A Thought On the 2026 Midterm Elections

 

I am not going to obsess over the details. There are plenty polls, pundits, and demographics out there for anyone interested. The election was clearly a mandate against an authoritarian Trump style government. I know the Vice President has come out and said it was due to the war against Iran (is it a war now?) – but it is far deeper than that. It is also far deeper than politics as usual.

The wake-up call for all Americans is that we do not have a perfect democracy.  Historians are all well aware of that and know that what happened in 1776 is not the way the current government should be run because it ignores what happened in 1863.  The so-called Founding Fathers had documents that outlined a rough sketch of the Republic in theory but it took another 100-200 years to approach the theory that “all men are created equal.”  Like most people my age – I lived through overt racism even in areas where there were only white people.

Apart from the appeal to history, the other requirements are that everyone involved stay law abiding and cooperative, and live in the real world.  The first two years of the Trump government saw unprecedented levels of corruption in the form of quid pro quo pardons of convicted financial criminals, mass pardons of insurrectionists including those involved in injuring police officers, self-enrichment of the President and his family in situations where they were supposed to be representing the interests of the American people, and failure to investigate or prosecute masked federal agents who shot and killed two Minnesotans.  These incidents just scratch the surface.  At the same time, the complete report by Special Prosector Jack Smith and most of the files related to the Epstein scandal were suppressed.  

To a psychiatrist all of this can be regarded as sociopathic behavior.  By that I mean, any person or group who has the ability to take what they want from you or force you what to do what they want in spite of your preferences.  That can range from somebody pointing a gun at you in an alley to take your money to someone getting access to your bank accounts on the Internet without your knowledge.  The power exerted over you can be overt or covert, but the common factor is the person exercising that power is not bothered by what they are doing.  When asked about it they may suggest their victim was “just in the wrong place”, “should have known better” or they did something to “deserve it.”  There is no conscience, moral code, or accountability.

In modern society, there is nuance in the form of conflict of interest.  Conflict of interest laws and policies were developed to prevent the silent exploitation made possible by elected and public positions.  These polices exist and are codified in the federal government.  We have just seen an administration that chose to completely ignore them as well as the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution. It can be argued that this was facilitated by a pro-Trump Supreme Court.  The message to Congress is that the law in this area needs to be tightened up.  The Republic can no longer depend that an elected President will avoid what are potential massive conflicts of interest and the associated compromises.  Although historical precedent worked until Trump, there can be no doubt that the President is focused on the interests of the Republic.  There is already a move to apply a no stock trading rule to Congress and the same considerations apply there. 

The level of corruption was a top issue for voters in this election after it was apparently being ignored for the first two years of the Trump presidency. There was a long list of issues ignored where Trump supporters apparently gave him and his version of the Republican party a complete pass.  To name a few others – incompetent cabinet choices, a complete lack of decorum when it came to Presidential behavior, alienating most of our allies and trading partners, destroying American competitiveness by shutting down scientific research and turning space research over to private industry, killing, detaining, and deporting US citizens without an investigation, turning public health over to a health and wellness influencer with no expertise in public health, withholding funds from American universities based on political biases, attempting to interfere with state midterm elections at least 30 times, defunding the largest insurer of maternal, substance use, and mental health treatment in the US; defaming top America scientists and other distinguished members of the civil service, firing 10-12% of the civilian civil service without cause; weakening the US military by arbitrarily removing staff at the highest levels of command for political reasons and then proceeding to demonstrate that the US could not win a war against Iran or keep the Strait of Hormuz open.   That is just a partial list of what comes to my mind as I type the essay.  When it comes to specifics – the list gets much longer.    

In the post-election spectacle so far, I have seen the following themes: What does it mean for the Democrats?  What does it mean for the Republicans?  What does it mean for the Supreme Court?  What does it mean for the stock market?  The Vice President is blaming the loss on the War in Iran, etc.

None of the analyses looks at the real problem and that is - American voters.  The voters typically get a pass by just saying: “It is a free country and I get to vote for whoever I want.”  That is true – but why would you not want to avoid the misery and national embarrassment of the last 2 years?  How can Americans be so blind that they elected a President like Trump in the first place?  That is the only critical question that needs to be asked and here is why.  We cannot afford to be fooled twice.  In fact, we are not out of the woods yet – we might not even be able to be fooled once.  Trump is still President for 2 more years and if the dynamics are still in place that elected him – the Republic is not out of danger. 

The first crucial observation is that many people are not able to see reality as it exists.  Based on facts alone, Trump was the worst possible candidate for the Republican party. His only positive resume point was his reality TV show, apart from that he had multiple real-life business failures, a history of not treating contractors and employees poorly, criminal convictions, civil lawsuits, charges of racism and misogyny, and charges of sexual abuse.  He made public statements that would have immediately disqualified any other candidate.  For many entry level jobs, he would not have passed the background check.  Despite all of these factors, tens of millions voted for him on the premise that he was going to “drain the swamp (of corruption)”, restore jobs that were being lost to modernization, and lower taxes.  That disconnect should have been the first clue.

Even though Trump brags about his ostentatious life style and seeks to names buildings and institutions that he encounters after himself - working class voters suddenly believed he was going to help them.  Why would anyone believe him as opposed to anyone else with that background?     

Much has been made of Trump’s charisma. The type of charisma he has is often overlooked.   Real charisma is affiliative and pro-social.  It is optimistic, hopeful, and genuinely interested in inclusion and one’s fellow man.  Empathy is present and used to support the emotional states and well being of others.  Any displays of anger are directed at tasks and unfairness.  People like to be around charismatic people.

So-called dark charisma is pseudo affiliative with rapid shifts to non-affiliative distancing if there is disagreement or criticism.  Positive emotions are largely performative. Any observation of a Trump rally shows him pandering to and entertaining his audiences who seem to regard him as a benign and somewhat humorous older relative. There is the predictable progression to name-calling and personal attacks on individuals, discussion of non-existent conspiracies (Deep State, election fraud), false promises and more general prevarication.  The crowd keeps chuckling no matter how dark he gets. 

Papers have been written about this dark personality style and the elements (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, narcissism, etc) – but like the application of all psychiatric concepts to Trump it is not necessary.  A psychiatric diagnosis or formulation is not necessary to notice the disconnect of a constellation of behaviors from reality or their historical precedents. 

The second clue or disconnect is how much of what he says is factually incorrect or plainly rhetorical. The rhetorical statements often violate social norms.  The third clue is how much is just self-aggrandizement like unsubstantiated claims that everything he does is “the best” and that he is generally superior in every way.  Expect no apologies or acknowledgements that mistakes were ever made.  He has to come across as the strong man no matter what has happened. If he feels slighted in any way – he is on the attack with lawsuits, investigations, law enforcement, and the military.

For observers who do not identify with the behaviors – these rallies are bizarre – like news reels from the 1940s.  They appear to be from another era.  People have not seen Presidents act like this at any point in their memory.  Since Trump never talks about policy or a clear vision for where the country is headed and what the hope is for the future - watching him perform is profoundly alienating.  How can this guy really be President of the United States?  What does it say about this country?

Historical comparisons were just beginning at the time of this post. There are the comparisons to Nixon and the Watergate scandal.  That resulted in the same mandate for Democrats after Nixon resigned in 1974.  Of course, that was at a time when Gerald Ford was blamed for pardoning Nixon.  In the current era, Trump pardoned all of the January 6 insurrectionists including those accused of violent crimes along with 70 financial criminals while excusing their restitution payments of $1.5B.  Many of those pardons appear to be in exchange for significant payments or donations.  As the linked article points out – Trump has made corruption the rule rather than the exception. At the same time Trump and made Minnesota a target of fraud allegations while ignoring the fact that the state has some of the lowest fraud statistics in the country.  

There is a more accurate historical precedent for the Trump strategies that reaches back to the 1950s.  The table that follows provides a direct comparison of tactics used by Trump to those used by Senator Joseph McCarthy.  The conventional wisdom of McCarthyism today is influenced primarily by Hollywood portrayals of the effect on the entertainment industry.   McCarthyism is synonymous with unsubstantiated claims and attacks on people for alleged communist activity by using a number of political, social, and legal tactics. McCarthy was a US Senator from Wisconsin from 1947 to 1957 but in 1950 he gave a speech saying the US State Department had been infiltrated by communists.  The Army McCarthy hearings in 1954 resulted in discrediting both McCarthy and his attorney Roy Cohn, effectively ending the attacks and investigations.  Roy Cohn is a direct line to Donald Trump who taught him these techniques when he was his attorney.     

Tactic / Dimension	Joseph McCarthy And The Second Red Scare (1940s–1950s)	Donald Trump And Administration Tactics
1. Unsubstantiated And Sweeping Accusations	Claimed to hold lists of "known Communists" within the U.S. State Department with constantly shifting numbers. Relied on dramatic press conferences right before print deadlines to make unverified charges of subversion and treason.	Regularly alleges broad, unevidenced conspiracies (e.g., claiming the "Deep State," "weaponized DOJ," or "rigged" systems actively target him and his allies). Employs high-profile social media statements and rally speeches to make sweeping allegations of treason or corruption against critics before formal evidence or investigation.
2. Presumption of Guilt And Erosion of Due Process	Applied "guilt by association"—labeling individuals subversives simply for attending progressive events or reading certain literature. Framed invoking the 5th Amendment as an implicit admission of treason ("Fifth Amendment Communists").	Frequently pressures law enforcement and investigative bodies to open probes into political opponents regardless of formal evidence. Asserts that federal investigations targeting his actions or inner circle are inherently corrupt "witch hunts" while demanding immediate legal action against political rivals.
3. Blacklisting and Institutional Ruin	Stripped security clearances and enforced job terminations across government, academia, and entertainment (the Hollywood Blacklist). Required compulsory loyalty oaths for teachers, civil servants, and university professors as a condition of employment.	Revoked or threatened top-secret security clearances for former intelligence officials, military leaders, and civil servants who criticized White House policy. Weaponized executive orders, tax-exempt status threats, and funding cuts against university administrations, non-profits, media groups, and law firms that permit critical viewpoints or protests.
4. Bureaucratic Investigation and Informing	Staged televised Congressional hearings (via HUAC and Senate committees) designed to publicly humiliate, intimidate, and interrogate targets. Coerced individuals into naming friends and colleagues to prove their own political loyalty.	Utilizes executive oversight bodies, presidential commissions, and partisan congressional investigations to subpoena, publicly rebuke, and pressure critics. Imposes strict loyalty tests across federal agencies (e.g., Schedule F civil service reclassification) to fire non-partisan bureaucrats and replace them with loyalists.
5. Exploitation of National Fear And Moral Panic	Capitalized on Cold War anxieties—such as the Soviet nuclear threat, the Fall of China, and the Korean War—to frame all left-leaning political dissent as an existential threat to the nation.	Capitalizes on border security concerns, cultural polarization, and economic fears—framing political opponents, protestors, and mainstream media outlets as "enemies of the people" or threats to national survival.
6. Negative Effects on Science and Public Health	Purging Top Scientists: Revoked security clearances and denied passports to world-class scientists (e.g., J. Robert Oppenheimer, Linus Pauling) over political views, delaying critical research like the structure of DNA. Depoliticizing and Halting Health Initiatives: Targeted progressive medical groups (e.g., Association of Internes and Medical Students), effectively crushing early advocacy for universal health coverage and community medicine. Institutional Censorship: Forced researchers and universities to abandon socially oriented public health studies in favor of "safe," non-controversial defense projects to retain federal funding.	Institutional Purges & Ideological Oversight: Replaced career agency leadership, installed political appointees over scientific advisory boards (e.g., CDC, FDA), and terminated or reclassified thousands of career scientists. Suppression & Censorship of Public Health Data: Altered or delayed official scientific reports (such as CDC morbidity reports), purged federal health databases, and restricted communications on vaccines, disease modeling, and environmental health. Defunding Targeted Research: Suspended or cancelled federal grants for long-term clinical trials, public health programs, and international scientific collaborations deemed politically objectionable.

One of the more interesting aspects of the above comparison is how McCarthyism was much more far-reaching than the entertainment industry.  Medicine, science, and public health were all affected in service of the false narrative that communists were everywhere.  As a chemistry major – I had no idea that Linus Pauling was refused a passport to the UK by this group because of his pacifist activity during this era.  That resulted in him not having access to high resolution x-ray diffraction photos that led Watson and Crick to determine the double-helical structure of DNA.  At the time Pauling had a competing triple-helix model.  J. Robert Oppenheimer who oversaw the development of the first US nuclear weapons was affected as well as medical research.  The parallels between these political initiatives are more than coincidence. 

The bottom line for me is that we may have avoided an ongoing nightmare.  The assumptions of 10 generations of Americans that we have an inherently stable system of government that has the interests of all of us in mind has been proven wrong by the Trump government. At one time or another we have all seen the paraphrase: “,,,democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”  We may have seen a glimmer of that with the judicial branch in holding the line against Trump’s voter interference and malicious and politically motivated prosecutions.  Beyond that there is a good reason why the average American has been anxious over Trump’s attacks on just about everyone including allies while taking a benign approach with dictators and autocrats.     

The Trump supporters don’t get a pass.  I don’t care if they were average voters, members of Congress, or working for right wing media companies.  They were the proximate cause of this near catastrophe.  They have to work a lot harder the next time and as I tried to point out in this post – you don’t have to be a psychiatrist to figure it out.  You don’t have to use psychiatric diagnoses or jargon to figure it out. You just have to look at what does not make sense.  

All of the clues are right out there in the open.  You have to figure out why you are ignoring them.

 

 

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

 

Supplementary 1:  Single issue voters. Immediately after the election results came in I started to see posts about abortion and how abortion supporters were evil.  I expect there will be similar posts about guns, climate change, and foreign policy.  If you think a national election should be determined by these issues especially the extremist positions – you are just plain wrong.  The MAGA defeat is proof of that.  Clearly, they got all of the anti-abortion, pro-gun, and anti-climate change vote and that was not nearly enough.  I heard several voters interviewed that they did not like how some state anti-abortion laws made them accomplices if they failed to report any abortions, they knew about or assisted women seeking abortions.  Single issue votes will not save the economy, keep us out of unnecessary wars, or improve the security of Americans against cyberattacks from other countries. I would argue that the current administration is clear proof of that.  

Supplementary 2:  Even though I have an interest in rhetoric and have many posts here that seek to simplify it – I avoided it for the most part in this post.  I will add at this point that the three most common rhetorical devices used by this administration are fomenting anger leading to emotional reasoning, misdirection, and false equivalencies.  I can produce many examples of each upon request. You can also see them satirized on the Comedy Channel and that might be easier to digest.  

Graphics Credit:  US Capitol by Martin Falbisoner, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons