Honor vs. Dignity: What Kind of Alpha Male is Trump?

Strength, status, and the political frames shaping our judgment.

Image created by ChatGPT4

On the final day of February 2025, Donald Trump brought a foreign leader into the Oval Office to school him. How this is interpreted by each side of the political divide depends on what they value and see as strength in a leader.

In Honor culture, which holds values that resonate with the political right, the Alpha Male leaders are the only thing that stands between the population and existentially destructive chaos. He rules through power and fear. He is a terrifyingly dangerous man to cross.

His lieutenants and soldiers are deeply loyal and serve him in protecting the safety and integrity of their community. They show him respect if they are strong enough themselves, and obeisance if they are not. They live by a code of honor to protect the women, children, and property of anyone who is a member of the tribe and plunder those who are not. They show strength by making an example of those who break cultural rules and celebrate the social victories of those who can put others in their place. And given the hierarchical nature of the culture, everyone knows their place.

These Alpha Males are expected to protect and provide in the physical realm and dominate in the social one. They are not expected to be “good” men in the sense of offering kindness or loyalty to out-tribe people, just to be accountable for their word in their dealings with others. Death before dishonor, but only with respect to your own people. Those requirements lead to two kinds of Alpha Men.

The first kind is the strong Alpha Male. He is stoic, rigid, powerful, and constant in maintaining order and protecting the weak. He is the leader men will follow to their deaths. He may be a self-serving man, but he is also a reliable protector who will win at all costs. As an example, consider the dignified characters in the TV show Deadwood:

• Al Swearengen is a ruthless strongman who understands power dynamics, protects his people (so long as it aligns with his interests), and creates stability where there would otherwise be lawlessness. He holds himself to a standard of honor, keeping his agreements, but does so primarily as a tool to maintain social capital rather than out of any sense of justice.

• Seth Bullock, on the other hand, comes to town and ends up being the sheriff. His honor and sense of justice are a fierce core component of his identity and tries to shift the town of Deadwood in ways that move from a pure fear-based honor culture to one where the rule of law is prevalent.

The second kind is the fragile Alpha Male. He craves the sort of respect the strong Alpha receives, but only succeeds in temporary one-upmanship opportunistically. Consider the Alpha males on the tv show Suits:

• Louis Litt is a classic example of a fragile Alpha, constantly craving the admiration of other Alphas. He conflates dominance with worth, feeling humiliated when he’s not recognized as a top dog. He engages in petty games of one-upmanship in futile attempts to gain validation through domination via status rather than through competence and power. The setting of this show being an office and the stakes being status rather than life or death, the characters in this show have the luxury of fooling themselves about what constitutes true value and how to achieve it.

• Harvey Specter is the most dominant of the Alpha Men (but Jessica gives him a run for his money though female.) Even though he has true strength and power, he still engages in the same pathetic one-upmanship games as Litt. He seems to suffer from impostor syndrome (much like the rest of the Alphas) and will be gleeful when executing a middle school bully type of takedown.

These characters choose to surrender their dignity every time they behave like unformed adolescents rather than serious and powerful men. Situationally they may appear strong, but unlike the flawed but serious alphas in Deadwood, that is not a frame they carry themselves in but rather a mask they use to convince others they deserve a high status.

In a Dignity culture which aligns with the values of the political left, leaders have the luxury of relying on the rule of law. They take their self worth from their intrinsic competence rather than external validation. They are not required to take out their enemies but rather to be strategic and effective leaders who work for the benefit of the team/community offering dignity to everyone regardless of their abilities or strength.

Once again, Alpha dominance can be expressed in two different ways: mature or immature. The mature alpha, free to delegate justice to the rule of law, is likely to start their journey as immature, craving the type of admiration a weak Alpha in Honor culture does. As in the show Suits, the stakes are not life or death and failure leads to humiliation and loss of status rather than loss of life or family.

In a society where people have lifted themselves out of Maslow’s basement (the lowest rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs that are required for life such as food, housing, safety, etc.) human flourishing lies in the higher rungs from belonging to self-actualization. Dignity culture leaders govern so as to create a society where those higher rungs are available to everyone. In this context, immature leaders will, sooner or later, reach a crossroads.

Within Dignity culture the immature Alpha can be extremely successful as they take on larger and more complex leadership tasks. But inevitably they will reach a point where all their skills, talents, perseverance, and development are not enough to get them any further. As they try to participate in more “important” circles their need for admiration and status inevitably stunts further development. They are (usually repeatedly) humbled by an environment where other Alphas rely on their competence rather than their status. It feels like a devastating humiliation. How they respond determines their fate. Those who double down on status, power, and control remain immature and hostage to their impostor syndrome. Those who learn to accept their humiliation with grace and continue their development from a position of humility begin to mature and eventually learn the skills of soft power, of collaboration, of protecting the self-worth and dignity of all members in society. They (finally) grow up.

These dynamics are not just theoretical. They play out in real-world leadership decisions, particularly in moments of high-stakes diplomacy. The adversarial nature of Friday’s Trump-Zelensky Oval Office meeting made it a forum where the future of nations was on the table. But so was the dignity of each participant.

First let’s consider the current state of global politics. Any society, any leader, any Alpha, needs the tools of both Honor and Dignity culture in proportions that depend on the current political context. If a country is alone, outgunned, and in a situation where global lawlessness prevails, that country will need a strong Alpha leader who will intimidate, dominate, and destroy any enemy that presents a danger. If a country enjoys the luxury of relative global political stability, that country will need a mature leader who is as deft with diplomacy and soft power as with armies and posturing. The current global landscape can be interpreted either way depending on whether we are looking through an Honor or Dignity Culture frame. Leadership that can flex between both frames will have a tremendous strategic advantage.

Next, let’s consider the actions and the revealed capacities of each participant in the meeting:

• Does he carry himself with the frame of an Alpha Male?

• Was his forcefulness from strength or impostor syndrome weakness?

• Did he further his personal agenda?

• Did he further his people’s agenda?

• Did he achieve victories on the physical or social plane?

Was Trump a bully and Zelensky a martyr? Was Trump a steadfast defender and Zelensky an ungrateful incompetent? Is demanding obeisance from someone who doesn’t “hold enough cards” strong, fragile, mature, or immature? Who left the stage with his dignity intact?

Finally, and please bear with me friends because this is exceptionally hard. Do you have the capacity to look through the other side’s frame and understand why their answers are the opposite of yours? Until you have that ability, that maturity, that righteousness, how can you declare them categorically wrong?