Cultural wars go to the couch: TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) or the politics of madness

"Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a neologism describing a reaction to United States President Donald Trump by liberals, progressives, and anti-Trump conservatives, who are said to respond to Trump's statements and political actions irrationally and with little regard to Trump's actual position or action taken.^[1] The term has been used by pro-Trump conservatives to discredit criticism of Trump's actions"  Wikipedia

"Derangement is the state of being mentally ill and unable to think or act in a controlled way. "   Collins Dictionary

I was recently diagnosed with "TDS" by a friend with strong pro-Trump views. 

Not being a FOX or any other cable channel regular viewer, I looked up for help in Wikipedia: "Tax Deducted at Source" showed up on top, but didn't seem the case. I kept searching until the word "Trump" appeared. Then, I was able to track its origins back to its sources: FOX channel and the self-proclaimed conservative media.

Looking at the levels of anger around the public persona of Donald J. Trump I couldn't help but to remember similar reactions towards his three predecessors: Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Presidents before Clinton (1992) were contested -Reagan being the most obvious example- but not with the intensity that the last four have experienced. 

I looked up again and noticed a revealing marker: 1993. It was the year Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes launched Fox News Channel with the explicit mission of promoting a militant, anti-liberal agenda and the candidates of the Republican Party.

Over time, MSNBC took FOX's role on the Left camp and CNN turned to what its critics (mostly in FOX) nicknamed "Clinton Cable News".

The rise of partisan mass-media combined with the populist politics of personal attacks and slander campaigns has created a toxic atmosphere that turns politics into a civil war re-fought by other means.

In such a climate, paranoia prospers and spreads -conspiracy theories, "us-versus-them", identity politics and so on- and finds constantly malignant and insane enemies in those who think, look or live differently from "us".  

The newest fashion promoted by FOX channel is the ultimate "psycho-insult": calling on others the "TDS syndrome" (for Trump Derangement Syndrome), a new epithet meant to dis-qualify any criticism directed toward Donald Trump as a mental instability problem of the critic. 

The problem with encouraging self-made psychologists to engage in drive-through psychoanalysis  is that ill-defined categories can be obviously applied back the other way around. 

Let's stop for a minute on the "D" for Derangement in TDS. 

If we follow the definition of the term:

"Derangement is the state of being mentally ill and unable to think or act in a controlled way. "   Collins Dictionary

When we think of "Derangement" we should  include "Trump-lovers" in addition to "Trump-haters". Love and hate, after all, have little to do with reason. And infatuation can turn into hate and vice versa. As it did with Hillary and Donald's views on each other before and after the 2016 election.

The good old days when Donald was a Clinton fan -and Hillary loved his jokes-

If there is such a thing as a Trump Derangement Syndrome, it seems as accurate to describe unconditional and fanatical allegiance as hate. In both cases, irrationality is on full display, and both TDS-negative and TDS-positive types can close their minds and ears to each other's views and arguments. Family and friends included. 

Psychoanalyzing others instead of discussing facts and arguments ratchets up another notch the barriers to rational discussion and communication. Both TDS-positive and TDS-negative might find comfort in saying: "after all, why bother listening to deranged people?". Mental institutions are crowded with people feeling that way.

Civility takes a serious blow each time discussions turned into personal arguments and character attacks. On this area, Left- and Right-wing extremist media -from Mother Jones to Breitbart- not only excel, but thrive as a cottage industry catering to extremism and reciprocal paranoia.

TDS is the Trumpian-intolerance equivalent to Left-wing "safe zones". It has the same uses -preventing any contact with those who think differently, enabling aggression and shutting down any criticism. 

Both forms of TDS serve the purpose of erecting walls between Americans. Walls much thicker than physical barriers and much stronger than party registration.  The Anti-Trump Far Left sets its TDS walls in the campuses calling them "safe zones". 

The Pro-Trump Far Right  has created its own version of "safe zones" with "TDS" shutdowns.

The danger of this psychological "TDS walls" is precisely that they shut down peaceful communication,  escalating the inevitable contact with the "others" into physical confrontation.

The "TDS" category is also a recycled product. 

It used to be called "BDS" for Bush when it was first invented by FOX news to use against any Bush 43 critic. 

There was, of course, also an "Obama Derangement Syndrome" (ODS) as well -used by Obama fans to shut down Obama critics as bigots and those like talk show host Glenn Beck to shut down Obama supporters:

And, of course, we don't have any moral or rational reason to listen to haters. 

We actually are told (by partisan media) that we have a moral and rational obligation not to listen to those we diagnose with TDS.

Each time we use the "TDS" argument to shut down others, we engage in cultural warfare and become part of the TDS syndrome we just tagged to others.

This rant scene of the old Network film was very popular among anti-Obama Tea Party conservatives, back when Trump campaigned on questioning Obama's birth certificate. It is a good example of Derangement Syndrome (you choose the first letter for the object of deranged passion) and it summarizes the power and the danger of "TDS" and the politics of madness:

John McCain: The Last of the Lincoln Republicans

"We don’t build walls to freedom and opportunity. We tear them down. To fear the world we have organized and led for three- quarters of a century, to abandon the ideals we have advanced around the globe, to refuse the obligations of international leadership for the sake of some half- baked, spurious nationalism cooked up by people who would rather find scapegoats than solve problems is unpatriotic."    

Senator John McCain (R), 2017

John McCain was an American hero in many ways. 

He was a military POW how resisted 5 years of torture in the Hanoi Hilton, yet returned to Vietnam to make peace with his own captors and help reestablish diplomatic relations.

He followed Barry Goldwater as the senator for Arizona and championed just, unpopular and politically inconvenient causes such as campaign reform, immigration reform and lately, offended both Left and Right by supporting his rival George W. Bush's surge in Iraq and voting down President's Trump populist and popular repeal without replace of the ACA healthcare bill known as Obamacare -which he also opposed vehemently-.

His argument for opposing the latter was a call to a civility lost in the populist wave that brought Trump to the White House:

A populist wave that McCain lamented to have helped by selecting populist firebrand Sarah Palin over his democratic first choice, democratic senator Joe Lieberman.

He ran a uninspiring campaign against Barack Obama in 2008 and damaged his reputation with an uncharacteristic surrender to populist pandering. It was perhaps an example of his fighter jet pilot tendency to quick judgement that, like others on the USS Forrestal and over Hanoi, backfired badly. He somehow took distance by standing against deranged birthers that hated his rival more than any Republican principle.

McCain never hesitated in working and voting across the partisan divide, engaging in lively debates and lifelong friendships and collaboration with rival Democratic leaders such as Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden and Russ Feingold. He is and will certainly be admired and missed by the best  of both parties. And certainly reviled and insulted by the worst. 

Thanks to John McCain's dedication to fight partisanship, he will remain a healthily divisive figure between those who put country over party and those who don't. The former will remember him fondly, the others will hate him stronger as time goes by. He would probably relish keeping such friends and foes.

McCain made one notorious exception to his civility. His widow asked that the sitting president, Donald J. Trump, was not welcomed at his funeral. 

McCain's contempt for Trump was just the latest rejection of his populist views and unpresidential behavior by most of the moderate Republican leaders, a long list that included a similarly embarrassing absence at Barbara Bush's funeral -where his wife Melania sat and chat with president's Bush, Clinton and Obama- and public denunciations by all of the living former presidents (including Bush 41 and Carter), 2012  and presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

In any case, what caused Cindy McCain's request was not just Trump's disrespect and incivility towards him, but toward the very American values and principles McCain fought for as a soldier and as a senator.

The best farewell to John McCain is following his advice and his example of civility and honor.

Republicans will have a lot to do and a lot to change to meet John McCain's standards.

House of Jerks: The Debasement of Public Speech

 Definition of jerk (Merriam-webster)

     a : an annoyingly stupid or foolish person     ·         was acting like a jerk       b : an unlikable person; especially : one who is cruel, rude, or small-                       minded  ·         a selfish jerk

"He speaks like one of us" is often heard as a justification for using vulgarities and profanities in public. Curiously, most of those who tolerate or even celebrate fool language in celebrities or populist politicians would smack their kids or fire their pastor for using those same words in public. 

                            

Foul, insulting language makes politics personal. Perhaps too personal. Trying to justify it with the  tired "politics is a contact sport" invites to double down on fighting words. Using the "s" and the "f" words in public speech is the verbal equivalent of a kick in the groin or a rabbit punch. We ban athletes from professional sports for doing such kind of things. Soccer players get fired and fined for cursing during a game (ask Messi). And using the "f" word to ask for punishment for  players who kneel in protest only adds insult to injury. Which is all what debased speech and name-calling is all about.

Adding irrationality to insult. vulgar speech self-defeats its aggressive purpose. It might please the "base", but it turns the attacked in victim to the eyes of the politically undecided and reinforces the animosity between the parties. 

That might explain why Donald Trump's personal approval rating has never risen over 40 percent after his first year in office in spite of presiding over an otherwise successful economy. By relying only on a faithful "base" of followers, Trump's tweeting and name-calling is cultivating larger wave of new "anti-Trump" voters. Quite like Nixon in 1968, Trump seems to bet on the secret approval of a "silent majority" tired of "political correctness".

Trump's public taunting of women and bragging about sexual harassment as part of the perks of "executive privilege" is already energizing women's rallies and widening the gender gap against him. 

Thanks to Trump, Fox News and Hollywood's meltdowns, "male" is becoming a code word for "jerk" and "power abuser".

Which is the uncivil default behavior not only tolerated but promoted by our political and business leaders. Voters' tolerance of Clinton's Oral Office and Trump's Planet Hollywood are to blame without any doubt. They willingly condoned and voted for well-known sexual predators and tolerated their continuation while in office. Just look at the recent "Stormy" Daniels payments affair.

Politically correct lies -such as "alternative facts" or the juggling to justify Clinton's stay in office- and abusive, personal tweets are in fact debasement of public speech. 

The "trickle-down" effect is visible in plain sight from the deadly clashes in Charlottesville to the mobbing of invited speakers in campuses. And although there has been some swift public punishment at Hollywood, Wall Street and even COTUS, there doesn't seem to be any fix or care for the broken damn at the White House that keeps growing in incontinence.

Not too long ago -in the pre-Tweet, YouTube era- behaving as a gentleman was still considered a default code of public conduct among political or business executives.  The fact that tweets and smart phones have erased dangerously the gray zone between public and private spheres only turns more embarrassing the lack of self-control (still a pre-requisite for keeping a top job, at least for once omnipotent and tenured Travis Kalanick, Harvey Weinstein, Anthony Weiner, Al Franken, Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly). We even saw an actor who played a corrupt fictional president fired for his actual acting job for personal corruption in his job.

How it should be? Let's look at some simple examples.

Writer and literary critic George Plimpton is a good example of what manly and civil behavior looked like on those days when they were the standard to bear for everyone. 

Plimpton was the typical "ladies man" and also a gentleman. Those interested in gentlemanship can take a look at the video or read "George Being George", his posthumous biography made by friends, with abundant anecdotes and pictures of his famous Paris Review parties.

Plimpton and others created a civil atmosphere where political enemies such as Henry Kissinger and Gore Vidal socialized between bouts of political yet civic debate. There was Washington Post's Kate Graham whose newspaper was eviscerating the Nixon Administration sharing cocktails with Nixon's Secretary of State and confident.

(A Paris Review party circa 1960: Plimpton, left, Truman Capote, center, Ted Sorensen , Katherine Graham next and Henry Kissinger second standing)

Peggy Noonan wrote in WSJ  an excelent description of a gentleman, which, in my opinion describes all what is lacking in a jerk:

The dictionary says a gentleman is a chivalrous, courteous, honorable man. That’s a good, plain definition. The Urban Dictionary says: “The true gentleman is the man whose conduct proceeds from good will . . . whose self control is equal to all emergencies, who does not make the poor man conscious of his poverty, the obscure man of his obscurity, or any man of his inferiority or deformity.” That’s good, too.

A website called Gentleman’s Journal offers a list of 20 traits that make a man a gentleman. I liked “A gentleman always walks a woman home.” He doesn’t pack her off alone to an Uber downstairs, in the back of which she weeps as she sends her friends horrified texts, which is what happened with the Hollywood star and the girl. I liked, “A gentleman ruins his lover’s lipstick, not her mascara.” And “If a woman comes with baggage, a gentleman helps her unpack it.” 

A gentleman is good to women because he has his own dignity and sees theirs. He takes opportunities to show them respect. He is not pushy, manipulative, belittling. He stands with them not because they are weak but because they deserve friendship. Once at a gathering of women in media, I spoke of a columnist who years before had given me helpful critiques of my work and urged me on. “A gentleman is an encourager of women.”

And  she completes her description with these significant points about what is behind true manly behavior:

"It goes deeper than memorizing and repeating certain behaviors, such as standing when a woman or an older person enters the room. That is a physical expression of inner regard. Being a gentleman involves not only manners but morals. The 19th-century theologian John Henry Newman —an Anglican priest who became a Catholic cardinal—said a gentleman tries not to inflict pain. He tries to remove the obstacles “which hinder the free and unembarrassed action of those about him.” He is “tender toward the bashful, gentle toward the distant, and merciful toward the absurd. . . . He is never mean or little in his disputes, never takes unfair advantage.”

David Gandy, a fashion model, wrote a few years ago in London’s Telegraph that his work had taught him “being a gentleman isn’t about what you do or what you wear, it’s about how you behave and who you are.” A gentleman “holds chivalry and politeness in great regard. He holds the door for people; he gives up his seat; he takes off his coat to a lady on a cold evening.” These are old-fashioned actions, but a gentleman still holds to them “even though the world has changed.”

Being a gentleman is an ambiguous term, which can be confused with social standing or upbringing.  Social standing and power only empower a jerk. The current kind of behavior in government and business was adequately lampooned several decades ago by Mel Brooks in his sketch "It's Good to Be a King" :

"Right" wing CEOs turned into politicians bragged about its perks  off camera quite much like Mel Brooks' portrait of a French King:

"Left" wing politicians like Anthony Wiener or Uber's CEO Travis Kalanick bragged no less about theirs turning their jobs and institutions into playhouses and fraternities:

For those of us who don't see teenagers or frat houses as role models of masculinity , nor Fire and Fury's White House as the idea of how to run a government or a business, civility is not about being "politically correct" but playing by rules of mutual respect and decorum - in other worlds, behaving like adults-.

Civility in public and private behavior is -again- the last defense line for our national union and our constitutional institutions. Civility is much easier to destroy than to build, and continuing down the current path might come with a price tag our country can't afford.

Civility, however, will not come back until we practice and enforce it on elected and un-elected officers and business leaders.

Trump tries civility

(Click to see the full session)

"Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing…after they have exhausted all other possibilities."   Sir Winston Churchill

Today President Trump truly surprised their supporters and rivals with a new approach: civility. 

CNN cameras captured an almost one hour-long bipartisan meeting between POTUS and the Senate commitee leaders. As if to refute the recent revelations of Michael Wolff's book on the partisan dysfunctionality of the current White House, Trump conducted the meeting with... civility.  (Click to see the full session)

He asked questions, listened and responded courteously to the answers, cajoled, bargained and spoke against partisanship and Far Right-Far Left extremism with surprised Republican and Democrat senators.

Trump stakes on immigration are high, since his entire campaign and MAGA program was tied to his "build the wall" promise. 

Now "the wall" seems to be more reasonable and negotiable, and so is the promise of a "law of love" for the Dreamers.

In any case, the televised meeting might help the viewers understand first hand the ways Washington and a republic really work: by compromise and negotiation, with rules of civility.

That's the way Washington and the US government was designed by the Framers of our Constitution. The way Madison thought of making checks and balances control partisanship.

We will see if civility works better than civil war. That didn't work too well for the past year. Perhaps this session was a mirage, or a show put to quell the scandals unleashed by Bannon's last stand against moderates in the White House. 

But even if this meeting was a "Potemkin Village" -named after those fake towns erected to fool the Russian czars and Soviet Union visitors with nonexistent progress- it shows how civility looks in comparison with what we have had during the past year. 

And, last but not least, Trump has shown he's able to use it when he wants it.

Can we keep it? Rules of the Blog

Benjamin Franklin was famously asked about the nature of the country that the 1787 Constitutional Convention had created. He responded "A Republic," and added wisely "if you can keep it".

These are not only trying times for that proposition, but times for trying. 

This Blog will be dedicated to:

1. Serious sources and fact-based debate.
2. Show "for" and "against" opinions for each topic
3. Expose results and impact of policies
4. Debate fringe, anti-constitutional views and their sources and sponsors
5. Non-partisan take on news

We will cover US and international policies and cases.

Why bother? 

Because "Freedom is one generation away from extinction", as Ronald Reagan put it.

Let's start

Mariano Bernardez