Jerrold M. Post, a psychoanalyst, looks at various manifestations of narcissism in politics. In this book, he brings the tools of psychoanalysis to the study of the worst kinds of political leaders, such as Saddam Hussein and Muammar Quaddafi. He distinguishes between “bad,” or psychopathologic, leaders such as these and “good” narcissistic leaders, represented by Indira Ghandi and Martin Luther King. Narcissism and Politics is something of a hybrid; several chapters are coauthored with three collaborators, but they are not noted on the title page or in the chapter listings; others are drawn from material that has already been published. Only about 50 pages include new material. I mention this not to be critical of Post’s scholarship or argument but to advise readers of what to expect.

Because of the cobbled quality of the narrative, there is no linking argument other than the fact that Post and his collaborators study various manifestations of narcissism in several different contexts. Each chapter is highly descriptive, filled with snapshots of leaders, their psychopathology, and anecdotal material about their lives and politics.

Post distinguishes between what he calls “reparative” leaders like Mohandas Ghandi and Martin Luther King, and psychopathological types like Adolf Hitler and David Koresh. The book is a compendium of leaders, with accompanying psychoanalytic observations as to what they did and how they acted, and the roles of sex, power, corruption, and violence. A lot of bad guys appear, but some attention is given to leaders not motivated by ugly intentions and pathological fantasies. In fact, there is convincing evidence that political leadership, in many instances, attracts persons with severe character disorders, if not psychotic tendencies. The presidential election of 2016 should yield a wealth of clinical material for those who study narcissism, corruption, and sex in political leadership.

It might be useful here to briefly note the chapters because the book is not one consistent argument by one author. Chapters 1–3, with original material, offer insight into the psychoanalytic theory of narcissism and how this affects political leadership. It is not overwhelmed by jargon so as to turn off the general political science reader. Chapters 4 and 5, which are coauthored, look at Indira Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto. Chapter 6, drawn from an earlier article published in 1986, looks at the relation between narcissism as a state of mind and the relationship of leader to follower, particularly the charismatic leader. Chapter 7, coauthored, returns to the subject of women, in this case wives and their relation to their husbands’ inner circle of power. Chapter 8, coauthored, examines the complex interrelationship of narcissism, sex, and power, and the forms in which a sense of entitlement plays out in these relationships (Donald Trump could be perfect fodder for this chapter). Chapter 9, coauthored, looks at the political “rise and fall” of Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi. Chapter 10, “Phallic Narcissism in the Governor’s Mansion,” coauthored, takes a close psychoanalytic look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former governor of California. Chapter 11, drawn from a 1993 book, examines the role of illness and age on narcissistic leadership and studies how illness affects governing. Chapter 12, drawn from a 2003 volume edited by Post, looks at how dictators seek to ensure their immortality, and the relationship of this will to power to their own children. Chapter 13, coauthored, takes a brief look at leaders who were not the first choice of their parents to take up the succession of power. Such leaders found themselves, as Post puts it, “thrust” into power (p. 196).

So what does the reader do with this collection of essays? One way to approach the book is to read the first three new chapters to get a general sense of Post’s theoretical direction and then pick and choose to read about leaders one might find interesting. There is a lot of detail in this book; considerable research material and arguments are augmented by the three contributors. What is being presented here are mini-historical sketches of influential and consequential leaders with additional, but limited, material on psychoanalytic theory and how narcissism relates to illness, sex, corruption, and power.

Post provides a brief introduction to what he means by narcissism and the “spectrum of narcissistic personality features” in political leadership. Not all theorists of narcissism agree; however, Post is not interested in reviewing the literature on narcissism as such, other than quoting from a few mainstream psychoanalytic theorists. This is a weakness because it might have been useful to have had a more general discussion of the theory and literature on narcissism. What Post is clearly interested in developing are portraits of “evil” narcissistic leaders who have provoked massive destruction and suffering. Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Quadaffi, and Serdar Turkmenbashi exemplify leaders afflicted with “dreams of glory.”

Post looks at Saddam’s wounded self, his vanity, Saddam the military hero, the statesman, the sportsman, and the benevolent father. The invasion of Iraq assaulted his grandiosity: “To passively bend the knee and submit to superior force was impossible for Saddam; he was compelled to take action to restore his sense of efficacy and power, defending against passive powerlessness with redemptive and powerful action” (p. 23). For Quadaffi, “a Libya without him at the helm was unimaginable.” Post quotes Quadaffi: “‘I was the one who created Libya … and I will be the one to destroy it’” (p. 29). He was consumed by “retaliatory violence.” Other forms of twisted and sick narcissism appear as “cold,” unfeeling, producing a “bitter narcissistic rage, a need to exact revenge on a system that is so blind and so corrupt” (p. 38)—for example, the Soviet spy Oleg Penkovsky.

Post’s psychoanalytic argument places a great deal of importance on parenting and how parents encourage children. What he calls “healthy parents” help their children integrate both good and bad self-representations in such a way that there is a reasonable balance. However, with the narcissistic individual, there comes to be an idealized self-concept or “good self,” and the corresponding development of an inadequate or devalued “bad self.” In these situations, it is difficult, if not impossible, to understand oneself as bad, or the dangers in crossing emotional and political boundaries, or being empathic toward suffering. Psychoanalytically, the question becomes how to keep the good self from becoming a grandiose projection or extension of one’s identity. With the bad self devalued or split off, the narcissistic leader follows his own instincts, rages, furies—without seeing them as bad, without being constrained by an internalized superego or conscience.

How political leaders act has a great deal to do with their inner selves, with the history of their psychological development, and their proclivity and ease in using violence. It is an important argument because too often, theory in political science tends to diminish the impact of the inner self and look primarily at structural or “measurable” external phenomena in assessing leadership and political action. The great value of this book are the qualitative and historical examples that Post brings to the discussion of leadership.

Many good leaders appear in the book, for example. Robert Hawke, the longest-serving Australian prime minister, as well as Woodrow Wilson, General Douglas MacArthur, Franklin Roosevelt, and King Hussein of Jordan. The dangerous and violent leaders are those afflicted with the “rhetoric of absolutism”—all-or-nothing positions that end up in disastrous and violent genocidal political programs, for example, those of Robespierre and Hitler. There are degrees of narcissism, and with charismatic leaders, powerful splitting mechanisms, projecting great evils or dangers that demonize others, resonate with audiences. Post argues persuasively that one should not ignore the audience; narcissistic leaders project messages and images that audiences of true believers accept uncritically. The leader offers them a vision of perfection, a grandiose future that will both kill enemies and usher in goodness. Post also argues that followers of such leaders are often “ideal hungry” and want a vision of hope. Donald Trump is a good example of such a leader who stokes the fantasies of his ideal-hungry followers. Truth lies in the utterance of the leader. Nothing else matters; facts, objectivity, and reality have nothing to do with it, only belief.

Such charisma generates a powerful form of love between leader and followers, which intensifies the turn to violence in figures like Koresh, Ayatollah Khomeini, and Osama bin Laden. Reparative, charismatic leaders, however, do not rule or inspire by hate and rage.

Narcissism and Politics is certainly worth reading; the facts and anecdotes about the leaders are compelling and the psychoanalytic theory is not dense or overly technical. This is a welcome contribution to both political psychology and political science. Post reminds us that everything is not numbers, that the self and emotion matter when thinking about political life.