Three of the most telling words that were uttered this week were also three of the most overlooked. When Hillary Clinton noted during Monday’s debate that Donald Trump had “called women pigs, slobs and dogs,” Trump defended himself, to no one’s surprise. Some of those things were said purely in the course of “entertainment,” he responded, but here’s how he justified his other characterizations:
Rosie O’Donnell, I said very tough things to her, and I think everybody would agree that she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her.
O’Donnell, he charged, had been “very vicious” to him when that feud started in the mid-aughts, so he retaliated by calling her a “pig,” among other things. She deserved it. MSNBC’s Laurence O’Donnell (no relation to Rosie) did a great meditation on those three words Tuesday evening.
She deserves it, yes. That is what every man guilty of spousal abuse always thinks. I’ve talked to prosecutors who’ve handled these cases. I’ve talked to defense lawyers who represent these guys – she deserves it.
That’s what they say. That is what enables them to do what they do …
O’Donnell framed his discussion of the phrase around abusive men, which made perfect sense. But that got me thinking about how many times Trump has launched an attack on someone—women, men, strangers, whoever—because they deserve it, in his view.
Take another debate moment, for instance, when Clinton pointed out how many small business owners Trump had “stiffed.”
“We have an architect in the audience who designed one of your clubhouses at one of your golf courses. It’s a beautiful facility,” Clinton said. “And you wouldn’t pay what the man needed to be paid, what he was charging you to do...”
Trump interjected, “Maybe he didn’t do a good job and I was unsatisfied with his work.”
In other words, maybe he deserved it.
The same was true when he called into Fox News the morning after the debate and was asked about his comments demeaning former Miss Universe Alicia Machado as “Miss Piggy,” among other insults (cuz there’s never just one).
"She was the worst we ever had. The worst. The absolute worst. She was impossible," Trump said. "... She was the winner, and she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem. We had a real problem."
Clearly, it was her fault, and (say it with me now)—she deserved it.
Which brought be back to the entire Khan controversy that Donald Trump pressed for over a week and still hasn’t specifically apologized for. Trump was roundly criticized for going after these grieving parents of a fallen soldier, who had made their case against his candidacy on stage at the Democratic convention. To his detractors, Trump responded:
The Khans “viciously attacked” him. They deserved it.
Just think about how many times in the last year Trump has categorized someone as being “unfair” to him, which naturally justified returning fire. He thought Fox’s Megyn Kelly was “very unfair” to him during the first GOP debate and proceeded to hurl several weeks’ worth of insults at her. Then Donnie charged Fox News itself with treating him “very unfairly,” so he boycotted the news station and a subsequent GOP debate. But hey, you treat someone unfairly, you deserve what you get. Right?
Throughout this campaign we have talked about Donald Trump’s inability to let things go, to brush off insults, criticisms, or even just statements of fact about his business dealings or biography or whatever. The behavior seemed to reveal deep insecurities, perhaps overcompensation for an inferiority complex, and/or narcissistic tendencies. But the pattern of Trump claiming in one way or another that the people he attacks or ridicules or stiffs are all somehow deserving of punishment might denote something deeper.
While I hesitate to play armchair psychologist, we are talking about a guy who is one election away from the presidency and, therefore, the ability to rain down retribution on his detractors in ways most Americans can’t even imagine. Yes, that means the nuclear codes, but also think of Richard Nixon’s infamous “enemies list.” There are so many ways to use the federal government abusively once you have that all-encompassing power at your fingertips. So yeah, it’s worth noting that this pattern of behavior at the very least calls into question sociopathic tendencies.
That is to say, it’s reminiscent of someone who doesn’t just think the world revolves around him in a figurative sense, but rather in a literal sense. Someone who lacks impulse control, rationalizes away mistreatment of others, and usually fails to apologize or take responsibility for his actions.
It might explain what makes it possible for him to ponder Clinton’s assassination, not once but twice, and cast it off as a joke. It might provide context for him repeatedly categorizing an entire ethnicity as “rapists” and “murderers” with impunity. It might offer insights into the “pivot” that never came from a candidate who appears to be unreachable with any reasonable strategy.
Obviously personality disorders are nothing to make light of, which is exactly why I wonder: What would it mean to have someone who potentially has a serious issue as president?
As Hillary Clinton said Friday:
Really, who gets up at 3:00 in the morning to engage in a Twitter attack? Against a former Miss Universe. I mean he hurled as many insults as he could. Really, why does he do things like that?
We’ve been left to ask that question repeatedly during this election cycle.
So really, why?
Kerry Eleveld is the author of Don't Tell Me To Wait: How the fight for gay rights changed America and transformed Obama's presidency.