All people possess some rhetorical power, but most decent, hard-working, kind people use their rhetorical power for the collective good, to reign in their impulses when necessary, to subordinate them to the greater good, and to help everyone contribute to the community in whatever ways they can. Most people will use dark techniques only when they want something from someone who they are afraid to ask or unable to argue or negotiate with. But their conscience, their sense of fair play, and perhaps their ego or their fear of unfair success (imposter syndrome) will keep them from being persistently manipulative or deceptive or domineering.
Some people, however, have no rhetorical scruples. These people seek to exploit anyone they can by whatever means necessary. These are the shadiest dark rhetors.
The more rhetorical power a person has, the more they can get others to do, but of course that means both more good and more bad. Because rhetorical power is intoxicating, the more rhetorically powerful someone gets, the more toxic they may become.
If a powerful rhetor knows what is best (a philosopher king? a prophet? a god?) and the people they lead understand what's happening and agree that it is for the best, then this is a potentially healthy rhetorical situation, at least from within the organization. From the outside it might look insane.
If the leader doesn't know what they are doing, it might still be ok. An infant, for example, bosses its parents. The agenda is the child's needs and the responsible adults have to anticipate and meet those needs. Assuming material circumstances don't derail the train, and the adults can keep themselves together, the parents will integrate the child's agenda over time. An adult who behaves like a child, as though their whims are urgent needs that must be met by others, might get away with it, if they are the CEO of a money making venture or a rich person with money to invest in other people's ventures. Their power will keep others serving them even if their leadership makes no sense to anyone else. Steve Jobs comes to mind. Even a guru or spiritual leader who has no destination in mind for their followers might do little harm in their aimlessness. But given a lack of awareness on the part of the leader in each of these cases, you can see how problems might arise, especially if those carrying out the orders don't understand what is being ordered or the consequences of obeying them. Can you differentiate a hungry cry from a lonely cry, a smile from a threat? A Steve Jobs from an Elizabeth Holmes?
By far the greatest problems occur when the leader knows what they are doing and their goal is to exploit their followers, to use them as objects, expendable human resources, toys and tools. These people inspire docudramas and lawsuits and recovery programs. They are fascinatingly dangerous.
It's tempting to be thinking here of history's great villains, the Hitlers and the Stalin's and the Pol Pots of the world. But doing so anchors our expectations so high that we miss the many powerful dark rhetors who do the same kind of damage in the same way but at a scale we don't notice because we anchored high. Among these smaller villains we still have some spectacularly disastrous people, like Jim Jones, who most of us know as the guy who convinced 909 people to commit suicide (some of that number were murdered -- 304 were children) but we might fail to notice someone like Andrew Carnegie whose predatory behavior towards workers made him the richest person in the country and one of the greatest "robber barons" but who successfully used PR people to improve his reputation and now we think of him as a great philanthropist. The Sackler family was following the same script before Dopesick brought their homicidal practices directly into public focus.
If we further increase the granularity of our search we can find individuals who exerted dark rhetorical power over their immediate family, using essentially the same techniques to inflict the same kind of damage but on a scale so minute we never heard of them. I'm referring here to the malignant narcissists whose lust for control over others led them to inflict horrific psychological damage on their children or spouse(s). HBO's The Staircase is an interesting example. The rhetoric they use is as dark as those of the grand villains. Only the scale is different. For a chilling example of a micro tyrant, have a look a The Puppet Master. YouTube trailer | Netflix
At the same time there are no doubt more than a few people who used the same techniques of rhetorical control to contribute positively to their world and we don't know about them because bad news travels fast and good news doesn't travel at all. Not all dark rhetorical techniques, in other words, are intrinsically sinister and not all dark rhetors are malevolent. A well-timed oversimplification whispered in the right ear might save a life. For an excellent representation of is-it-or-isn't-it a cult dilemma, see The Deep End, a documentary dramatizing the self-proclaimed guru named Teal Swan.
The rhetors who lack all rhetorical scruples and have malevolent intentions tend to share some character traits that when taken to extremes become psychological disorders. What follows is a simplification of psychological research and that research is outside my area of expertise. I am simply acting as a reporter here. My goal is to explain how the darkest rhetors are people whose will to dominate overrides all other aspects of their humanity but whose tactics are not unique to them.
There are three personality trait-clusters that seem to skew dark The word "dark" refers to antagonism, according to psychologists. Antagonistic people try to exert control over others, to undermine people's confidence and cast doubt on their beliefs. Thus one could be "dark" for good reasons, like when people are delusional or too trusting for their own good or trusting of others whom they shouldn't trust. when it comes to rhetorical power. They are narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Put the three together and you have what the psychologists call the dark triad, the mind set of people who seek to dominate the scene, to control others, and use them in the service of their own personal agendas. The paradigms here are cult leaders and con artists but rhetorical power in inordinate amounts can be found on the right side of the law as well.
Before I go on I want to emphasize that names / labels have a way of turning ideas into things. We know unicorns don't exist or at least we know they haven't yet been discovered and yet the word unicorn can invoke in us a shared (perhaps Dysnified) image. Because rhetorically naÏve people mistake shared images and ideas for realities, Reality TV is an oxymoron but a lot of people mistake unscripted for "real." Editors replaced the role of writers, but the narratives are just as fictional for all they aren't scripted. words can cast real shadows by motivating actions that change the world. When 17th century anthropologists organized observable physiological traits into type-clusters and used them to divide humanity into "races", they created racism: A pseudo-scientific veneer for innate human tribalism and xenophobia. Subsequent science revealed that there are no races, but racism remains a social construct with real consequences. It will take a lot of rhetorical energy to think racism out of being. Xenophobia and in-group/outgroup hostility are human traits because we evolved in tribes. The global village we all live in now hasn't yet been able to effectively change our default reactions to people not like us. Racism is one of many rhetorics of exclusion and oppression. The word "cult" has a similar rhetorical function; it instantly casts a shadow over what for some is just a relatively recent belief system.
People ignorant of rhetoric mistake words for things, social constructs for realities, the map for the terrain. Understanding reification, the name given to the process of turning an idea into a thing, is a critical part of rhetorical competence and it is especially important to remember as we start talking about the character traits that consummate dark rhetors tend towards because rhetorical monsters don't exist even though there are people capable of committing monstrous rhetorical acts given the right conditions and the right kinds of potential victims. If you scan a crowd for a rhetorical monster, you aren't going to find one because dark rhetors present as enthusiastic, adventurous, spontaneous, charming, charismatic, people who seem to "get" you like you've known each other for years, people you want to get close to, help, donate money to, or even serve. It is not until the fourth or fifth dead bird appears on the doorstep that people realize they need to bell that cat. Why?
We are talking about labels not things. Brain imaging seems to suggest that psychopath brains are materially different from other brains. If further research bears this out, then we could say that a person has psychopathy. But that doesn't make them a psychopath any more than a person with autism is an autistic. Profound though a condition might be, it does not become the essence of the person who has it, unless one is using a rhetoric of power in order to control public sentiment toward people like that.
Personality traits are identified (named, labeled) by answers a person gives to a questionnaire. We can't treat such tests naïvly. Psychologists make entire careers out of creating, testing, and cross-checking the results of such questionnaires. If you Google "psychopathy check list" or "narcissism checklist" or "The Mach-IV Test" you will find many examples, but most of these should be approached with skepticism. The results of any psych evaluation have to be evaluated by professionals to mean anything at all, and many of the tests you might stumble across will be far from scientific (and some may be phishing scams or fact-finding strategies that advertisers use to better market products to you). Still, these characterizations are descriptive of personality traits shared in different meassures by people who sometimes develop profound rhetorical powers in the service of their own agendas and at the expense of the people they enthrall.
If you want to test, play would be a more appropriate word given the lack of a clinical setting, play around with these character inventories, to see how dark or light you think you are, I have recreated one of each type:
The "results" of these "tests" aren't being recorded. They are just flashed on the screen and even if you are logged in, they are not being saved. I won't know (and I don't care) how you "score". I do care that you think about who you are and that you are starting to develop some new insights into the people you know, employ, socialize with, and work for.
Full on narcissists I really should say people presenting with extreme narcissistic personality traits, but the noun is less cumbersome and more dramatic than the phrase. Rhetoric, in other words. are predatorily self-centered, power-tripping, control and devotion seekers. They are shameless self-promoters because they require external validation, which is also why they don't like to be alone. They are profoundly arrogant (grandiose). They see themselves as special, chosen even, and others as either inferiors to be used or rivals to be crushed. They exaggerate their successes and deflect responsibility for their failures, if they acknowledge them at all. They demand adulation, see a gift as tribute, and will undermine any person or thing that would threaten to tarnish their self-esteem. They reject even constructive criticism and will attack anyone who questions or doubts them. If they can't get what they want, they will denigrate or actually destroy whatever the object of their frustrated desire was. Narcissists are terrible at reality testing because they are very good at getting their way and therefore see no reason to reassess their way of seeing the world. If they are caught in a lie they will insist the lie is the truth, even when they themselves can see it's a lie. They have no problem with hypocrisy because their grandiosity makes them immune to logic and evidence to the contrary.
There are two kinds of narcissists, those that have unassailable self-esteem and those whose arrogant behavior compensates for deep-seated low self-esteem. The latter tend to be brittle and when stressed out can act out in really viscous ways. The character Iago, from Othello, comes to mind.
A positive spin on narcissists is that they are larger-than-life, success-oriented people with a will to power. Anyone who wants to succeed in life needs to know how to talk themselves up, increase and protect their self-esteem. But full on narcissists are ultimately destructive people because everything valuable is theirs and anything not theirs is rubbish.
The narcissist's go-to dark technique is story telling where they are the hero and everyone else is a fan, a fool, or a villain. They will surround themselves with people who reaffirm their imagined superiority. Their targets will tend to be weak-willed, essentially submissive people who need to serve or vulnerable people who can't defend themselves. But many victims are just naÏve people who let the narcissist isolate and trap them, thus becoming an object at their mercy.
The best way to deal with a narcissist is to flatter them while searching for the exit. Or you could lure them into committing some self-destructive act by appealing to their ego. But if you do, make sure you can stay out of the way of the blowback. (The Signifying Monkey)
Full on Machiavellians (again, not an actual thing but a label for a cluster of personality traits) are ruthless pragmatists and opportunists who see people as resources, sources of income, expendable workers at their service. For Machs, all humans are malevolent would-be predators who have to be out maneuvered and subdued. Whatever serves the primary objective is a tactic worth considering. Unlike narcissists, Machs are consummate reality testers. They are cynical rather than delusional. They have a conscience, but it is subordinate to the primary objective -- success by any means necessary. Machs tend to be down-range thinkers, focused on obtaining something that will take time to achieve, a high position in an organization for example, a recognized leader in their field, and so are not impulsive nor needlessly destructive. Indeed, since they are strategic thinkers unfettered by conventional morality, they can think up many ways to get around or over or under or through an obstacle and will pick the subtlest means possible. No reason to create drag or turbulence if you don't have to. The best victory is obtained without battle. Although they have no problem justifying actions others find appalling, Machs tend to be anxious people, vigilant and suspicious.
The Machiavellians' dominant strategy is deception. They are good at lying and dissembling and indirection because they cynical (play or get played) and because the see themselves as amoral. They are, however, strategic not compulsive liars.
I knew that ho had a competitive spirit, so I used it to my advantage. . . . Lying shows a lack of character and an inability to face reality. There are better ways to manipulate someone than to lie. Pimpen Ken, Pimpology
In case you are inclined to doubt the word of a person who uses the alias Pimpen Ken, here is the eminent French philosopher Jacques Ellul discounting the value of lying, at least as far as propagandists are concerned:
When it would be dangerous to let a fact be known, the modern propagandist prefers to hide, to say nothing rather than to lie. Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes p. 55.Saying things that might be demonstrably untrue is more dangerous than making false or confusing inferences about undisputed assertions. Machs rely on distorting reality rather than challenging or disputing it because bending facts to suit your will is less risky than manufacturing new ones.
Machs also rely on deception because if a person doesn't know exactly what is happening or where something is going, it is much harder to defend against it. "Intrigues fail by being found out, " as Han Fei warns. Unlike narcissists, Machiavellians don't need to be the center of attention and don't require adulation or even acknowledgement. They are goal oriented but they don't need to win or be acknowledged as superior since doing so might result in their having a bounty on their head. They don't want to wear the crown; they want to pull the strings.
A positive spin on Machiavellians is that they can be high-achievers. If their primary objective aligns with a business enterprise they are the kind of person who makes it to the C-suite quickly, especially if the business is new and there aren't a lot of checks and balances in place, the kind of accounting practices that make cooking the books, squandering resources, exploiting workers, more difficult. If their primary objective is their own interests, a Mach is just another selfish, cynical asshole who can't be trusted, although if you can figure out what they are after, you might be able to predict what they will do. At least you won't be surprised when they do the unspeakable.
A Machiavellian's target is anyone who might be useful. The best way to avoid a Machiavellian is appear useless. The best way to use a Machiavellian is to align your interests with theirs as inconspicuously as possible.
Psychopath is a disputed term made more complex by the existence of the word sociopath. The former can be considered a psychological disorder, the later a behavioral disorder. While the "psychopath" has gained some respectability among professionals and the the word "sociopath" has been clinically abandoned, both are popular terms for what Psychiatrists label antisocial personality disorder:
"In the most general terms, an antisocial personality is characterized by absolute disregard to others and by violation of their fundamental rights. People with antisocial personality disorder ignore social obligations and norms, refuse to follow rules, despise authority and exhibit cold indifference towards others' feelings. Although they mostly know that their conduct goes against general social expectations and norms, they remain unconcerned. As the saying goes: the antisocial personality does not love, does not fear and does not learn [emphasis added]. Of course, antisocial behavior is not necessarily equal to violence and physical abuse, although this also occurs frequently. The repertoire includes harassing and threatening others, recurrent conflicts with the authorities (e.g. document forgery), ceaseless involvement in illegal practices (e.g. marriage swindle) and so forth" (Tamás Bereczkei, Machiavellianism: The Psychology of Manipulation, p. 38)
According to Robert D. Hare, the Psychologist who developed the Psychopathy Checklist:
[Psychopaths] are fast-talking, charming, self-assured, at ease in social situations, cool under pressure, unfazed by the possibility of being found out, and totally ruthless. And even when exposed, they can carry on as if nothing has happened, often leaving their accusers bewildered and uncertain about their own positions. Robert D Hare, Without Conscience p. 121.
Like narcissists, the are stunningly grandiose. Hare offers the following description of someone who got a perfect score on the psychopathy checklist, a level achieved by only 1 in 200 identified psychopaths:
One of the most striking features of Earl's personality is his grandiosity; entries scattered through his files make reference to his dramatic, inflated, and pompous way of communicating. As one of my assessors wrote, "If I hadn't been so afraid of him I would have laughed in his face at his blatant self-worship." As Earl put it, "I'm always being told by others how great I am and how there's nothing I can't do --sometimes I think they're just shitting me, but a man's got to believe in himself, right? When I check myself out, I like what I see." p. 100.
Like a Machiavelli, Earl is also obsessed with power:
"The most salient thing about Earl is his obsession with absolute power. He values people only insofar as they bend to his will or can be coerced or manipulated into doing what he wants. He constantly sizes up his prospects for exploiting people and situations." Other prison files describe how, in his quest for power and control, he walks a fine line between inmates and staff and is both feared and admired by both sides. He is very skilled in the use of threats, intimidation, muscle, bribery, and drugs, and he "regularly informs on other inmates in an effort to save his ass and to obtain privileges. The con code means nothing to him unless he personally gets something out of it." p. 100.
Psychopaths are also fearless Fight, flight, freeze or fawn, is an evolutionarily adaptive strategy in the wild, but in the absence of animal threats, fear is a maladaptive result of a narrative or interpretive strategy, a story of impending disaster you vividly tell yourself (or someone else tells you) that triggers the adrenaline and sudden flow of oxygen to the limbs that our ancient ancestors needed. We don't, but often we can't help ourselves. Some people don't play fear-narratives. They can run into a burning building or stare down a knife-wielding maniac or land a jet-fighter on the heaving deck of a aircraft carrier in the middle of a storm. Psychopaths are also impervious to fear narratives, though they know how to give them to others. and have a high tolerance for pain. They are laser focused when they want something and will drift from scene to scene until they find something to want. The kill is the thrill, although the kill is for most purely metaphorical, a big deal, a fat profit, a lucrative piece of legislation, a prestigious office, sex with forbidden partners, the humiliation of a rival. There are by some estimates a greater number of psychopaths on the streets than in jails. We just don't recognize these people as psychopaths because they have good impulse control and their goals don't require overt harm to others. They could kill if they needed to, they just find more creative, less attention generating, ways to get what they want.
A psychopath might target anyone but will look for vulnerable people, people who appear to have been victimized in the past, whose trauma they can perceive and thus manipulate. The best way to deal with a psychopath is to keep your distance. But as with narcissists and Machiavelli's, it is hard to see a psychopath coming. From a distance they seem charming, exciting, enthusiastic, (or needy); they draw people into their world with ease and once in, they will make it increasingly difficult to leave. The most overt, like the John Wayne Gacies, will use handcuffs, but the more subtle just use words.
It is somewhat surprising that Machiavellianism is most closely related to primary psychopathy. This is unexpected because psychopathy is considered the "darkest" side of the Dark Triad (Pailing, Boon, & Egan 2014) that is synonymous with evil in this context. Primary psychopaths are not only self-seeking and malevolent but positively cruel and merciless. They feel no remorse or regret. By contrast, Machiavellians are much more "humble" and peaceable, as has probably been made clear throughout previous chapters. They rarely bring themselves to employ violence, nor do they even prefer to humiliate others; rather, they are the masters of deception. Furthermore, they do not harm or hurt others for the sake of pleasure but in order to gain something. (Tamás Bereczkei, Machiavellianism: The Psychology of Manipulation, p 49)
People who exhibit high levels of the traits identified as "the Dark Triad" tend to acquire even more dramatic labels: con artist, cult leader, serial killer, but they might also be highly successful people whose (mis)deeds aren't listed in the criminal code, investment bankers, religious leaders, politicians, internet influencers, surgeons. Surgeons? When my mother was 85 she survived a heart attack and had to decide whether to undergo bypass surgery and endure the brutal recovery process or pass and risk the chance of another heart attack or perhaps a debilitating stroke. She chose surgery. During bypass surgery, there is a 10% chance of having a massive stroke. My mother told me, and I agreed, that if she stroked out under anesthesia I was to instruct the doctors not to revive her. She had a stroke and lived in a medically induced comma for 10 more days. A few days after the operation I was standing at the foot of my mother's bed, dazed as she slipped away. The heart-surgeon walked in, stood beside me and said, "Look how pink her cheeks are!" From which I inferred that from his perspective the operation was completely successful. Her heart was pumping like healthy hearts do. He had done his job to perfection and that was all that mattered to him. The stroke wasn't his fault. The fact that my mother was going to die in a comma wasn't his problem -- was actually her choice, really. Laser focus, self-centered perspective, no mistakes, no doubts, no regrets, no empathy. Given the level of concentration surgery requires, you don't want a surgeon who can be distracted by what other people are thinking or feeling or what they might want. I wouldn't call him a psychopath; I'd call him a first rate surgeon, and if I ever need a bypass, I will call him.
In his analysis of psychopathy, Hare differentiates between the criminal and what he calls the subcriminal psychopaths:
Rather than refer to these individuals as successful psychopaths -- after all, their success is often illusory and always at someone else's expense -- I prefer to call them subcriminal psychopaths. Their conduct, although technically not illegal, typically violates conventional ethical standards, hovering just on the shady side of the law. Unlike people who consciously adopt a ruthless, greedy, and apparently unscrupulous strategy in their business dealings but who are reasonably honest and empathetic in other areas of their lives, subcriminal psychopaths exhibit much the same behaviors and attitudes in all areas of their lives. If they lie and cheat on the job -- and get away with it or are even admired for it -- they will lie and cheat in other areas of their lives. p. 113
We should add compartmentalism [a different "reality" for different contexts and the ability to keep them separate] to our dark rhetor's list of traits.
If you were to create a Venn diagram out of these three personality clusters you would identify the consummate dark rhetor. He or she would be a superficially charming extrovert with a keen eye for people who are ripe for further exploitation; they would have the narcissist's arrogance, the Machiavelli's absolute will to power, and the psycho's relentless, ruthless, callous, fearless, pursuit of domination.
But I think we could reduce all of these traits down to one over-arching trait. Because dark rhetors are convinced they are uber-human, they reject reciprocity (the golden rule). They will do unto others whatever they like without fear of recrimination or retaliation or justice. Dark rhetors believe most people deserve to be fleeced precisely because most people feel, and fear, empathize and obey. Dark rhetors exploit the best of what makes people human and they can because they don't experience any of those qualities even though they know what they are and how to fake them.
Inhuman humanity is what makes dark rhetors fascinating -- malevolent spell-binders -- and therefore potentially devastating. They are not all evil geniuses, however. Some do what they do only because their character drives them to it. They don't have a grand goal in mind. They just exploit and hurt and move on. Some just relive the same fantasy over and over again until they get caught. Some start out meaning no harm and end up doing unspeakable things because they can't stop themselves when the opportunity presents it self. They may think they are the chosen one, but rhetorically astute people can see them for the manipulative predators they are.
"Know your audience", said every rhetorician since Aristotle. "A good liar is a good judge of people," says a man "who became Man of the Year, president of the Chamber of Commerce ... and member of the Republican Executive Committee in the small town where he had resided for ten years. Billing himself as a Berkeley Ph.D. in psychology," (Hare, p. 110) but who was in fact just another frequently convicted criminal.
"Before he was a con man he was a con boy. He was the kind of kid who would steal a Boy Scout uniform in order to hitchhike. He would tell people that he had hit the road to earn a merit badge. Later he joined the army, only to desert after three weeks. Then he masqueraded as a flier in the Royal Air Force. He persuaded people he was a hero. For two decades he dodged across America, a step ahead of the hoodwinked. Along the way he picked up three wives, three divorces, and four children. To this day he has no idea of what happened to any of them." (p. 110 - 111)
If there is one recurring theme in all of the literature about Machs, Narcs, and Psychos it is their profound indifference to the truth measured by any community standard. Even the jailhouse code of conduct doesn't restrain these dark rhetors. These people lie like most people breath. They typically will find some "truth" to base a lie on, but from there anything is possible. They have no fear of being found out, have a hundred strategies for dealing with pushback, have no problem contradicting themselves in the same sentence, and are so completely self-assured that if they were caught naked next to a corpse they would just change the subject. The only thing more foolish than trusting such a person is hoping to get a sincere confession.
When asked if he had ever committed a violent offense, a man serving time for theft answered, "No, but I once had to kill someone. (p. 125)
Now I'm not arguing that dark rhetorical power is always "evil encarnate." If at its worst dark rhetoric is the ability to get people to exchange their money, their freedom, and in the worst cases even their lives for a handful of crafty words and a pentetrating gaze, there are less malevolent dark rhetors who are satisfied before they can do their worst.
It is also important to underscore the fact that in times of social upheaval, moments of significant change, dark rhetors can provide a clear way forward and may ultimately be hailed as heroes. The problem is that people looking for heroes can't always differentiate the charlatans from the saviors, while the worst of the worst candidates create chaos in order to justify their aggression and ultimately their dominion. Rhetorical disaster only looks like disaster in the mirror of hindsight. And since the victors write the history books we can't be sure that yesterdays heroes won't one day be seen as villains.
I've been talking about the extreme ends of the dark triad, but each of the three is a continuum, not an either or. A person with diagnosable narcissism personality disorder is almost certainly a disaster for all who meet them, but a person who has no self-esteem is little better than a mindless-follower, a soldier, a robot.
While all the great tyrants of the past were no doubt Machiavellian and much less widely known high-achievers share their traits if not in their intensity, a person who lacks persistent focus isn't going to accomplish much in life and will likely have trouble making important decisions. Hamlet, for example.
Psychopathy, too, has it's utility at the lower ends of the spectrum. A person with no conscience is capable of great harm, but a person with a conscience that knows no boundaries would be tortured by imaginary wrong-doing and terrified by imagining immanent punishment. Raskolnikov, if you will.
So an ideal dark rhetor, were such a person possible, might have many of these disturbing qualities but in much smaller amounts. Charm, for example, superficial as it is, doesn't have to be destructive. You can make people feel good and use that feeling to advance an agenda without leading everyone over a cliff. You can't climb a corporate or academic ladder without stepping over or at least besting some rivals and therefore acquiring animosity if not outright enemies. Shadey rhetoric need not be a necessarily toxic intoxicant.
High self-esteem and the ability to flip a script -- reframe a situation, alter perception -- combined with extroversion and the ability to know what others are feeling and thinking without getting caught up in the drama are, I think, the traits most suited to being an old-world rhetor, the public speaker who can take the stage at the right moment and say in the right way what needs to be said. Volodymyr Zelenskyy is an obvious current example. These kinds of people don't need time to think. They don't need to self-edit or ruminate and revise. They are on it in the moment and while they may not be malevolent, almost all will want to remain in power and many will do what remaining requires. The need for decisive action in the heat of a moment is, I think, why some ancient Greek rhetoricians (Alcidamas and Socrates in The Phaedrus) disparaged writing as preparation for public life. They thought too much reading and writing led to introversion, anxiety, rumination, and cerebral ornamentalism: Scholarship.
Are you a Mach, a Narc, or a Psycho? Probably not. People who want to study rhetoric rather than practice it where material success and devoted followers signify achievement are not, in my experience, dark rhetors. Narcissists, sure, but not dark rhetors per se. On the other hand, silence, refusal or the inability to speak up can be mistaken for acquiescence, while the desire to conform to a set of rhetorical standards that are disadvantageous to you may be internalized repression.
So we're in the Ritz hotel in Paris . . . we're disagreeing over the numbers. Suddenly [Mick] Jagger explodes: "You fat fucking record executives!" he screams. "What do you know?" He jumps up. I jump up. "Fuck you!" I scream back. I'm pretty sure I can take him, but I don't want to get into a real fistfight. He backs down. . . . Nobody out-geschreis me. -- WALTER YETNIKOV, FORMER HEAD OF CBS RECORDS. Stanly Bing, What Would Machiavelli Do?: The Ends Justify the Meanness, p. 120.
If you think screaming till you get your way (geschrien) is outré, then in some situations you may have to be content with getting less than you might in exchange for keeping your sense of decorum and fair play intact. Or you have to learn a wider range of rhetorical strategies and re-think how you differentiate morality from vanity and justice from power.
The self-help books in our bibliography will give you some new ideas about your rhetorical practices (both expressive and interpretive) as well as your attitude towards rhetoric and power. They may help you rethink the potential of tactics you have always rejected as beneath your dignity or station in life. You don't need to become a charming predator, but you do need to learn how predators charm and exploit. Once you understand how rhetorics of power work, you may be able to employ your own should you find yourself in a situation where rational discourse isn't an option and you have to choose between stepping up or sitting down. If nothing else, perhaps you can become immune to charm.