90% of Politicians Seem to Be Psychopaths

I agree, it looks like a silly statement, but the definition of psychopath is:

• persistent disregard for other people’s rights
• lack of empathy or remorse
• manipulativeness
• deceitfulness
• callousness
• impulsive or antisocial behaviour
• sometimes aggression or exploitation

I think most of them fit somewhere into that definition. Don’t you think?

I am not saying every politician is sitting in a dark room planning how to destroy ordinary people’s lives before lunch. Some probably do it after lunch. But seriously, look at how many of them behave. They lie, manipulate, ignore people, avoid responsibility, create damage, and then appear on television with a serious face, saying they are doing everything for the people.

If a normal person behaved like that in private life, people would say something is wrong with this person. In politics, we call it leadership.

Some politicians are probably born like that. Cold, ambitious, charming, empty enough, and perfectly prepared for the job. Others maybe acquire this mental disease later, as a lovely bonus that comes with power, money, public attention, donors, lobbyists, media exposure, and the constant feeling that they are very important.

Sometimes it also comes from the decision to do the “right” thing. Actually, forcing the “right” thing seems to be one of the biggest issues of the 21st century. Just forcing it, because they know better, obviously.

Politicians and Compromise

Often, politicians are not really into compromise. They say they are, because of course they say that. They also say they care about ordinary people, which is adorable. But in reality, compromise is often treated like weakness.

People reject compromise mainly for these mental and psychological reasons:

• Identity fusion: Their beliefs are tied to their core identity. Compromising feels like betraying who they are.
• Sacred values: Some issues are seen as morally absolute (not negotiable). Offering compromise feels like selling out.
• Tribalism: Strong loyalty to “their side” makes any concession feel like helping the enemy.
• Black-and-white thinking: They see the world in extremes (good vs evil). Nuance and middle ground become threatening.
• Fear of slippery slope: They believe small compromises will lead to total defeat later.
• Virtue signaling & status: Rejecting compromise proves purity and raises status within their group.

In short: For many, compromise is not seen as practical, but as weakness or moral failure. Emotions and identity usually overpower rationality.

Politicians know this very well. They feed it, use it, build campaigns around it, divide people into teams, and then pretend to be shocked when everyone starts hating each other.

Voting for the Lesser Evil

Actually, I am in a position where voting in elections does not make much sense to me anymore. I know, terrible citizen. Shame on me.

I see that society always “somehow” works, no matter who is the leader. If the politician is not complete mental case, then any well-established country usually keeps going for another four years or so. Roads do not vanish overnight. Shops still open. People still go to work. Garbage still gets collected.

The system keeps moving because ordinary people keep it moving, not because some smiling political creature promised a better tomorrow.

Each political party promises something. It is always about making the country better. Better life, justice, fairness, security, freedom, prosperity, hope, progress, change, future, and all the usual beautiful stuff.

Thankfully, not all people are ignorant like I am, and they do vote. Good for them. Someone has to keep the democratic theater running.

I try not to talk in real life about politicians, but sometimes I am curious and ask people who they vote for and why. Their answer is often: “I vote for the lesser evil.” Well, that sounds like happiness.

The Charming Political Psycho

Extra psychos are those charming, kind-looking politicians with that shiny motivational energy like: “Yeah! Let’s do it!” They smile, they look positive, they sound full of hope, and people somehow believe this is a good sign.

Then the “it” does not work. Or the “it” gets really fucked up. Businesses suffer, taxpayers pay, families struggle, prices rise, trust collapses, rules get worse, and something breaks. Then they appear again with the same shiny face and say: “Yeah! We learned a lesson. Now we are stronger and better!”

I just freeze. Hm? What?

That type scares me more than an openly unpleasant politician. At least with the openly unpleasant one, you know what kind of bastard you are dealing with. The charming one can sell disaster with a smile, a flag, and a slogan about responsibility. Then, when everything burns, they call it a learning process. Fantastic.

People Forget Too Fast

Does it bother me that much that I have to write this article? Well, yes, especially when I read the news or check facts. But I also have other things to do, like millions of other people. Work, projects, bills, taxes, health, broken technology, emails, shopping, repairs, stress, and trying not to mentally collapse while reading another public statement from someone who should probably not be trusted with a toaster.

And that is why politicians can keep messing up.

People do not care that much because they are busy. People forget. Who remembers what a politician did a year or two ago? Who remembers what they promised? Who remembers what they supported, denied, blocked, blamed, changed, or quietly voted for?

A scandal appears, people get angry, another scandal appears, and people forget the first scandal. Then election time comes, and suddenly everyone gets fresh slogans, fresh posters, fresh smiles, fresh promises, and the same old smell from the political basement. It works because people have lives. Politicians know that.

Can a Good Politician Exist?

I was thinking, can there exist some really good politician willing to do only good things for a country? Someone who wants to improve the system, reduce corruption, make justice actually be justice, protect freedom, keep rules simple, and not turn public service into a personal power spa?

Yes, such politician can exist. For a very short time.

Then there is risk. Not always some movie-style drama, of course. Sometimes they are just pushed out, smeared, ignored, exhausted, bought, blackmailed, isolated, politically buried, or destroyed by their own party. There is also a risk of an accident or disappearance for good. Some fall out of windows. Some get unlucky with poison. Some annoy the wrong group and suddenly life becomes very short, very mysterious, or very quiet.

I think regular income, a peaceful life, and some small bonuses sound better than melting in some barrel because I tried to fix corruption too honestly.

Would I Be a Good Politician?

I will be honest. No. First, I have some difficulty with my own responsibilities and duties. I am not going to pretend otherwise. Second, I would have to be in media, and media sucks.

Third, I would probably say something honest too directly and too early. Then some journalist would cut one sentence out of context, some activist would have emotional damage, some expert would explain why my tone is dangerous, and some opponent would call me a threat to democracy before lunch. No, thanks.

Also, I do not think I could survive the daily theater. The fake smiles, fake handshakes, fake concern, fake humility, fake outrage, fake “lessons learned,” fake promises, and fake love for ordinary people.

Politics looks like a profession where people say they want to serve the public, while many of them mostly serve themselves, their party, their ideology, their donors, their friends, their career, or their ego. Not all of them, fine. But enough of them.

Do 90% of politicians seem to be psychopaths? Maybe the number is wrong. Maybe it is lower. Maybe it is higher. Maybe I am just tired of watching people with power behave like empathy was deleted during installation.

But when you look at the definition again, it becomes difficult not to think about it:

• persistent disregard for other people’s rights
• lack of empathy or remorse
• manipulativeness
• deceitfulness
• callousness
• impulsive or antisocial behaviour
• sometimes aggression or exploitation

The scary part is not that the definition exists. The scary part is how many politicians seem to treat it like a career checklist. And honestly? It sucks.