----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August 2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How do you spell ICE in German? GESTAPO."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.
"Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
"Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
"Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me." Pastor Martin Niemoller (c. 1946)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before we get into how the saying was developed for Trump's 2016 Presidential Campaign and how it has been used, let's look at a couple of definitions. First, for "derangement," the dictionary definitions are rather similar. For example, here's one from the Cambridge Dictionary: "the state of being completely unable to think clearly or behave in a controlled way, especially because of mental illness." Or take this one from the Collins Dictionary: "Derangement is the state of being mentally ill and unable to think or act in a controlled way." To whom, or to what, that definition might apply, one wonders. But a consideration of those questions will for now be left for another time. The focus in this column is "TDS" itself.
As it happened, the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome," as it was developed for the 2016 campaign, was broadly applied to any criticism of Trump and his (then) proposed polices, like banning the entry of all Muslims into the United States. It may have been intended to imply that Trump's political enemies were actually mentally ill, but its use by the Trumpers did not go in that direction.
Rather it was used as a one-size-fits-all critique of any kind of opposition, at any level. As in, currently, Trump himself, describing what he considered to be the cause of death in the murder of the great movie personality and political commentator/analyst Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele: "a mind crippling disease known as TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME." And further from Trump: "In the early stages of the 2024 presidential campaign, when former President Joe Biden accused Trump of using language that echoed Nazi propaganda, Trump's campaign called it a sign of 'Trump derangement syndrome,' a term Trump also used against former Vice President Kamala Harris along the 2024 campaign trail."
And further, from the USA Today article: "Today 'Trump derangement syndrome' iterates on an earlier version of the term coined by prominent conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer: the 'Bush derangement syndrome.' Krauthammer, before his death in 2018, wrote a column describing the evolution of the term for Trump as having 'not just general hysteria about the subject, but additionally the inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences on the one hand and signs of psychic pathology on the other.' "
It may have been Krauthammer who invented the term, or it may just have been that he painted it with the (pseudo-)intellectual brush that he was fond of projecting. But in case, it was widely used in the campaign. Indeed, Trump, who in my view is "History's Greatest Con Man, made it into a sort of subset of his "Seven Magic Tricks," a subject on which I have written several columns over the years (the most recent one to be found here.) They are:
1. He has always had one or more protectors and enablers, either personal, or financial or both.
2. "Always attack; Never defend." A more recent variant is: "Look. Over there."
3. "When you run into a problem, just sue." You may not win, and it may cost you some money. But a) you might win, and b) with the endlessness with which civil litigation can be drawn out in the U.S. legal system, the other side may just get worn out.
4. In the whole of his business life, Trump has never been responsible to anyone else, either above him (except for Dad, of course) or even alongside (as certainly is the case in his approach to the Presidency and its powers).
5. Trump has lived his life surrounded by enemies, whether in business, in his personal life, in his banking and financial life (except for a select few, like Deutsche Bank), certainly in politics, and not just at this time.
6. As noted, Trump is history's greatest con man (a subject to which I have devoted a previous column).
7. To which list I more recently added a Seventh: "Oh woe is me; everyone's against me, and it's so unfair[!]"
And so, where does "Trump Derangement Syndrome" fit in? Since it was first developed by Krauthammer et al (the first time I heard it used was by the Great Trump Promoter Sean Hannity) it has been used a political cudgel, with a particular political objective, which is TO AVOID DISCUSSION THE SUBSTANCE OF ANY CRITICISM AIMED AT TRUMP. Whatever the subject, whether in 2016 proposing the "Muslim Ban," or deporting any and all "immigrants" (never precisely defined, of course) without getting into the legal and/or policy dimensions of such a proposal, or, in one instance, Trump's proposing of the use of violence against a lone protester at one of his rallies, or proposing the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and etc., etc., etc.
And then during his first term he used it widely, he used it in the 2020 campaign, he used it in the wide-ranging reaction-to/discussion-of the Jan. 6 riot, and so on and so forth. One does sometimes hear Trump talk about policy, in general terms, such as that raising tariffs will easily solve all of the nation's problems (just as they did in 1930, those of "Smoot-Hawley"). Trump, whether he knows that he is doing it not, does lie a lot both in presenting his plans/proposals and in responding to critiques. But so very often he falls back on the charge of "Trump Derangement Syndrome," that is that the critic is mentally ill, and therefore --- and this is the very important tickler implied by the charge --- a) that the substance of the charge/critique/difference-of-opinion-from-moderate-to-major is the product, not of any serious, fact-based, policy difference(s), and b) that therefore, without ever getting into any discussion of the details of the critique at any level at all, the critique can just be discarded/ignore/walked-over. (I am not here getting into any discussion of the absolutely outrageous statement that he made in re the brutal murder of Rob and Michele Reiner. Many other observers have done that, very correctly and very effectively.)
And so, how does one effectively respond to the charge? In my view NOT by going into the matter of whether the critic is "deranged" (however the Trumpers would define the term) or not. That is getting the discussion/debate right onto the stage that Trump and the Trumpers want it to be: again, away from the substance of the matter. Rather, one does not mention the charge in any way. One remembers that it is simply one of Trump's Seven Magic Tricks. And so, one goes directly to the substance of the matter that Trump is so desperately trying to avoid --- and stays there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript. Here is a comment that I posted on one of the columns that the (great) Steve Schmidt wrote on the remarkable over-time-in-two-parts Vanity Fair interview by Chris Whipple (for whom, hopefully, a Pulitzer is in store), with Trump's Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles (click here):
"Let me add my thanks to Steve [for writing his column on the matter], and let me try to start to frame the question that is now on the minds of many: why did she do this interview-in-stages, over a period of months from the beginning of Trump II (in multiple choice): A) She had turned on Trump, privately, and wanted to use her position to document the horrors she knew were coming; B) she really wants to quit, but thought that putting out this material would instead force Trump to fire her (why she would want that outcome would be revealed on/after the firing); C) she really wanted to give it to every single hyper-male chauvinist in the group (that is, likely, all of them), and could not think of a better way to do it; D) the release at this time is all planned out to cover a blockade/invasion-of Venezuela; E) she is just plain nuts. There are other possible reasons, to be sure. And Steve will have his own list, I'm sure. As will we all, I will be following the next steps in this drama with great interest.
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
