For years, conservative pro-Trumpers and anti-anti-Trumpers have tried to pin a nasty label on Trump critics, claiming they’ve been besotted by Trump Derangement Syndrome. They contend that an irrational hatred of the former failed casino owner has warped the Trump decriers’ ability to assess the man and that they have descended into a delusion-driven oppositionism. Of course, this is a convenient rhetorical device for Trump backers and anti-liberals who want to deflect the assaults on Trump and who can’t bear acknowledging the left is right in its harsh judgment of this con man. Sure, he’s not your average politician and you can criticize him for some excesses and eccentricities, but he’s not a hate-fueling, racist, misogynistic demagogue; you’re just being hysterical. Accusing the left of unjustified and obsessive anti-Trumpism plays to a dominant assumption in the political-media culture that there are two sides in the national discourse, each reasonable and worthy of respect, and that strident assessments—he’s a threat to the nation!—tend to be hyperbolic and, thus, dismissible.
 
 
Our Land

A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN

Our Land

A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN

 

Trump Derangement Syndrome…on the Right

By David Corn  January 18, 2023

Kellyanne Conway curtsies as she is called to the stage by Donald Trump during a White House event in 2018. Evan Vucci/AP

Kellyanne Conway curtsies as she is called to the stage by Donald Trump during a White House event in 2018. Evan Vucci/AP

For years, conservative pro-Trumpers and anti-anti-Trumpers have tried to pin a nasty label on Trump critics, claiming they’ve been besotted by Trump Derangement Syndrome. They contend that an irrational hatred of the former failed casino owner has warped the Trump decriers’ ability to assess the man and that they have descended into a delusion-driven oppositionism. Of course, this is a convenient rhetorical device for Trump backers and anti-liberals who want to deflect the assaults on Trump and who can’t bear acknowledging the left is right in its harsh judgment of this con man. Sure, he’s not your average politician and you can criticize him for some excesses and eccentricities, but he’s not a hate-fueling, racist, misogynistic demagogue; you’re just being hysterical. Accusing the left of unjustified and obsessive anti-Trumpism plays to a dominant assumption in the political-media culture that there are two sides in the national discourse, each reasonable and worthy of respect, and that strident assessments—he’s a threat to the nation!—tend to be hyperbolic and, thus, dismissible.

 

Trump has certainly stress-tested this perspective. And with his recent moves—refusing to return stolen government documents, promoting QAnon, posting an antisemitic message, vowing to pardon January 6 rioters if he returns to the White House—Trump keeps on proving that his critics cannot overstate his perfidy. In fact, we are now seeing what I would call advanced cases of Trump Derangement Syndrome among his champions on the right. These Trumpers have become afflicted with a denialism akin to a psychological ailment. I’ve notice two pronounced examples in recent days.

 

The first was evinced by Kellyanne Conway, the once-upon-a-time adviser to moderate Republicans who became a top Trump toady who justified his lies by claiming the existence of  “alternative facts.” Readers of the New York Times this past Sunday were presented with a column from her headlined “The Case for (and Against) Donald Trump in 2024.” Despite the headline writer’s attempt to strike that much yearned-for balance, the article is mostly a rah-rah piece that echoes Trump’s phony tale that he oversaw a glorious presidency with nothing but one historic accomplishment after another.

 

Conway starts her fantastical article with a shot at Trump’s detractors:

 

Some people have never gotten over [Trump’s 2016 win]. Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. There is no vaccine and no booster for it. Cosseted in their social media bubbles and comforted within self-selected communities suffering from sameness, the afflicted disguise their hatred for Mr. Trump as a righteous call for justice or a solemn love of democracy and country. So desperate is the incessant cry to “get Trump!” that millions of otherwise pleasant and productive citizens have become naggingly less so. They ignore the shortcomings, failings and unpopularity of President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris and abide the casual misstatements of an administration that says the “border is secure,” inflation is “transitory,” “sanctions are intended to deter” Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine and they will “shut down the virus.” They’ve also done precious little to learn and understand what drives the 74 million fellow Americans who were Trump-Pence voters in 2020 and not in the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

 

That last line is Conway’s only reference to the January 6 riot that Trump incited by brazenly lying about the 2020 election to retain power and subvert the constitutional order of the United States. She says nothing about his deliberate inaction that day, as he took no steps for hours to control his brownshirts and neglected his oath to protect the United States. Not surprisingly, she did not spill a drop of ink on Trump’s various plots to overturn the election: muscling state elections, leaning on Justice Department officials to falsely declare the election was fraudulent; setting up fake electors; pressing the vice president to assume what would amount to dictatorial power.

 

So who’s deranged? Who’s out of touch with reality? Conway brays about supposed Trump achievements: trade deals (which were not successful), efforts to revive manufacturing (which were not successful), his border policy (which was not successful), and other illusory accomplishments. She hails his push to develop Covid vaccines, but neglects to mention his failed overall response to the pandemic that led to hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln…

 

Yet it’s Conway’s purposeful blindness to Trump’s assault on American democracy that stands out in this pretend-analysis. Devoting 1700-plus words to Trump’s presidency and ignoring January 6 and his Big Lie is like discussing O.J. Simpson’s legacy and only talking football. Americans died due to Trump’s falsehoods that rose from his egotism, narcissism, and autocratic desires. He encouraged an angry mob that called for the murder of his vice president. He schemed to deny millions of Americans their vote and to pervert the Justice Department and other agencies of government.

 

Conway refuses to recognize any of this and acts as if we’re in normal times and Trump deserves another shot at the White House, as she evaluates the political horserace. This delusion can only thrive in a world of obliviousness or “alternative facts.” She is either back to her old gaslighting ways, or, if she believes this bunk, high on her own supply. Her piece is clinical evidence that the Trumpers cannot come to terms with reality—and are eager to infect others with their psychosis.

 

Before moving on to the next case, let’s not let the New York Times off the hook. The greatest newspaper in the land provided a platform to Conway for her drivel and normalized her. As a Trump defender, Conway is a threat to democracy. I realize that sounds tough. But given Trump’s concerted attempts to thwart an American election and illegitimately hang on to the White House, what else do you call a person who does P.R. work for him, enables him, and who contends he deserves a return trip to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? By treating Conway as a respectable pundit who warrants valuable space in its “Sunday Opinion” section, the Times signals that Conway is okay and her views warrant serious consideration. This legitimization is dangerous.

 

The second case of TDS on the right involves Victor Davis Hanson. Not as well-known as Conway, Hanson is a right-wing military historian with a sinecure at the Hoover Institution. His last book was The Case for Trump, which he published in 2019. Michael Isikoff and I referenced Hanson in our book Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War, noting that in the stretch before the Bush-Cheney administration’s disastrous invasion of Iraq, he provided counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney and encouraged him not to be concerned about being branded a warmonger.

 

Writing in the Daily Caller last week, Hanson declared,

 

The Left has gone mad over former President Donald J. Trump – past, present, and future. The current Democratic Party and NeverTrump “conservatives” assumed that Trump was and remains so obviously toxic that they do not have to define exactly what his evil entails.

 

This opening is a clear sign that what follows will be unhinged, for I—and you, dear reader—can attest to the fact that there have been gazillions of words written in books, blogs, tweets, columns, and articles detailing the wide range of Trump’s “evil.” (See the 845-page final report of the House January 6 committee.) Hanson next goes on to lambaste Trump foes as unprincipled: “Accordingly, they believe that any means necessary are justified to stop him.”

 

His examples of unfair Trump attacks: the investigation of Trump stealing classified US documents; Nancy Pelosi ripping up Trump’s speech following a State of the Union address; blocking House Republicans who participated in Trump’s plots to overturn the election from sitting on the House January 6 committee; Trump’s first impeachment. (“Does a phone call now an impeachment make, on the grounds that Trump mixed domestic politics with foreign policy?”)

 

Hanson’s piece is confusing. He claims the anti-Trumpers cannot cite examples of Trump’s wrongdoing. Then he goes on to diminish numerous accusations leveled against Trump. He’s truly not very good at this:

 

Was it a good idea for the Democratic House to release Trump’s tax returns? If the Republican House were to do the same with the Biden consortium’s tax records, would the result be far more incriminating?

 

On this point, like most, Hanson ignores the basic, non-alternative facts. Trump refused to release his returns after promising to do so—and lied that he couldn’t because he was being audited. (That was not true for the returns he filed in his first years as president.) President Joe Biden has abided by the long, post-Nixon tradition and made public his returns. Consequently, there is no need for House Republicans to force the disclosure of his tax returns. And, it turns out, there was much suspicious information in Trump’s tax returns suggesting possible wrongdoing (hardly surprising, given that his business was recently found guilty of tax fraud) and we learned that the IRS under Trump broke with established policy and did not examine his returns. (Undoubtedly, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and the GOP House caucus will mount an investigation of this IRS negligence.)

 

Here’s Hanson’s big finish:

 

When a defeated first-term president leaves office and vows to return in four years, is it wise to impeach and try him as a private citizen?

 

… Do the endless Democratic efforts to go after Trump, a possible Biden opponent in 2024, constitute far more than a Trump single phone call to the president of Ukraine?

 

Somehow supposedly worldly and sophisticated partisans in their self-righteousness ignored ancient laws of what goes around comes around, of Karma, of Nemesis, of payback’s a b*tch, and all that stuff.

 

Hanson poses as an intellectual, but his powers of analysis are stunted. He essentially lands on a rather immature conclusion: Dems went after Trump, so Republicans should stick it to them. How principled. Moreover, he truly doesn’t understand the first Trump impeachment. As for the second, as does Conway, he completely ignores Trump’s attempt to blow up an American election and Trump’s promotion of conspiracy theories and phony allegations that led to a violent raid on the US Capitol. Like a child who places his or her hands on his ears and shouts, “I can’t hear you,” Hanson cannot accept the reality and depth of Trump’s misdeeds. He acts as if the second impeachment was nothing more than an unncessary expression of pique on the part of Trump’s political opponents. It was retribution for Trump’s war on the Constitution and his dereliction of duty.

 

Hanson and Conway each demonstrate that the truest—and most virulent—form of Trump Derangement Syndrome is the inability to recognize what Trump has done and what his actions mean for the United States. Ambition, ideology, guilt—I don’t know what leads to this political disease. But I do know that these people need help and that it is not healthy for the body politic to allow them to revel in—and spread—their delusions.

 

Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

Nominating Navalny

With Vladimir Putin continuing his horrific and genocidal war against Ukraine, it is tough to keep the plight of Alexei Navalny in the spotlight—or do much about it. The Kremlin is already facing sanctions and international condemnation for the war. Can placing more pressure on it lead to the release of Navalny, the anti-corruption activist and opposition leader who was illegitimately imprisoned nearly two years ago? In recent days, concern for Navalny’s health has increased. About 500 Russian doctors have signed an open letter to Putin demanding prison authorities stop “abusing” Navalny. A few days ago, Navalny disseminated a message recounting that a psychotic prisoner who screams throughout the day and night has been placed in a cell near  him as a sly way to subject Navalny to sleep deprivation.

 

Which brings me to the Academy Awards. The Oscar nominations covering films released last year will be announced on January 24. I’m hoping that line-up for best documentary contenders will include Navalny, a gripping CNN-produced film. Movies are supposed to be nominated and chosen based on artistic merits. And there is a wonderful crop of documentaries this year. (Here’s a good list.) But Navalny deserves to make the cut on cinematic criteria. Moreover, a nomination—and, better year, a win—would publicize Navalny’s brave crusade for democracy in Russia and the nightmarish tribulations he has been enduring. If nothing else, it would signal to him that people are paying attention to his brave and arduous crusade.

 

Here is a rerun of my Our Land review of Navalny from last June:

 

The recent news about Alexei Navalny, the Russian anti-corruption activist and opposition leader, has been alarming. Last week he was transferred to a remote maximum-security prison, without notification of this move provided to his legal team. It took days for his lawyers and family to confirm what had happened. His daughter Dasha Navalnaya told CNN that he was relocated to “one of the most dangerous and high-security prisons known for torturing and murdering the inmates” and locked up in a separate barrack, “a prison within the prison,” where he is not allowed to communicate with anyone. This is “psychological torture,” she said. An obvious question prompted by this latest demonstration of Vladimir Putin’s totalitarianism is, what, if anything, can be done to assist this brave man fighting for democracy in Russia? With Putin’s regime already extensively sanctioned for his illegal and horrific war on Ukraine, the options for applying global pressure on Moscow regarding Navalny are limited. While Putin is committing atrocious war crimes in Ukraine, is there reason for him to care about international criticism for his treatment of one person?

 

Now is an appropriate time to watch Navalny, a CNN-produced documentary streaming on HBO Max. The film focuses on the Kremlin’s failed attempt to assassinate Navalny in 2020 (by poisoning his underwear); the effort by Navalny and Bellingcat, a Netherlands-based investigative journalism outfit, to obtain proof that Russian security operatives were behind the murderous scheme; and Navalny’s return to Russia in January 2021, when he was immediately arrested on bogus charges and imprisoned. Navalny is one-part biopic that highlights his personal fortitude and one-part thriller that reveals how Bellingcat and its lead investigator Christo Grozev located and exposed the Russia ops who tried to kill Navalny. An amazing scene occurs when Navalny, using an alias, calls one of the Russian scientists who was part of the assassination squad and tricks him into confirming the operation.

 

Throughout the film, Navalny’s sharp wit, mischievous side, and sense of showmanship is on display. (He records a TikTok video to promote the Bellingcat exposé.) His wife Yulia comes across as a fierce partner. When he is brought into a Moscow courtroom and placed in a glass booth—before being carted off to a prison—Navalny makes the symbol of a heart with his two hands for Yulia, while defiantly smiling and looking worried. In video shot in prison, this strong and vibrant man appears gaunt and perhaps sad. You can’t help but wonder if you could muster the courage he demonstrated when he voluntarily returned to his homeland, realizing he would probably end up locked up or dead. How many of us would make such a sacrifice to fight for American democracy?

 

At the end of Navalny, director Daniel Roher asks Navalny to leave behind a message for the Russian people in the event he is imprisoned or killed. In English, he replies, “My message for the situation when I am killed is very simple: not give up.” Roher then requests he answer this question in Russian, and Navalny provides a more elaborate response: “Listen, I’ve got something very obvious to tell you. You’re not allowed to give up. If they decide to kill me, it means that we are incredibly strong. We need to utilize this power, to not give up, to remember we are a huge power that is being oppressed by these bad dudes. We don’t realize how strong we actually are. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. So don’t be inactive.” I wish more could be done to help him. At the very least, watch this film and keep him in mind. Perhaps the best tribute we can pay Navalny is to be inspired by him.

ratio 

The Watch, Read, and Listen List

Tar. I’ll confess. I didn’t know what to make of this movie that has been described as psychological thriller and an examination of #MeToo cancel culture. I do know that Cate Blanchett’s performance as a (fictional) world-famous, arrogant, brilliant, monomaniacal, brash, path-breaking classical music composer and conductor—who has scored an EGOT and who headlines the New Yorker festival—is harrowing and breathtaking and the stuff of Oscars. Yet the film directed by Todd Field, which chronicles her downfall, is difficult to sort out. “Chronicle” isn’t quite the right verb, for the movie unravels slowly (almost painfully so) and purposefully does not deliver the narrative you might crave. It’s disjointed and impressionistic. We watch Tar jet back and forth between Europe and the States, as she launches a book (Tar on Tar), teaches at Julliard, and prepares for a live recording of Mahler’s Symphony No. 5 in Berlin, where she’s the chief of that city’s storied philharmonic orchestra. She dresses down a BIPOC student for being too P.C. She seems to be cheating on her partner Sharon, the first violinist at the Berlin orchestra, who is played nobly by Nina Hoss. Her relationship with assistant Francesca is fraught. (A former paramour?) The only things that seem to ground Tar are her strongly held views about music and her relationship with Sharon’s daughter. Otherwise, her life appears to be haunted—by unexplained sounds (which she strives to meld into a new composition she is struggling with) and the eerie presence of a former mentee with whom she apparently had an inappropriate relationship that went sour. When that young woman kills herself, Tar’s artifice tumbles.

 

Unlike most movies, plot points in Tar don’t occur in a timely fashion; they are intermittently—almost randomly—dropped into the stream of scenes from her life. This is not straightforward storytelling. Not all essential information is provided. Is Field merely playing with cinematic styling or suggesting something deeper about what we are seeing on the screen? There’s a ghostly cast to Tar, which has led to a debate about its ending. Dan Kois in Slate has posited a clever theory about the movie and its conclusion that would account for its weirdness, but don’t read his piece until after you watch the film. But should you watch it? I found the movie more aggravating than entertaining but still intriguing enough that I want to know what others think about it. Is that a sign of good art? I wonder what Tar would say.

ratio 

Read Recent Issues of Our Land

January 14, 2023: Why Ron DeSantis shouldn’t—or won’t—run for president; the many faces of the George Santos scandal; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Ryan Zinke); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

 

January 10, 2023: Our split-screen America; Wakanda Forever and Babylon (thumbs down) and The Fabelmans and Armageddon Time (thumbs up); and more.

 

January 7, 2023: The other GOP civil war; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Glenn Greenwald); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. 

 

January 4, 2023: The House GOP and a year of hope or horror; a noirish novel of the East Village in the 1990s; Brian Ray and the “coolest” song of 2022; and more.

 

December 23, 2022: The connection between Trump’s taxes and the January 6 report; the weirdest congressional scandal in a long time; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Sen. Josh Hawley)—and Year (Donald Trump); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

 

December 20, 2022: Have a merry (cracked) Christmas—a playlist; and more.

 

December 17, 2022: The GOP: still crazy after all these midterm elections; Mark Meadows’ lies; Elon Musk and the latest Big Lie of the right; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Shane Vaughn); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

 

December 13, 2022: Rachel Maddow and the rhymes of history; Amazon Prime’s The Peripheral does justice to William Gibson’s novel; twangy Americana from a new duo called Plains; and more.

 

December 10, 2022: Why the GOP establishment cannot save the GOP from Trump; Michael Pertschuk, thank you and RIP; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Rep. Paul Gosar); the Mailbag, MoxieCam™.

 

December 6, 2022: How Trump-Russia denialism lead to Elon Musk’s dangerous #TwitterFiles failure; a Twitter exit strategy; Sonic Youth’s “Superstar”; and more.

 

December 3, 2022: The GOP and Nazis, nothing new; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Madison Cawthorn, for the last time?); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.

 

November 30, 2022: What I learned during my Thanksgiving in Italy; why Andor may be the best Star Wars spinoff; and more.

 

November 17, 2022: Herschel Walker should release his medical records; giving thanks early; The Last Movie Stars reveals Paul Newman’s and Joanne Woodward’s most notable performances—their own lives; MoxieCam™; and more.

 

November 15, 2022: Is this the end of Donald Trump?; where were you when the Senate was called (I was with Jackson Browne and Tim Robbins); and Neil Young and Crazy Horse keep on riding with a new album; and more.

Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com.

Our Land

This message was sent to example@example.com. To change the messages you receive from us, you can edit your email preferences or unsubscribe from all mailings.

www.MotherJones.com
PO Box 8539, Big Sandy, TX 75755