By Jonathan S. Tobin
Sunday, February 12, 2017
In the 1990s, a serious malady appeared on the American
public square in which citizens were driven over the edge by their antipathy
for incumbent presidents. It came to be known as the “presidential-derangement
syndrome” and over the course of the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack
Obama administrations its victims grew in number. But while it was a given that
whoever won last November’s election would have one named after them, we really
had no idea what we were in for once Donald Trump moved into the White House.
As we’ve seen this past week, presidential paranoia has not only gone
mainstream in terms of the public, it’s now found a home in the mainstream
media.
Though it was limited at first to the fever swamps of
American politics where some on the right first imagined that black helicopters
were about to swoop in and steal their freedom or that the Clintons were
operating a drug cartel, the derangement virus adapted to the changing
political environment in the years that followed. Those deranged by Bush were
less marginal than the Clinton victims but shared the belief that the 43rd
president was somehow a front for a vast conspiracy and not only blamed him for
“lying” the country into war but viewed the entire national-security response
to 9/11 as a put-up job intended to mask the theft of liberty.
As awful as the Bush version was, the Obama-derangement
syndrome was in many ways even worse as the 44th president’s citizenship was
questioned along with his religious faith and anything else about him that
anyone could think of. Though Obama’s liberal policies and power grabs were bad
enough from a conservative point of view, some on the right preferred to
instead spend their energy pondering the authenticity of his birth certificate
(see Trump, Donald) or whether or not he was an Islamist mole. We can blame the
Internet and the rise of social media for the more pervasive nature of Obama
conspiracy theories but even that dispiriting spectacle may turn out to be
insignificant when compared to the psychological torment Trump has inspired
among not merely the far Left but also mainstream liberals.
Anyone with a Facebook account already knows that many of
our liberal friends are convinced that Trump is, at best, setting the U.S. up
for a rerun of the last days of Weimar Germany. At worst, they see him as not
merely a billionaire with a thin skin but as the mastermind of a scheme aimed
at replacing democracy with a dictatorship that will repress women and
minorities.
When “liked,” shared, and echoed in comments on social
media, that sort of thinking is a form of mass group therapy for those who
still can’t believe Trump won the election. But it’s also what helped to
motivate the counter-inaugural marches and the rest of the reaction to the new
administration that increasingly calls itself a “resistance” rather than mere
political opposition.
That there is no more “proof” of a coming Trump coup than
there was for past derangement-syndrome theories is immaterial. What matters is
that growing numbers of liberals are operating under the assumption that Trump
isn’t merely an inappropriate figure or wrong on the issues; they think he is
really plotting to destroy democracy.
One would hope that mainstream, liberal publications
would, as serious conservative journalists did during the Obama presidency, act
as a check on this sort of foolishness. But the fever pitch of angst about
every one of Trump’s appointees and the over-the-top denunciations of his
immigration orders in mainstream publications like the New York Times and on cable-news networks have only served to
reinforce the tendency to view the debate through a conspiratorial mindset.
But on Thursday the Washington
Post went a step further. In his discussion of the controversy over Judge
Neal Gorsuch’s reported comments about Trump’s criticism of judges, Chris
Cillizza used “The Fix” column to probe the question of whether the entire
kerfuffle — what Gorsuch said and the reaction from both the president and
Kellyanne Conway — was a charade.
While it’s true that one can argue that Gorsuch’s
statement might make him more palatable to Democratic senators (though the odds
that more than one or two will resist the party base’s demand for an all-out
war and filibuster of Trump’s choice for the High Court are minimal),
Cillizza’s reasoning was based in a common thread of liberal thought these
days: the belief that Trump is “operating off a master plan only he can see”
and that the chaos of his administration’s early days is actually “careful
orchestration.” Trump “fooled” the country during the campaign and “what’s to
say he’s not doing it again now?”
The conceit of the piece was that if you “dig a little
deeper” this relatively minor sidebar to both the confirmation and the
litigation over Trump’s executive orders “the conspiracy theories begin to
seem, well, not so conspiratorial.” Though the supposed proof for this is
entirely circumstantial, Cillizza insisted we couldn’t rule out the possibility
that the ensuing controversy was “all part of his [Trump’s] broader plan.” The
column crossed the line between D.C. gossip and a bow in the direction of the
social-media paranoia that is driving the anger of what is no longer a fringe
element of the Democratic party.
Once even the gatekeepers of responsible liberal opinion
begin to see hidden agendas everywhere then it is fair to ask whether the extremism
and paranoia of the anti-Trump camp is matching or exceeding the bad judgment
being exhibited by the White House. We can’t know where this will lead as
liberal hysteria and Trumpian contempt for political norms compete in a race to
the bottom of the barrel. But what we can be sure of is that this derangement
syndrome is already far more serious than those that afflicted critics of
Clinton, Bush, and Obama and is bound to get even worse over the next four
years.
No comments:
Post a Comment