Politics, Power and Psychopathy by Neil Lock

Today, I’ll return to the foundations of political philosophy. The subject, on this occasion, is psychopathy. What is it? And why does it seem so prevalent among politicians, and those that have or seek political power? (This is a précis of work I did between 2016 and 2019).

The meme that politicians are psychopaths

There’s been a meme going around, for years now, that politicians are psychopaths. This meme was first sowed in 2003 by neurophysiologist Paul Broks, who suggested, based on conduct leading up to the Iraq war, that Tony Blair was a “plausible psychopath.”

The meme was spread widely in 2012 via an article by James Silver in the Atlantic Magazine. It is still around today in the blogosphere, and every so often I catch new echoes of it.

Psychopaths and sociopaths

The word “psychopath,” dating from 1885, means: “a mentally ill or unstable person; especially a person affected with anti-social personality disorder.”

Some use an alternative term, “sociopath.” The distinction between psychopath and sociopath doesn’t seem entirely clear. But broadly, sociopaths suffer from anti-social personality disorder (ASPD). For example, they tend to be reckless, impatient and untrustworthy. Whereas psychopaths show further, and more severe, symptoms. Including: lack of empathy with others, dishonesty, manipulativeness and lack of remorse.

Robert D. Hare

In the field of psychopathy studies, a central figure is Robert D. Hare. He is a Canadian psychologist, now in his 90s, specializing in the psychology of criminal offenders. Around 1980, he developed his Psychopathy Check List (PCL). At the time, there was no general agreement on what a psychopath was, or how to identify one. Hare set out to create a measuring tool for psychopathy, so psychologists could be sure they were talking about the same things.

Since then, his check list has evolved into several different forms. The one, with which I’m concerned today, is the Screening Version (PCL:SV). This was developed in the 1990s, for use in psychiatric evaluations and personnel selection.

The prevalence of psychopathy

It’s generally reckoned that about 20% of prison inmates are psychopaths. And that psychopaths are responsible for over 50% of violent crimes. So, it’s clear that psychopaths cause real problems for those around them.

They can cause a lot of trouble at work, too. Many of you will have known the types that behave with cruelty towards those they work with, while sucking up to the big bosses. And if you’re unlucky enough to get one of them as your manager, you’re in trouble.

Hare has estimated that about 1% of the population are psychopaths. Other researchers think his number is high; 0.5% might be more supportable. But there seems to be a substantially higher proportion of psychopaths among business executives and CEOs. A figure of 4% has been suggested for this. Hare himself has said: “Not all psychopaths are in prison – some are in the boardroom.”

Hare’s check list

Robert Hare’s check list, in both the full and screening versions, consists of three elements:

1. A list of items to be assessed. In the screening version, there are 12 such items.
2. A scoring system; the higher the score, the greater the level of psychopathy.
3. A cut-off score, at or beyond which an individual is to be regarded as psychopathic.

For the screening version, there are two different cut-off scores. The lower represents a “potential psychopath,” while the higher is simply referred to with the word psychopath.

Two Factors

There’s some dispute about Hare’s division of the list of items to be assessed into Factors, representing different aspects of psychopathy. The original check list had two Factors, each of six items. There have been developments since, by Hare himself and others. For my purposes today, however, I find Hare’s original two-factor approach good enough. So, I’ll stick with it.

Factor 1

Here are the six items in Factor 1 of the screening version of the test. As a whole, they refer to “selfish, callous and remorseless use of others.” The personality disorder, which tends to lead to these behaviours, is NPD (narcissistic personality disorder).

1. Superficial. Glib; having a surface charm.
2. Grandiose. Arrogant; think they are superior human beings to others.
3. Deceitful. Lying, insincere, selfish and manipulative, unscrupulous, dishonest.
4. Lack of empathy. Lacking sensitivity towards, or regard for, other people.
5. Doesn’t accept responsibility. Denies responsibility; seeks to evade accountability for actions.
6. Lack of remorse. Cold and calculating attitude to others, seeming to feel no guilt, lacking concern for the losses, pain and suffering of victims.

Factor 2

Factor 2 refers to “chronically unstable and anti-social lifestyle.” The personality disorder, which produces these behaviours, is called ASPD (anti-social personality disorder).

1. Impulsive. Foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, reckless.
2. Poor behaviour controls. Showing irritability, annoyance or impatience.
3. Lacks goals. Living a parasitic lifestyle, or having no realistic, long-term goals.
4. Irresponsible. Untrustworthy; repeatedly failing to fulfil or honour obligations or commitments.
5. Adolescent anti-social behaviour.
6. Adult anti-social behaviour.

The scoring system and cut-off

To quote Hare: “Items … are rated on a 3-point scale (0 = item doesn’t apply, 1 = item applies somewhat, 2 = item definitely applies). The items are summed to yield total scores … that reflect the degree to which an individual resembles the prototypical psychopath. A cut-off score … or greater is used to diagnose psychopathy.”

In the screening version, the total scores lie in the range 0 to 24, and the cut-off score is 18. Anyone scoring 18 or more can be considered a psychopath. The threshold for potential psychopath, however, is much lower, only 13.

Of course, in a prison setting, or when screening someone for a job such as a police officer, the assessments must be done objectively and without bias. A mistaken positive diagnosis of psychopathy can bring undeserved ruin to the victim’s career and life. Because of this, Hare mandates that the test must only be carried out by suitably trained professionals.

Nonetheless, I think Hare’s test is of great value to ordinary people. Not so much to evaluate specific individuals like Tony Blair – though Paul Broks, I think, was along the right lines in his opinion. But more to gain an understanding of the levels of psychopathy among different sectors of the population. Among politicians, for example. Or among politically active groups, such as socialists, religious or social conservatives, and green activists.

Psychopathy in the general population

Next, I’ll look at the distribution of scores among the general population, as reported in a 2008 paper by Neumann and Hare in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

They took, from the MacArthur US violence risk assessment published in 2001, the PCL:SV scores from a group of 500 or so randomly selected people, whom the study had tested in order to provide a comparison group for the offenders tested in the main part of the study. These people came from the same demographic and racial mix as the offenders.

The most remarkable result, for me, was the distribution of test scores among the comparison group. I quote from the paper: “Over half of the total sample had a score of 0 or 1, and about two-thirds had a score of 2 or less. A score of at least 13, used in the MacArthur civil psychiatric study as an indication of ‘potential psychopathy,’ was obtained by 1.2% of the total sample.” This is an amazing result – and they add that this “is consistent with the findings of other large community studies.”

Moreover, 36% of the people in that random sample scored zero. They had no trace of any psychopathic tendencies at all. This is extremely reassuring news for those who, like me, posit that humans are naturally good, and psychopaths are aberrations.

Mr Politico

Now, I’ll create a cardboard cut-out of a typical politician. I’ll try to give him a good mix of the characteristics that politicians tend to have. I dub my candidate Mr Politico. Let’s see how well he does on the test, shall we?

Factor 1

Superficial? Glib? Having a surface charm? Check. Mr Politico goes out of his way to be smooth, slick and charming. And he is hardly ever at a loss for words; quite the opposite, in fact. Score: generous 1, harsh 2.

Grandiose? Arrogant? Thinks he is a superior human being to others? Check. Mr Politico wants power. And the more power he gets, the more it reinforces his conviction that he’s a superior being to those he rules over. Score: generous 1, harsh 2.

Deceitful? Lying? Insincere? Selfish and manipulative? Unscrupulous? Dishonest? Don’t make me laugh! Lying, exaggerating, hyping, denying or obfuscating the truth; these are Mr Politico’s stocks in trade. He doesn’t have any interest in the truth at all, if it conflicts with his policies or prejudices. Indeed, he may even deny that truth exists at all.

He seems to have little or no sense of right and wrong; and most of all, where his own selfish gain is involved. He often behaves as a hypocrite, and fails to practice what he preaches others ought to do. Mr Politico ticks every one of the boxes under the Deceitful heading. Score: 2.

Lack of empathy? Lacking sensitivity towards, or regard for, other people? Check. Empathy is “being sensitive to… the feelings, thoughts and experience of another.” And, vitally important, empathy is feeling for other individuals. Yet Mr Politico doesn’t care a damn about people as individuals, except his cronies and perhaps his family. If we look hard at his behaviour, we don’t see much evidence of empathy or fellow feeling towards us ordinary human beings; even towards those he is supposed to represent.

Mr Politico belongs to a mainstream political party. That is, a gang with an ideology and agendas it wants to impose on people. And he usually toes the party line. He supports the “Great Causes” and policies pushed by his masters – like “sustainable development,” “clean air,” or a maudlin over-concern for “safety” – ahead of the needs, desires, rights and freedoms of us human beings. The politics of the day, and his own privileged position in it, are all that matter to Mr Politico. Score: 2.

Doesn’t accept responsibility? Seeks to evade accountability for actions? Check. He may try to cover up his wrongdoings, or point the finger of blame at someone else, or lie in an attempt to rationalize his actions, or bluster to try to convince people that he was right all along. Lack of accountability is built into the system which affords him power, the political state. Score: generous 1, harsh 2.

Lack of remorse? Cold and calculating attitude to others? Seeming to feel no guilt? Lacking concern for the losses, pain and suffering of victims? Check. Just about every law that politicians make today is seeking to inconvenience us, to make us poorer, to violate our human rights and freedoms, or all three. And when was the last time a politician ever said “sorry?” Don’t make me laugh. Score: 2.

Factor 2

Impulsive? Foolhardy? Rash? Unpredictable? Erratic? Reckless? Maybe Mr Politico isn’t all these things all of the time; but they’re there, all right. He may support wars just because his masters say so. Or he may support highly risky “solutions” to green non-problems, like geo-engineering schemes, or replacing reliable energy sources by intermittent ones. Score: 1.

Poor behaviour controls? Irritable? Annoyed? Impatient? Again, Mr Politico isn’t all these things at once. But we far too often hear politicians demanding ACTION! NOW! on the trumped-up scare du jour. Score: 1.

Lives a parasitic lifestyle? Has no realistic, long-term goals? Well, I’ll admit, Mr Politico is innocent on that last one. He does have goals – to make himself popular, rich and famous, while screwing everyone except his cronies. But most professional politicians are parasites; because they live off taxation, yet do more harm than good to the people who pay through the nose for their “services.” Score: 1.

Irresponsible? Untrustworthy? Repeatedly failing to fulfil or honour obligations or commitments? Check. “Read my lips, no new taxes.” “The government will abide by the result of the [Brexit] referendum.” Politicians – and Mr Politico is no exception – can’t be trusted further than you can throw them. And that, unfortunately, isn’t far enough. Score: 2.

As to the last two, adolescent and adult anti-social behaviour, Mr Politico is probably not guilty. (But if he was, the story would have been suppressed, of course.)

Assessing Mr Politico

Mr Politico has scored 9 to 12 on Factor 1, and 5 on Factor 2. His score on Factor 1 shows him to be very likely a narcissistic personality. His score on Factor 2 shows that he may be an anti-social personality, too. His combined score is between 14 and 17. Mr Politico is a potential psychopath, maybe even verging on a full psychopath.

Mr Politico is, at best, in the worst 1.2% of the population. He is, quite clearly, not the kind of individual any decent human being would want to associate with. Let alone vote for! In a properly ordered community of human beings worth the name, he would be ostracized or imprisoned. He would never get even a sniff of power.

Assessing politicians in general

Now, Mr Politico is a cardboard cut-out of a politician. So, it would be rash to try to deduce, from the above, that every politician is a potential psychopath. In reality, most politicians show some of these psychopathic traits to some degree. Some possess more of them, others less. It is only when the traits are aggregated together that the diagnosis of psychopathy becomes sound.

However, in a supposedly democratic system, we should be able to expect – should we not? – that those to be allowed into positions of power should be qualified to represent the people. Thus, each must be at least as good a person – in this context, that means must score no higher on the PCL:SV test – than the people they are supposed to represent. And since half of the general population score 0 or 1 on the test, we can reasonably expect that those to be allowed power should score 0 or 1 on the test too.

But consider that, if an individual has even one of these psychopathic traits at the level of “item definitely applies,” that puts them over the median score, so ought to disqualify them from power. Yet many of today’s politicians seem to have two or more of these traits:  glibness, arrogance, deceit or dishonesty, lack of empathy, failure to accept responsibility, lack of remorse, recklessness, impatience, untrustworthiness. It would seem that political power, and the desire for it, breed narcissism. And anti-social behaviour, too.

To follow up Robert Hare’s comment I gave you earlier. Not all psychopaths are in prisons or in the boardroom – some are in parliament or on local councils.

Assessing the wider political class

It isn’t just politicians that show these psychopathic traits. Most political activists, and many in government positions, have them too.

Activists or “spokespeople,” glibly trying to sell their policy wares. Behind the scenes policy drivers, such as self-appointed aristocrats in organizations like the UN, and pressure groups striving to push policies in a particular direction. “Celebrities” and many of the rich. Quangocrats. Businessmen that mistreat their people, or go to government to get rules made to hobble their competitors. Virtually all the main stream media, as well as politicized academics and “scientists.” Bureaucrats and jobsworths, that seem to enjoy making life difficult for people. Far too many of these have one or more of the traits in Hare’s test.

Psychopaths and power

It’s easy to see why psychopaths are drawn to political power. It enables them to live out their grandiose delusions of superiority over others. The 16^th century, failed system of political states and “sovereignty” is explicitly set up to enable them to do bad things to us! And it allows them, more often than not, to get away with their crimes.

Furthermore, “democratic” elections select for glibness and persuasiveness, and thus in favour of psychopaths. And once a political party is seeded with enough psychopaths or potential psychopaths, if an honest person does get elected, they must kow-tow to their party’s policies, or risk their careers. That, I think, is why the few honest people, who do enter politics, almost always rapidly become either corrupted or side-lined. Or, perhaps, leave their party.

It gets worse. Once a critical level of psychopathic tendency is reached among those in charge of a political system, the entire system becomes corrupt. The political institutions, as a whole, go insane. And that’s where we are today.

To sum up

Psychopaths want power. Current political systems, including democracy, tend to favour psychopaths over honest people for positions of power. While this tendency acts quite slowly, over time it has relentlessly increased the incidence of psychopathic traits among politicians, and in government as a whole. So, today far too many of those with political power and influence are arrogant, deceitful, selfish, callous and remorseless in their treatment of others. Not to mention impatient, reckless and untrustworthy. And once a critical level is reached, political institutions go mad.

The same psychopathic tendencies also exist among the wider political class, that hang on to the coat-tails of power. Political activists, celebrities, big business, the rich, the media, academe, bureaucracy. All are corrupted by at least some degree of psychopathy. As a result, today we’re in the grips of a giant, collective, psychopathic insanity.

We are in need of a big dose of sanity. Can Reform UK provide that?

Image credit on main page: starline on Freepik.

Neil Lock is campaign manager for the Godalming and Ash branch of Reform UK.