Authority versus Legitimacy
When authority survives but legitimacy collapses
I read this article on the website of Time. Factually, it describes a shocking situation—one that leads to tension on a global scale almost daily. A president who, according to roughly half of his population, radiates authority, while at the same time enjoying virtually no trust from the majority of his fellow citizens. Not to mention the more objective perception from abroad.
Trump was elected at a time when his predecessor primarily excelled at legitimising decisions. Biden possessed little authority and lacked a personality that conveyed leadership or strength. He was, however, exceptionally skilled at attuning himself to his constituents—but he took this too far. He aligned himself primarily with minorities, creating a “left-wing image” that provoked rage and hatred among his opponents. Their response became so unreasonable that they concluded: Donald Trump—that’s our man. With a purely authoritarian presence and a complete lack of attunement to others, this was seen by many as the solution.
But as life tends to go, reality is more stubborn. Anger provided a convenient fire to put this man in the saddle, but it did not confer legitimacy on the decisions he subsequently made. History shows us that weak collectives often appoint authoritarian leaders. The real problem today is not the president, but the entire American population struggling to find constructive solutions.
People are furious about what is going wrong, but have little idea how to solve things well.
You can make highly decisive decisions based on authority, but that does not legitimise the substance of those decisions in any meaningful way. In an earlier Substack piece, I outlined what is required for high-quality thinking. Unfortunately, very little of that is currently visible in the United States. Decisions are being pushed through on the basis of urgency and anger alone.
Meanwhile, much is happening within the inner system of the leader in question. Of course, we cannot literally look inside his head, but based on my experience working with this type of person, I can sketch a likely scenario. His inner narrative hardens under sustained pressure. The story he tells himself can no longer be altered through reason or attunement. The only perceived escape is perseverance—at least, that is how it feels to this president. His perception narrows (confirmation bias), and blame is projected outward. In the short term, this provides a sense of control; simultaneously, relational trust is damaged even more—and even faster.
But Trump is not the only one suffering from a serious distortion of reality. His followers display the same systemic disturbance. They form what I call a tribal enclosure: a group identity based on overwhelming (and irrational) support, combined with total rejection of everything outside the group. This man does not regulate the emotions of his followers; he anchors them in a loyal sub-system devoid of reality testing. For him personally, this is stabilising—but the sub-collective itself becomes increasingly unstable.
Will this never change? I highly doubt that. The more extreme someone’s behaviour becomes, the faster they fall from their pedestal. Trump is consistent in his approach: decisive action coupled with declining consent. His leadership grows louder, faster, and more unilateral, weakening the public’s sense of being represented. Psychologically speaking, his authority shifts from relational to defensive. What we are witnessing is adaptation without reflection.
This will inevitably lead to chaos, from which a new reality will then emerge.
The leader has stopped learning, which makes his certainty appear to increase. His lack of attunement and feedback results in narrative reinforcement. For his “tribe,” this functions merely as a psychological shelter. It temporarily stabilizes the leader while fragmenting the political system. Increasingly, he accuses his opponents in a desperate attempt to escape the unbearable weight of responsibility. From within his own psychology, this is a way of regulating intense emotions through externalization.
Were he to suddenly reflect sincerely at this moment, the pain might simply be intolerable.
Meanwhile, his authority erodes slowly and quietly—until the moment it collapses publicly. In the animal world, this process is often highly theatrical: apes literally tear the testicles off an un-attuned, authoritarian leader. Ancient Greek history also records violent removals of political leaders who refused to attune themselves to the collective.
For now, there is no crisis—but one could certainly emerge at any moment. As long as a large portion of Americans continues to confuse decisiveness with maturity, this erosion can continue slowly. Until reality becomes inescapable. Through a global unmasking that exposes a flaw even his inner-circle tribe can no longer defend. The Epstein files revealed just how exposed this nerve is. The refusal to publish them triggered rebellion within Trump’s own base—and he immediately chose the path of least resistance. Albeit reluctantly, and without real substance. Fortunately for him, his tribe generally does not consist of people who read much or make the effort to investigate.
The once powerful and magnificent United States finds itself in a leadership crisis—and has brought this upon itself.
The collective fails to attune to one another and then elects a leader who is equally incapable of doing so. A leader who amplifies division and makes decisions from a fabricated narrative. As a result, his term revolves around survival, while genuine authorship is absent. He controls the collective, but only functionally. Substantively, the story grows emptier and emptier—until the vacuum eventually implodes.
Who will rise then? Hopefully a leader capable of writing a narrative in which all Americans can feel at home. A leader who not only leads, but continues to attune. With eyes and ears open to everything that lives—without allowing a small minority to dominate the collective strategy.
An extraordinarily difficult task, because the American system rewards every form of polarization. Choosing blue or red. Pro-choice or anti-abortion. Belief or disbelief. A society emerges that lives in a binary truth. For authoritarian and severely damaged candidates, this is fertile ground for exploitation and self-enrichment.
Thus arises authority without legitimacy—a torment that, as history shows, can last a very long time.