TDS, Trump Derangement Syndrome, is a debated issue. We have all heard the term. Here is my take on the subject. I will try to keep this brief and refer back to it in upcoming posts.
The term or concept is not new.
It has been around for over 2 decades.
The Origin of the term. Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist turned Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, first coined the progenitor of the term, “Bush Derangement Syndrome” (BDS), in a 2003 article for The Washington Post. He defined it as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency—nay—the very existence of George W. Bush.”
How you want to define it is up for grabs.
Either way, both the Never Trumpers, the Extreme Loyalists, and the rest of us (reasonable folks) are not monolithic thinkers.
The opposite meaning. The term has also been used by some to describe the unwavering, unquestioning support of Trump’s most fervent followers, characterizing their denial of facts or embrace of conspiracy theories as a form of “derangement”. Some also argue that a focus on TDS by the right is a form of gaslighting. – More
Monolithic Thinking
We’ve fallen into the trap of lumping people into broad categories, ignoring the nuances that actually matter. News outlets and Social Media platforms act as echo chambers, rewarding us with ‘likes’ and “red meat” for reinforcing what we already believe. But here’s the reality: neither side is a monolith. We aren’t clones who think in lockstep. Even among those I align with, some extremes simply don’t sit right with me.
Monolithic thinking means viewing people, cultures, or ideas as a single, uniform block, ignoring internal diversity, nuances, and different perspectives, often leading to oversimplification, prejudice, and stifled creativity by assuming everyone in a group thinks or acts alike. It’s a tendency to apply broad, single-perspective judgments instead of recognizing complexity and individual differences, like assuming all members of a generation, political party or demographic share identical beliefs.
More
A Legacy of “Derangement”
As noted in the main post, the concept didn’t start with Donald Trump. In 2003, Charles Krauthammer observed a specific phenomenon: a reaction to George W. Bush that seemed to transcend policy disagreement and enter the realm of the visceral.
The “syndrome” label has since become a standard rhetorical tool. It has been applied to critics of Barack Obama (Obama Derangement Syndrome) and even Joe Biden. However, the Trump version has reached a level of cultural saturation unlike any of its predecessors, moving from op-ed columns into the halls of government.
The “Mirror Effect”: Who is Actually Deranged?
One of the most fascinating aspects of TDS is how it is used as a mirror.
The “Gaslighting” Argument: Many argue that labeling legitimate fear or concern as a “syndrome” is a form of gaslighting, intended to make critics doubt their own sanity rather than addressing their actual grievances.
The Right’s View: Uses TDS to describe critics who they believe have lost the ability to judge Trump’s actions fairly, reacting with “methamphetamine and rabies” (as Elon Musk recently put it) to his very name.
The Left’s View: Argues that the true derangement lies in “Trump Submission Syndrome”—an unwavering loyalty that ignores facts, law, and traditional norms.
The Danger of Monolithic Thinking
At the heart of this conflict is Monolithic Thinking. This is the cognitive shortcut of assuming an entire group—whether it’s “the Left,” “MAGA,” or “the Media”—thinks and acts as a single, uniform entity.
When we stop seeing individuals and start seeing “monoliths,” we lose the ability to have a conversation.
- The Echo Chamber Effect: Algorithms on social media reward “red meat” content. This creates a feedback loop where only the most extreme views are heard, reinforcing the idea that the “other side” is a single, radical block.
- Nuance is the Antidote: To move past the “Derangement” era, we have to recognize that most people exist in the gray area. A person can support a policy without being a “loyalist,” and a person can criticize a leader without being “deranged.”
The takeaway: Whether you believe TDS is a real psychological phenomenon or a clever marketing trick to silence dissent, its existence proves one thing: our political identities have moved from the voting booth to the psyche.
