Tactical Empathy, Trump, and the Trouble with Negotiation

Chris Voss isn’t just another talking head. He’s a former FBI hostage negotiator, author of Never Split the Difference, and a man who has spent his career staring down people holding lives in their hands. When he talks about negotiation, it isn’t theory—it’s survival.

In August 2025, Voss sat down with The New York Times and dropped a line that still rings: Donald Trump’s secret weapon is “tactical empathy.”

What Voss Means by Tactical Empathy

Now, don’t confuse this with the Hallmark-card version of empathy. Voss is quick to say his use of the word has nothing to do with “soft, spongy” feelings. He calls it a tool—a skill. It’s the ability to understand how someone else sees the world without needing to agree with them. It’s not sympathy, and it’s not compassion.

Think of it like tactical breathing. To a Navy SEAL, “yoga breathing” sounds ridiculous. Call it tactical breathing, and suddenly it’s life-saving discipline. Voss did the same with empathy—gave it sharper edges, made it sound operational.

Trump’s Application of the Concept

According to Voss, Trump does this instinctively. He has a knack for reading the way others perceive situations and then exploiting that understanding to his own advantage. One example Voss gave: when Trump ordered strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites but stopped short of killing the Iranian leader. For Voss, this showed Trump recognized that assassinating a head of state could trigger “open season” on world leaders. That’s tactical empathy at work—understanding the other side’s perspective without embracing it.

The Counterpoint: Bullying Masquerading as Negotiation

But here’s where the conversation splits. While Voss highlights Trump’s ability to deploy this skill, others see a much darker pattern.

• High-leverage demands: Psychology Today has pointed out Trump’s “door-in-the-face” style—asking for the moon, then working back to what he actually wants. It’s effective at times, but just as often comes across as bullying.

• Ultimatums over compromise: The Associated Press has catalogued his reliance on threats and ultimatums. This is less negotiation than strong-arming.

• Poor relational ethics: Negotiation experts like Marty Latz have been blunt: Trump’s approach is “win-lose,” fueled by impulsiveness, bullying, and a flexible relationship with truth.

And let’s not forget the research. Decades of psychological studies tie Trump and his supporters to lower levels of emotional empathy, with spikes in more malevolent traits.

Where This Leaves Us

So, is tactical empathy really Trump’s secret weapon—or just Voss’s charitable interpretation of a man whose methods often leave scorched earth behind?

I’d argue both can be true. Trump may indeed use a form of tactical empathy, but let’s be clear: empathy stripped of ethics becomes manipulation. When you understand another person only to bend or break them, that isn’t strength. It’s exploitation.

And America, frankly, has paid the price.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Clever but Not Deep: The Subtle Trap of Surface Intelligence

We’ve all met them. People who seem sharp, articulate, and impressive—at first. Their vocabulary is refined, their wit disarming. They toss off observations and opinions that sound insightful. But after a while, something doesn’t quite hold. You realize you're not in the presence of depth, but of a performance. A well-learned one, perhaps—but a shallow one all the same.

So what do we call that?

The word clever often comes to mind. But cleverness is tricky. It walks a fine line. It can mean quick-thinking, ingenious even. But it can also mean sly, manipulative, performative. It often relies more on learned technique than true understanding. And it can mask a fundamental lack of what we typically associate with deep intelligence: critical thinking, ethical reflection, abstract reasoning, or even emotional maturity.

People who are “clever but not intelligent” aren’t necessarily stupid. In fact, some may be incredibly skilled in one domain. Maybe they’re socially agile, able to read a room and adjust accordingly. Maybe they’re masterful at persuasion. Maybe they picked up survival strategies early in life—tools of manipulation, mimicry, or control—and honed them into weapons of influence.

In some narcissists, for example, this cleverness becomes a smokescreen. They use charm, borrowed phrases, or pop-psych lingo to simulate insight. But try to go a layer deeper and the scaffolding collapses. There’s no genuine intellectual curiosity, no capacity for self-reflection, no coherent worldview beyond the pursuit of admiration or control. It’s all tactics—no substance.

Others might possess strong memory or subject expertise, but little flexibility of thought. You see this in savant-like personalities who thrive in one intellectual niche but struggle outside it. Or in individuals who’ve mastered a narrow field but can’t navigate broader or more human-centered conversations.

So we circle back: what is the right word for someone who is skilled, but shallow? Intelligent in appearance, but not in truth?

Here are a few that get closer:

• Cunning – often implies intentional deceit or strategy

• Shrewd – practical intelligence, but not necessarily depth

• Guileful – clever with a manipulative edge

• Superficially bright – smart on the surface, but it doesn’t go far

• Socially agile – adept at navigating social dynamics without true insight

• Performatively intelligent – using the appearance of intelligence to mask its absence

In truth, it may be best expressed not in a single word, but in a phrase:

“Clever, but not intellectually deep.”
“More practiced than perceptive.”
“Socially sharp but philosophically flat.”

There’s no shame in cleverness. But when cleverness is mistaken for wisdom, or used as a substitute for critical thought, we get something hollow. Something that can fool others, and sometimes even fool itself.

And in an age when style too often trumps substance, recognizing the difference might be more important than ever.

---

A Living Example: Donald Trump

If ever there was a public figure who personifies this clever-but-not-deep archetype, it’s Donald Trump.

He’s not intellectually curious. He’s not reflective. He doesn’t study, read, or think in systems. But he is clever. Dangerously so. He has an intuitive grasp of how to manipulate attention, leverage grievance, and dominate headlines. He knows how to say just enough to sound “strong” to his base, even when saying nothing at all.

His intelligence isn’t rooted in knowledge or analysis—it's in performance, manipulation, and repetition. He reframes every truth to serve his ego. He weaponizes simplicity. And like many narcissists, his cleverness hides a vast emotional and intellectual vacuum. He isn’t stupid—but he is shallow.

In the long run, cleverness without depth corrodes institutions, relationships, and reality itself. Trump’s rise shows what happens when performative intelligence gets mistaken for leadership.

“Clever in tactics, but intellectually hollow.
A master of spectacle, but a stranger to substance.”

It’s time we stop conflating the two. Because being clever isn’t the same as being wise. And in a world overrun with misinformation and charisma-driven politics, that difference matters more than ever.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The Thin Script: How Bad People Give Themselves Away

We all walk around carrying a kind of invisible script that we play depending on who we are talking to or the situation we're involved in.

You talk to a friend one way, your boss another. You don’t speak to a cop the same way you speak to your barista. And you probably don’t crack jokes with a stranger who just pulled a knife on you. (Well, unless you're me.)

These scripts are social shorthand. They help us navigate complexity, manage relationships, and get through the day without reinventing ourselves in every interaction.

But here’s the unsettling thing I’ve been thinking about lately:

• It’s not just how many scripts you have.
• Though it also IS how many you have.  
• It’s also which ones you use—and why. 

Because some people only seem to know two:

• Be charming when you want something.
• Be cruel when you don’t.

They default to flattery, coercion, dismissal, or attack—based not on the humanity of the other person, but on perceived usefulness. This is the behavior of manipulators, narcissists, sociopaths, and yes, certain public figures whose names rhyme with Ronald Grump.

And here’s the kicker:

You don’t need a list of their misdeeds to know something’s off.
You can feel it.

They don’t seem to see you. They see what you can be to them.

Their kindness is calculated. Their cruelty is casual.
Their empathy, if it exists at all, is leased—not owned.

What makes this kind of behavior—transactional kindness, shallow scripts, fake empathy—so skin-crawling is that it masquerades as decency. Unlike overt crimes, which we can easily condemn, this kind of moral emptiness hides behind smiles, compliments, and politeness. It’s the predator in a suit, the manipulation behind the mask.

It creeps under the skin because it violates something more primal than law: trust. We feel deceived on a human level, like we've been seen not as a person but as a tool. That kind of subtle, cold calculation evokes a deeper unease than open hostility—because it pretends to be safe, while hollowing out the core of human connection.

We have some national leaders today this reminds one of. Which relates to another blog of mine about one of them currently in the media day in and day out as if it were a mental condition (and it is).

The Binary Mindset of the Self-Serving

This is the psychology of moral shallowness: a binary worldview where people are either useful or expendable.

• They smile at you if you're a ladder rung.
• They step on you if you're not.

Their scripts are fast, effective, and emotionally empty—just enough to keep the game moving.

• Suck up to those with power
• Step on those without
• Cry victim when caught
• Blame the mirror when the mask slips.

Sound familiar? If it does, congratulations: you still have a functioning moral compass.

Not All Badness Is Loud

We tend to associate “bad people” with dramatic behaviors—violence, corruption, hate speech. But sometimes, badness is subtle. Structural. Baked into how someone views others.

It’s the person who never says the racist thing, but never challenges it either.
The person who gives generously—but always for credit, or leverage.
The one who’s kind to your face but never curious about who you are.

It’s like being friends with a vending machine. You push a button, you get a smile. Push the wrong one? Cold air and silence.

And we know it. Even if we don’t say it out loud, something in us recoils.
It’s not just what they do—it’s what they lack:

• Moral depth
• Relational integrity
• Any interest in people they don’t need

Why We Call Them “Bad”

It’s not because they break laws (though some do).
It’s because their worldview breaks trust.

• Because they reduce others to objects—tools, threats, or trophies.
• Because their niceness is a transaction.
• Because you’re never entirely sure they won’t throw you under the bus if it benefits them.

And some of them do it smiling.

Closing Thought

You can learn a lot about someone not by how they treat their allies, but how they treat the powerless, the inconvenient, or the irrelevant.

Anyone can be nice when it gets them something.
But someone with real depth?

They’re human to you even when you have nothing to offer.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Traits Considered Unfit for Public Office. Who Does This Sound Like?

It occurred to me to stop looking at our current and obvious disaster of a president of the United States of America, convicted criminal (not a judgment, mind you, a proven fact) Donald Trump, and ask say...ChatGPT, the other side of that question. 

What would be the traits of someone who should never be allowed to be POTUS? 

First, check this out: What to do if the Insurrection Act is invoked
With the Insurrection Act looming, now is the time to learn how it might unfold and the strategic ways to respond — including the power of ridicule.

Also, check out "2073" on MAX. Democracy isn’t dying with a bang but

fading in silence between headlines. "2073" shows how the system is quietly rigged & how many might not see until it’s too late. Watch on Max, before we lose it all. Probably, too late already.

Anyway, this is what AI thinks of who should never be allowed to be POTUS...

A person who should never be President of the United States would likely exhibit a psychological profile that includes the following traits:

1. Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)

• Extreme self-importance and a need for constant admiration

• Lack of empathy for others

• Belief that they are uniquely special and above rules

• Exploitative tendencies, using people for personal gain

2. Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD) / Psychopathy

• Chronic lying and manipulation

• Lack of guilt or remorse for harmful actions

• Impulsivity and recklessness, disregarding consequences

• Charm that masks a deep lack of morality

3. Paranoid Personality Traits

• Deep mistrust of others, including close allies

• Seeing enemies and conspiracies everywhere

• Quick to retaliate against perceived slights

• Inability to take responsibility for failures

4. Authoritarianism & Power Obsession

• Desire for absolute control and intolerance of dissent

• Disregard for democratic institutions and processes

• Cultivation of a personality cult, demanding loyalty over competence

• Willingness to use fear and division to maintain power

5. Impulsivity & Lack of Emotional Regulation

• Making rash, emotion-driven decisions

• Inability to handle criticism without overreacting

• Taking petty grievances to extremes, even at great cost

• Lacking discipline, strategy, or long-term vision

6. Grandiosity with Delusions of Invincibility

• Belief that they alone can fix everything

• Ignoring expert advice in favor of personal instincts

• Refusing to admit mistakes or change course

• Viewing themselves as a messianic or historic figure

7. Intellectual Laziness & Willful Ignorance

• Disinterest in learning or seeking knowledge

• Preference for slogans and soundbites over policy and governance

• Reliance on gut feelings over data and rational analysis

• Easily manipulated by flattery or disinformation

8. Vindictiveness & Grudge-Holding

• Using government power to punish enemies

• Obsessing over past slights and seeking revenge

• Rewarding only sycophants and crushing dissenters

• Letting personal vendettas dictate national policy

A person with a combination of these traits would be fundamentally unfit for the presidency, as they would prioritize personal power, vendettas, and self-aggrandizement over the well-being of the country and its people.

OK, that being said, time to ask the other side of that question:

Of all current or previous holders of the office of POTUS, which president would that most represent? 

Make of it what you will, this was the decision of the AI...

The psychological traits described in the previous response most closely align with certain aspects of Donald Trump’s presidency. While it's important to recognize that psychological analysis of public figures is speculative and subjective, many critics and analysts have pointed to traits in Trump that match several elements in the profile:

1. Narcissism and Grandiosity

Trump exhibited a strong sense of self-importance, often portraying himself as uniquely qualified and capable of solving national problems. He frequently spoke about his abilities and accomplishments in exaggerated terms, which is a hallmark of narcissism.

2. Antisocial Behavior and Manipulativeness

Trump’s tendency to lie frequently, exploit others for personal gain, and disregard the truth were commonly noted during his time in office. His presidency was marked by constant controversy surrounding his honesty, relationships with the media, and the use of power for personal advantage.

3. Paranoia and Conspiracy Theories

Trump often expressed deep mistrust of others, especially political opponents and the media, frequently accusing them of being part of a "deep state" or "fake news." He was prone to seeing conspiracies where there were none, further fostering division.

4. Authoritarian Tendencies

Trump often exhibited authoritarian leanings, including attempts to undermine democratic norms, disrespect for the independence of the judiciary, and a preference for loyalty over competence. His relationship with institutions like the press and the intelligence community mirrored authoritarian tendencies, as he sought to undermine checks and balances.

5. Impulsivity and Emotional Reactivity

Trump's decision-making was often seen as reactive and emotionally driven, whether it was via Twitter outbursts or abrupt policy changes. His administration was marked by impulsive decisions that sometimes led to unpredictable consequences.

6. Vindictiveness and Grudge-Holding

Trump's presidency was marked by his use of power to target perceived enemies, from calling for investigations into his rivals to making decisions based on personal animus. He was also known for rewarding loyalists and punishing those who crossed him, whether politically or personally.

While some might argue that other presidents have exhibited similar characteristics to varying degrees, the traits described here were notably amplified in Donald Trump's tenure, making him one of the most frequently cited examples in contemporary discussions.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Commander in Cheat: When Golf (or Sports) and Despotism Go Hand in Hand

Trump's rhetoric draws alarming comparisons to autocratic leaders and dictators.

We've seen odd behaviors from such types. And remember, how much Trump cozies up to these types (Putin, Kim Jong Il, Xi, etc.), and not out of any political cleverness, but merely for a desire to be one of them. 

We’ve seen odd behaviors from autocratic despots and dictators throughout history—leaders who manipulate, exaggerate, and bend the truth to maintain control. What’s striking is that Trump doesn’t simply align with these figures for political gain or out of strategic acumen; he cozies up to them because he admires their style of leadership. 

Trump's relationship with figures like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, and other strongmen isn’t based on common ideological ground but on a shared desire for unchecked power. Trump's attraction to these leaders goes beyond diplomatic interests—it’s rooted in his own yearning to emulate their ability to dominate, control, and defy established norms. Instead of challenging their methods, he seeks to be one of them, reflecting an authoritarian impulse more than a pursuit of democratic principles.

Kim Jong-Il was a dictator who went to great links

Then the day Kim Jong IL became the world's best golfer. Kind of laughable, right? WE don't do that kind of thing...right?

I mean, who DOES that? OK sure, North Korea? But who else? Sure, it's just NK lies & Nonsense...but ON our American Despotic front?

"Donald Trump admits it was 'probably' his last golf tournament." OK, he's old, so hanging up his (faux) Pro-clubs in "playing" in golf "championships". One's he sponsors, so one HE "Wins".

Although this championship "win" wasn't THAT surprising. After all, Trump has claimed "Victories" at this event for the past several years.

Donald Trump likened to Kim Jong Un by tennis legend over outlandish golf claim" Irish Star - and this from a country known for tall tales.

"The U.S. President appears to have developed a knack for over-exaggerating his success on the greens and has recently come under fire for something he claimed to have achieved in 2022." Overexaggerating? These are outright lies anyone who has ever played with him knows about. Though his supporters and Republicans do lie about it: "Another user backed the cheating claims, tweeted: 'Trump has been known to pick up the ball and put it in the cup so…��‍♀️' "

In fact, Trump's fantastically claimed "Wins" are notorious throughout the golf world. This type of lying behavior by a despot is often referred to as "megalomaniacal propaganda" or "cult of personality fabrication.

Jimmy Kimmel Remixes North Korean State Media to Mock Trump’s Golf Tournament Claims | Video

Martina Navratilova criticizes Donald Trump with Kim Jong Un comparison over US President's old golf claim.

Multiple individuals who have played golf with former President Donald Trump have publicly claimed that he engages in cheating during rounds. Notable accounts include:

• Rick Reilly, a sportswriter who has played with Trump, authored the book Commander in Cheat: How Golf Explains Trump, detailing various alleged cheating tactics. Reilly claims Trump uses a "turbo-charged golf cart" to get ahead of his competition, allowing him to move balls before others catch up.

  People.com

• Suzann Pettersen, a professional golfer with 15 LPGA Tour wins, stated in a 2018 interview that Trump "cheats like hell" on the golf course.

  The Guardian

• Mike Tirico, a sportscaster, recounted an incident where he hit a near-perfect shot, only to find his ball mysteriously in a sand trap later. He was later informed that Trump had thrown his ball into the bunker.

  GolfDigest.com

These accounts provide firsthand perspectives on Trump's alleged behavior on the golf course.

This type of lying behavior by a despot is often referred to as "megalomaniacal propaganda" or "cult of personality fabrication." More specifically, it can fall under several psychological and political concepts, such as:

1. Pathological Lying (Pseudologia Fantastica) – Habitual or grandiose falsehoods intended to create an exaggerated image of greatness.
2. Mythmaking Propaganda – Creating absurd or superhuman myths to reinforce the ruler's divine or infallible status.
3. Authoritarian Gaslighting – Manipulating public perception to make people question reality and accept the leader’s version of events.
4. Omnipotence Illusion – Presenting the leader as all-powerful and superhuman to discourage dissent and solidify loyalty.

Kim Jong-il (not Kim Jong-un) was famously reported to have shot 38 under par, including 11 hole-in-ones, during his first-ever golf game, a claim that fits within these categories of despotic deception.

Accusations of despotism against former U.S. President Donald Trump stem from several actions and statements perceived as authoritarian:

1. Expansion of Executive Power: In February 2025, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport 261 alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador, despite a federal judge's order to halt such deportations. This unprecedented use of a wartime law during peacetime was viewed by legal experts as an illegal misuse of power and a direct threat to the rule of law.

   The Australian

2. Defiance of Judicial Authority: Trump's administration proceeded with deportations even after court orders blocked such actions, challenging the judiciary's role as a check on executive power. Critics argue this defiance undermines constitutional checks and balances, posing risks to American democracy.

   Times Union

3. Rhetoric Suggesting Authoritarian Intentions: During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump remarked he would act as a dictator only on "day one" to implement specific policies, such as closing the border. While some dismissed this as rhetoric, others viewed it as an indication of authoritarian ambitions.

   Wikipedia

4. Dehumanizing Language and Threats of Violence: Trump's campaign employed increasingly dehumanizing and violent rhetoric against political adversaries and immigrants. Historians and scholars have described this language as populist, authoritarian, and fascist, raising concerns about its implications for democratic norms.

   Wikipedia

5. Challenges to Constitutional Checks and Balances: Trump's actions, such as defying court orders and expanding executive authority, have been characterized as a "bald power grab," leading to fears that the U.S. could be on a path toward dictatorship. Legal experts warn that unchecked executive authority undermines the foundational principles of American democracy.

   The Guardian

These actions and statements have contributed to perceptions of Trump as exhibiting despotic tendencies, prompting debates about the resilience of democratic institutions in the United States.

Trump’s alleged golf cheating fits a broader pattern seen in authoritarian leaders who fabricate personal greatness to reinforce their image. Just as despots throughout history have exaggerated their achievements—like Kim Jong Il claiming to shoot 38 under par—Trump has been accused by sportswriters, professional golfers, and playing partners of bending the rules to maintain a myth of dominance. 

Rick Reilly’s Commander in Cheat details how Trump manipulates the game, while LPGA pro Suzann Pettersen and sportscaster Mike Tirico recount firsthand instances of him moving balls and falsifying scores. These behaviors reflect a deeper authoritarian tendency: the need to control narratives, even in trivial matters, to project infallibility and superiority.

One last thing...

We have an entire cohort of co called "conservatives" who for decades have believed themselves to be that, while the party which serves that group have moved consistently into the extreme and the Fascist.

A statement that is largely accurate when looking at the political trajectory of the Republican Party in the U.S. over the past few decades. Many self-identified conservatives still see themselves as supporting traditional conservative values—such as limited government, free markets, and individual freedoms—while the party itself has increasingly embraced far-right populism, authoritarian tendencies, and nationalist rhetoric.

This shift has been noted by historians and political analysts, who highlight that the Republican Party has moved away from traditional conservatism (e.g., as represented by figures like Dwight Eisenhower or even Ronald Reagan) and toward more extreme positions. The embrace of Trumpism, conspiracy theories, election denialism, and policies that undermine democratic norms has led some former conservatives to break away, while others remain within the party, either unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge its transformation.

This kind of deception isn’t just about golf—it’s a hallmark of despots who manufacture their own greatness to maintain power and admiration. From claiming impossible athletic feats to rewriting history, authoritarian leaders rely on lies to craft an image of superiority. Whether on the fairway or the political stage, the need to cheat to win reveals not strength, but insecurity—the defining flaw of every despot.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT