Ross Rosenberg is an internationally recognized authority on codependency, narcissistic abuse, and trauma recovery. As the CEO and founder of the Self-Love Recovery Institute, he has become a trusted voice in mental health circles—an in-demand therapist, speaker, and expert witness. His breakout book, The Human Magnet Syndrome, has sold over 190,000 copies and been translated into 12 languages. In his latest work, Codependency Cure, Rosenberg introduces the concept of Self-Love Deficit Disorder (SLDD), a reframing of traditional views on codependency that blends clinical insight with accessible guidance.

With decades of clinical and teaching experience, Rosenberg’s work offers a vital bridge between psychological theory and real-world application, helping individuals escape toxic relational patterns and reclaim a sense of self-worth. In this wide-ranging conversation with journalist Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rosenberg examines the volatile intersection of narcissism, codependency, and politics. He argues that narcissistic traits—particularly covert narcissism—can offer distinct advantages in political life, enabling candidates to manipulate public perception and prey on voter insecurities.

Rosenberg connects SLDD to a broader vulnerability among citizens to propaganda, fear-driven politics, and cult-like political loyalty. He warns that the psychological spectacle of modern politics, amplified by social media and disinformation, erodes democratic resilience. To counter this, he calls for greater civic awareness, historical perspective, and psychological literacy as essential tools for recognizing manipulative leadership and safeguarding democratic integrity.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Ross, thank you for joining me today. Hello from Reykjavik.

Ross Rosenberg: Scott, it’s great to talk to you again. We’ve had many conversations.

Jacobsen: Today, we’re going to be focusing on politics, self-love deficit disorder, and narcissism. If you were to apply these analyses of individual psychology, how would you fit them into the American political system?

Rosenberg: Wow, that’s a really big question. So, let me unpack what you just asked. So, you want to know how my ideas of codependency or self-love deficit disorder, the human magnet syndrome, and narcissism. People who follow me understand that the human magnet syndrome states that codependents are reflexively attracted to narcissists, and narcissists are attracted to codependents because they’re inversely opposite. Their personalities match with each other. How do my human magnet syndrome and other related ideas relate to politics? Well, that’s a big question. I look at politics as a business and a profession, and like all businesses and professions, the very best succeed and rise to the top. Those who cannot succeed, who lack the same talent, or who cannot find a way to meet and surpass their goals tend to struggle. And so, politics, by its nature, I define it as a job where you represent your constituents in a governmental position.

You speak for them, you advocate for them while representing the country, the city, the jurisdiction, the area that you come from, and you represent that. A politician must be selected and possess a certain personality trait, and none of them are mutually exclusive. None of them is selfless. All successful politicians must figure out a way to make themselves appear attractive, to be seen as the person who will represent them and stand up for them. Therefore, they must create a persona that aligns with what they believe their constituents want and one that is more appealing than those of their competitors running for election. In essence, begin with narcissism, a self-centered approach to life where you think about yourself more than the needs of others. It helps in politics because if you’re going to be elected, you have to make everyone aware of who you are and what you stand for. Well, that sounds narcissistic.

Jacobsen: Another aspect of adopting a persona is presenting yourself as something you’re not—essentially, a kind of fabrication. How does this contribute to the construction of a false self?

Rosenberg: That is very dismaying and very upsetting for me and, of course, other people. It is endemic in politics that if you’re going to win an election, you have to figure out a way to present yourself in a manner, in a fashion, that resonates with the people that you want to vote for you. You must continually reinvent yourself as a person who stands for and advocates for specific issues. And these issues change, devolving and evolving, so you have to keep changing yourself. And the person who does that well and keeps tabs on the pulse of their constituents, the people who are going to elect them, is going to get elected. And because what is important to Americans, Canadians, and whoever is listening to this podcast or YouTube video, it changes. It changes generationally. It changes culturally. It changes historically. So, politicians have to keep changing.

Suppose you’re a person with a set of ideas and morals, and you have a specific vision that remains consistent throughout your lifetime. In that case, you won’t get elected because people’s ideas, needs, and wants change. Therefore, the person who can be malleable and change themselves, create or recreate their persona, and conveniently adjust their beliefs or lack thereof to match what they believe the voters want requires a certain personality type. And I don’t think it’s healthy. It’s narcissistic, and it’s very sad because these are the people who win elections.

Jacobsen: In the U.S., we often divide people into conservatives and liberals. Are there consistent personality traits that tend to align with either group?

Rosenberg: If we look at politics and we break down what is a liberal, what is a Democrat, or we break down what is a conservative, what is a Republican, and we go to what used to be the general ideas, the general descriptions, is that Republicans and conservatives represented big business. They wanted less government interference. They believe that if you are left alone, the forces of the economy drive the country to success and comfort. If there’s too much government oversight and regulation, it becomes too bureaucratic and harmful to the creative process, which not only creates businesses but also businesses that create jobs, which in turn create money and spending, and this whole idea of financial success or the trickle-down theory.

By the way, I don’t have a political science background, but that is what I understand as Republican and conservative, as it used to be. Now, let’s look at liberals and Democrats. They believe that the government has a responsibility to all people, whether they’re homeless, poor, mentally ill, independent of colour, or sexual orientation. It’s a very open philosophy that emphasizes the importance of taking care of one another. And because it is so easy for humans and local jurisdictions, cities, states, and governments to overlook this, they create programs and laws that are inclusive and consider people who are disenfranchised. And they believe that government programmes have to be created. People must be responsible for these programs so that they work and help those who can’t otherwise represent themselves and achieve success.

Suppose you can accept this basic explanation of Democrats, liberals, and conservative Republicans. In that case, I have tried my best not to speak about them qualitatively differently. However, if you look at these two, you don’t see them as bad but rather as different ideas. I read this in Neil deGrasse Tyson’s book Cosmic Perspectives or something similar. And in this book, it just blew me away. He said Democrats and Republicans have a lot in common, but we never talk about it.

But I’m talking about differences. And if we talk about those differences, a person who takes care of others, who sacrifices themselves to help other people, not necessarily codependent, that’s more pathological, is going to line up with liberal ideology and politics or consider themselves a Democrat.

A more self-centred person believes the world is better if everyone takes care of themselves and believes that is how we solve problems. We take care of our communities. We take care of our families. That will align with the Republican or conservative ideology. So, I believe that in extremes, now that we’re looking at extremes, the extreme person who gives everything and doesn’t take much for themselves is codependent. Well, the extreme of someone who takes everything and it’s completely all about themselves, well, that’s pathologically narcissistic. This is essentially my relationship compatibility continuum that I talk about in my Human Magnet Syndrome book, where I discuss codependence and pathological narcissism regarding the distribution of love, respect, and caring. Codependence, give it all away; pathological narcissists take it.

So if you accept my explanation about liberals and conservatives as far as how they see the world and what they believe how government can function, which is not dysfunctional, well, then I’m asking the viewers or listeners to accept, well, in the most dysfunctional sense, the most self-orientated are going to be the pathological narcissist and the most selfless orientated are going to be codependents. And in politics, pathologically narcissistic people do much, much better in getting elected than any person.

It is a valuable asset, which sounds terrible because what I’m saying is a personality disorder, which is a horrible thing for people, let alone anyone that’s in a relationship with them; that becomes a benefit for the politician because it allows them without much empathy, without much inner turmoil, cognitive dissonance to mould themselves and shape themselves in any form possible to get elected, not feel bad about it and covertly try to represent your constituents in a beneficent, caring, decent way. But behind the scenes, they’re just about themselves.

Those people get elected because they have it’s a horrible paradox; they have the necessary pathological skillset to beat other people and to figure out ways to crush the other side while getting other people to like them and to vote for them. And by the way, this goes on both sides of the aisle. You can be a pathological narcissist and be a liberal. You can be a pathological narcissist and be a conservative. As much as I say liberal politics aligns with people who are more orientated and conservative politics is more self-orientated, the person who has a personality disorder gets to invent themselves. And that’s why I believe the term covert narcissism is a very important term when we understand politics and politicians.

Jacobsen: In politics, we have leaders, followers, and movements made up of both. How do tactics like fear, loyalty tests, and emotional manipulation within these movements reflect the psychological dynamics of narcissistic abuse or codependency?

Rosenberg: If we look at the history of humanity, I look at it as humans, by their very nature, are very selfish, territorial, and warmongering. Let’s think of that and go back as far as we can to the furthest history we have humans as homo sapiens. We’ve been around for approximately 200,000 years. Still, modern humans can be traced back around 20,000 years, and written history begins about 10,000 years ago. From the very beginning of any historical representation of humans, whether it’s cave paintings or actual writings by the Sumerians in cuneiform, I believe that we started wars and people conquered. There were constant kings’ fights. It is human nature. I had a teacher once who joked that a few million years from now, if aliens discover Earth after we wipe each other out and the world out, they’ll find archaeological remnants of humans and try to figure them out. They’re going to go; what’s wrong with these people? They fought all the time. They kept killing each other.

Well, if you accept that as basic human nature and that the part about loving and taking care of each other is an evolution of that, that is also a part of human nature, but it’s not as strong, and it has less power to it, and it cannot ever beat the dominant, narcissistic, controlling, power-hungry forces in the world. And that is why these benevolent figures in society, who represent humanity, love, and caretaking, are upheld. We celebrate them, but they never really stick around for a while. They get assassinated. They get toppled. Something happens, and they become corrupt.

So if we understand that the forces in the world are more geared towards domination and control, the type of person who’s going to be successful at that, and I neutrally use successful kind of, success is not positive, are going to be people that are selfish, self-centred, manipulative, who are covert narcissists or malignant narcissists who can shape themselves and get masses of people to believe that they represent them. They want to stand up for them. They aim to lead them and establish a concept of the mother country, the father country, the motherland, and the fatherland. And whether you’re Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Gaddafi, Castro, or we go through all of these despots, these horrible humans who took control of their countries, they began by getting people to like them and support them.

How do you do that? Well, you have to be a covert narcissist, which is a narcissistic personality disorder and sociopath, or you have to be a sociopath, or what we call a malignant narcissist, which is a combination of narcissism, sociopathy, and paranoia. So sadly, these pathological traits give people the power and strength to be successful in politics or whatever it takes to rule or dominate people and countries. That’s how I think it fits in with the whole idea of politics, narcissism, and codependency. It’s a lot to think about.

Jacobsen: How might citizens with SLDD traits be more vulnerable to political disinformation, propaganda, or even cult-like political allegiance?

Rosenberg: Just to be fair, I think the people who are susceptible to propaganda are independent of their orientation or codependency, and can also be self-oriented or narcissistic. All people, regardless of their background or type, are susceptible to disinformation and propaganda because everyone has ideas about what they want in a government or what they need from it. And the narcissist politician, In Sheep’s Clothing: Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People, which is a great book by George Simon, who coined that term, well, if they can fool you and become the person that you believe represents them, well, they’re going to vote with you. That applies to all aspects of my relationship compatibility continuum.

Jacobsen: You’ve suggested that individuals with certain personality disorders often succeed in political contests. What psychological warning signs should the public—not just constituents—watch for when assessing political leaders?

Rosenberg: The warning signs are not heeded. People want so badly to have someone protect them and represent them. And politicians are so good at activating wounds in a way that gets people to understand how much they’re hurt and say, “Well, I represent you. I will stand up for you.” And in a perfect sense, with a hypothetical, perfectly healthy politician, they’re going to say the same thing. “This isn’t good. I represent good; vote for me, and I will help you.” Well, the narcissists are going to say the same thing. “This is what I will do to help you: good, bad, or otherwise.” The necessary discernment is to gather historical information about this person and their record.

Voting for or upholding issues or promises they have made is crucial for discerning the difference between promises and follow-through, as well as their consistency. Because politicians continually reinvent themselves, and yes, they might say, “I stand for this, and I’m going to make sure that I vote for it and get it passed if elected,” and they might do so. But what were they, say, five years ago, if they were a politician? Did they have the same belief set? And that’s where you have to do your homework. And very few people want to do that. And that’s very sad, but it’s the truth. Very few people want to do the historical digging to find out who this person is, what their central beliefs are, and how consistently they pursue those beliefs in their job, compared to someone who keeps shifting and changing based on what they believe people want, so that they can get elected.

Jacobsen: Do you think social media has intensified these political dynamics? In other words, are we seeing age-old patterns in human behavior and political organization—only now amplified by the reach and speed of digital platforms?

Rosenberg: Absolutely. When I wrote the second edition of The Human Magnet Syndrome, I was upset about how the 2016 election unfolded, and it impacted a chapter I had written. And my publisher gave me some great advice, and he said, “The world doesn’t want you to talk about politics, Ross. They want you to talk about psychology.” And so, we took that part out of the book. However, my research revealed that social media has been instrumental in spreading information, disinformation, and propaganda in every election since 2016. There are countries such as China, Iran, and Russia that invest millions, millions, and millions of dollars in creating disinformation through social media.

It was so intense and grandly organized that, according to the research I saw, they stated that if they could have eliminated the interference from other international players or countries, the election would have had a different outcome. That’s important because if a powerful country believes that different US presidents will be more beneficial to them. They can sway the American public by 2% or 3% through disinformation on social media, then that can significantly alter the election’s outcome. So, absolutely, 100%. Social media is a primary source of information for many people.

And unfortunately, a significant percentage of these people, although not a majority, do not fact-check. And that is sad. Millions of people will believe what they are told and will not seek countervailing information or evidence to either prove or disprove it. And most people, especially during the 2016 election and the subsequent election, obtained their political information from social media sources.

Jacobsen: Anything you would like to add?

Rosenberg: I’m passionate about it, but I rarely talk about it because I know that if people believe that one person is better than the other, you know, one political group is better than the other, people don’t change their minds. If you go to a party and a Christian wants to get a Jew to change their religion, it never happens. A Republican will never get a Democrat to change their ideas. It just doesn’t happen. If someone holds these beliefs, whether it’s in religion, philosophy, or politics, they’re unlikely to budge because of what one person says. I do a lot better in my life by just keeping my opinions to myself. But you, my friend, you’re a troublemaker. So, I hope the people who are listening to this hear a balanced approach that is neither anti-Republican conservative nor anti-Democrat liberal, but more of an explanation of how narcissism or pathological narcissism impacts our politics and why that’s not good for humankind.

Jacobsen: Ross, thank you very much for your time today. I appreciate your expertise.

Rosenberg: And everyone, this guy’s smart, young, ambitious, and he will go wherever he needs to go to get information. You’re now in Reykjavik, Iceland. Didn’t you go to Ukraine to research the Russian-Ukrainian war? You’ve got a lot of courage, my friend.

Jacobsen: I went to Ukraine twice. The second book project is done. I have to format it and publish it. So, that’s also upcoming.

Rosenberg: Thank you, Scott. The world needs people like you. And thank you for this interview. And it helps people understand politics or people in general. So, I appreciate it.