern:

🧠 Psychosocial Dynamics Behind Trump’s Appeal

• Perceived Moral Decline and Social Fragmentation
  Studies show that many Trump supporters believed American society was experiencing a breakdown in moral values. This perception intensified their desire for a strong, decisive leader who could restore order and tradition.

• Populist Messaging and Identity Politics
  Trump’s rhetoric—“Make America Great Again,” “America First,” and “Drain the Swamp”—tapped into feelings of cultural displacement, economic anxiety, and resentment toward elites. His messaging resonated with voters who felt ignored or threatened by globalization, immigration, and progressive social change.

• Charismatic Narcissism and Media Mastery
  Trump’s grandiose self-presentation, combative style, and dominance of media channels (especially social media) allowed him to bypass traditional gatekeepers and cultivate a direct emotional connection with his base. This mirrors the playbook of other narcissistic leaders who thrive on spectacle and personal branding.

• Distrust of Institutions and Outsider Appeal
  Many voters viewed Trump’s lack of political experience as a strength. His outsider status and attacks on the “deep state,” mainstream media, and political establishment reinforced his image as a disruptive force who could shake up a corrupt system.

📜 Historical Parallels

Trump’s rise shares traits with other authoritarian-leaning leaders:

• Like Berlusconi in Italy, Trump blended media celebrity with populist nationalism.
• Like Bolsonaro in Brazil, he used anti-establishment rhetoric and cultural conservatism to mobilize disaffected voters.
• Like Putin in Russia, he cultivated a strongman persona and centralized loyalty around himself.

🔍 Psychological Traits in Leadership Style

According to psychological analyses:

• Trump exhibits traits consistent with narcissistic leadership, including a grandiose self-image, need for admiration, and moral disengagement.
• His leadership style is transactional and authoritarian, favoring loyalty over competence and often framing dissent as betrayal.

Would you like to explore how these dynamics could be dramatized in a fictional setting—perhaps through a character study or symbolic visual scene? I think your storytelling instincts could make this emotionally powerful.