One facet of it is that Democrats are thought of as the compassionate, intelligent, more civil part of the American culture. The term "elite" expresses angst about that. Republicans are the pragmatic, less PC folks who are capable of "handling the truth," as Jack Nicholson's character screams in that movie.

That someone so incredibly un-PC could waltz into the White House blew our minds. But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Below the surface is years of political polarization that had made Washington seem close to completely dysfunctional. IOW, as a nation, we had started getting used to not talking to each other, but only seeing one another as the enemy: Bill Maher's comment that if we had the Civil War to do over, he thinks the US should "let the South go" comes to mind.

My opinion is that we have problems we really don't know how to solve. All the lunacy is just symptomatic.

The term "elite" expresses angst about that — frank

I am old enough to remember when Republicans were the elite.

Republicans are the pragmatic, less PC folks who are capable of "handling the truth," as Jack Nicholson's character screams in that movie. — frank

What kind of truths are you talking about? What are some examples?

Could you say more?

What kind of truths are you talking about? What are some examples? — praxis

That line "You can't handle the truth!!" is from a movie about the US military. Nicholson's character is enraged that he's being held account for actions that he thinks are in line with what one has to do to survive.

Conservatives are more likely to think that it's a mistake for the government to help people in inner cities. They say any aid should be private. If no private help actually appears, conservatives will remain steadfastly apathetic, adhering to whatever principle they're embracing: fiscal responsibility, limitation of centralized authority, etc.

Liberals are more likely to value ethics over practicality.

There's no doubt some hyperbole on both sides, but you can also apply this "syndrome" to both sides: Obama derangement syndrome (Birtherism etc.), Hillary derangement syndrome (Lock her up/emails etc). In fact, Trump's own deranged efforts to throw dirt at others seem less well-founded and have attracted much less bipartisanship than the criticisms of him. So, it seems like nothing more than a snappy one liner to feed to his base. I don't see it as having any legs beyond that.

On the policy issue, it's much more about branding and personality than policy in the US. There is plenty of evidence out there (and plenty of depressing videos) to show that Americans in general know little or nothing about the policy differences between candidates of their own party in the primaries and have only a very basic idea about policy differences among the candidates of different parties in the general (it's not just America either, policy ignorance and focus on personality is a global problem). The fact that Trump had great name recognition and had been on TV, was a businessman, and came across as much more relatable and non-political than most politicians was why he was voted in. His policy platfrom (apart from immigration where he was a bit more specific "Ban Muslims/Build a wall") was always a mess and contradictory. I mean, his policy on healthcare was "we'll get everyone great healthcare" and on the military was "we'll have a great military" and wasn't any clearer than that, and didn't need to be.

Could you say more? — frank

Always. There was always a stereotypical republican elite. Think Bill Buckley, J Press, 1970 Wall Street investment banker, Yacht club guy. The were the ruling elite easily slipping from leadership positions in politics to the military to business. Educated, wealthy, well spoken. George Will doing his best to keep the image alive.

Liberals are more likely to value ethics over practicality. — frank

I think you are assigning character traits to a party. I believe character, or the lack of it, is bipartisan.
We just don't seem to be that interested in character in our leaders anymore - more interested in personality.

There's nothing deranged about attacking Trump's immigration policies, which forces family separation, or departs people who have lived and contributed to this country for decades. Nothing deranged about attacking Trump's foreign policy, which disparages long-term allies, and flatters dictators. Nothing deranged about attacking Trump's economic policy, which includes a tax cut that overwhelmingly favors the rich over the poor and middle class, or his ridiculous trade war with a variety of countries, which will only hurt small business and cut jobs. Nothing deranged about attacking Trump when he criticizes Black Americans for peacefully kneeling during the American anthem, but pardons Joe Arpaio who engaged in extreme racial profiling of Latin Americans. Nothing deranged about attacking Trump's comments on women when he gloats about sexual assault, and threatens to overturn Roe v. Wade. Nothing deranged about attacking Trump when he claims that there are "very fine people on both sides", during a Neo-Nazi protest.

There is nothing deranged about having the moral clarity to see that these are morally abhorrent and having mettle to call out or fight these injustices. The idea of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome" is nothing more than a sick, vapid attempt to normalize Trump's immorality. This is simply gaslighting.

One facet of it is that Democrats are thought of as the compassionate, intelligent, more civil part of the American culture. The term "elite" expresses angst about that. Republicans are the pragmatic, less PC folks who are capable of "handling the truth," as Jack Nicholson's character screams in that movie. — frank

For a while in the USA, it seems like the the Democrats and the Republicans are staging the largest production ever of that old Broadway favorite “Good Kop, Bad Kop: Keystone Tragi-Komedy” :groan: :blush:

I would say there's a virulent Trump endorsement psychosis among his base.

(psychosis= a severe mental disorder in which thought and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality.)

Just try to talk to a Trump supporter and they will start to bable about evil Hillary Clinton, the deep state, the economic miracle Trump has given them...

There is a kind of extreme loyalty among his base that makes rational conversation impossible. You might as well be talking to a North Korean about Kim Jong Un. It's impossible for them to say anything negative about him even when the negatives are obvious.

A recent case-in-point, in 2014, only 22% of Republicans said that Russia is an ally or friendly to the USA. In 2018 that number is now 40%. Compare that with Democrats which dropped several points, from 28% to 25%.

We just don't seem to be that interested in character in our leaders anymore - more interested in personality. — Rank Amateur

Think about what TV did for Kennedy. The internet is TV squared.

For a while in the USA, it seems like the the Democrats and the Republicans are staging the largest production ever of that old Broadway favorite “Good Kop, Bad Kop: Keystone Tragi-Komedy” :groan: :blush: — 0 thru 9

As long as were being entertained, that's all that matters. :yum:

As long as were being entertained, that's all that matters. :yum: — frank

Yes... distracted, fooled, hypnotized, drugged, abused... not unlike a victim of date rape. Not to sound too cynical. Kind of a worst case scenario through skeptical eyes.

Baden, maw, you can notice the Trump Endorsement Psychosis (TEP) from the reaction of a Trump supporter if he or she is presented of any kind of comment about Trump´s actions that isn't positive or flattering. They will turn the subject IMMEDIATELY to:

- Hillary Clinton
- That it was a fair election win in 2016 and EVERYTHING now is just a DNC plot
- The Washington elite (the swamp) is out to get Trump
- The Fake News leftist media
- The Deep State that opposes Trump
- the missing DNC Server
- Seth Rich
- Pizzagate (etc.)
- other loonie stuff

Or whatever is the latest talking points from Trump supporters to be reurgitated.

If they are just happy that they have a job and the economy is OK, then they don't have the psychosis.

Even Putin says he's not a friend of the United States. I think his exact words were, and I quote, "We are not your friend." Apparently, that's not clear enough.

Sometimes someone is in the right place at the right time...

Absolutely, Trump has managed to turn many of his supporters into mindless parrots for his talking points, and they are, with regard to him, incapable of any form of critical thought or even basic reasoning. As in, for example, when he tells hundreds of apparent lies, they'll deny any of them are actually lies. Or when he says words that mean things that are obvious in context, they'll deny that's what he actually meant because it makes him look bad. And so on.

Yes... distracted, fooled, hypnotized, drugged, abused... not unlike a victim of date rape. Not to sound too cynical. Kind of a worst case scenario through skeptical eyes. — 0 thru 9

It's enough to turn a person to Taoism. I read Being There. It's good.

Anyway to the OP, I say it's all multifaceted, but the syndrome mentioned is part if the mix.

Like (coo coo) clockwork

Unless you're claiming that "it's a mistake for the government to help people in inner cities" is telling the truth, you haven't mentioned what these truths are. I assumed that you meant uncomfortable truths such as all the dirty deeds that are done around the world by the USA (by both parties). If that is the case, then maybe you can point out a case where a Republican confesses to one of these dirty deeds.

On the policy issue, it's much more about branding and personality than policy in the US. There is plenty of evidence out there (and plenty of depressing videos) to show that Americans in general know little or nothing about the policy differences between candidates of their own party in the primaries and have only a very basic idea about policy differences among the candidates of different parties in the general (it's not just America either, policy ignorance and focus on personality is a global problem). The fact that Trump had great name recognition and had been on TV, was a businessman, and came across as much more relatable and non-political than most politicians was why he was voted in. His policy platfrom (apart from immigration where he was a bit more specific "Ban Muslims/Build a wall") was always a mess and contradictory. I mean, his policy on healthcare was "we'll get everyone great healthcare" and on the military was "we'll have a great military" and wasn't any clearer than that, and didn't need to be. — Baden

Weird thing is that most of this is pretty much covered in the Rubin's interview, and yet Adams tries to substantiate TDS with cognitive dissonance theory.

Haven't got round to watching the video yet. Adams might be worth listening to. I find Dave Rubin to be lazy and clueless though so it puts me off a bit.

1. I was attempting to touch on the Democrat-educated vs Republican-blue-collar divide and how that bears on the OP. I perceive a harshness to the Republican party that repels the liberal-minded, but is actually sought out by part of the population. "Trump was the school bully, and now he is the figure-head the of the USA? Crap!!!"

2. I think it's true that fundamentally, liberals place ethics above practicality. Conservatives do the opposite.

3. If I'm understanding you, you navigated straight for an analysis of the Republican platform to see what aspect of it true, but denied by Democrats. It wasn't my intention to discuss that, and I'd have to think about it.

Which of the above do you want to discuss? Or any of it?

I wouldn't say Adams is worth listening to. He's a lot like Rubin in, for whatever reason, wanting to appear rational and centrist. I guess they think that's more persuasive.

I perceive a harshness to the Republican party that repels the liberal-minded, but is actually sought out by part of the population. — frank

So you didn't mean truth, you meant non-PC.

It is not a real condition, so I am not sure why it should be treated as such.

So you didn't mean truth, you meant non-PC. — praxis

I meant truths.