“Psycoanalysis?” And you have the audacity to call “arrogance?”
Even if you were credentialed, you do not know enough about Trump, twentieth century despots, or Founding Fathers to be tossing around diagnoses with any kind of ethical probity.
You are trafficking in the same pseudo-sublime platitudes and eisegesis bunny-men have been using to justify their fear and loathing of Rush Limbaugh for years.
I learned long ago, the difference between arrogance and confidence is the demeanor of the feminist doing the assessment.
Diagnoses were not being made— simply observations, based on recorded behaviour which one can see— ad nauseum. And not textual analysis of the holier than thou category. If you don’t like the commentary you can just disregard it- it is, after all supposedly dialogue. But it is certainly not “fortune cookie” bull crap. Lot’s of people with linear minds have apparently found the simple grunts of confidence enough to make a decision based on hearing what they want to hear. The world is simpler that way- it’s how we got obamaumao et cie. The elite are counting on it.
As for characters of history, the “despots” as you like to term criminal psychopaths— happen to have an entire library of (read) well documented works on the individuals, including psychological workups, from experts in the field (without any compunction about post mortem ethical probity-LOL). For example, a former much honored colleague is known worldwide for being the first to confirm the identity of the remains of Tsar Nicholas II and his family (less the boy and one girl) in 1992 in Ekaterinberg. Forensic medicine to accompany the forensic psychology. And the Founders as well. Deo Vindice.