Post-Traumatic Trump Derangement Syndrome (PTTDS): Two Paths to Recovery10 min read

The political landscape surrounding Donald Trump has created what I call “Post-Traumatic Trump Derangement Syndrome” (PTTDS) – a condition affecting Americans across the political spectrum in response to “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS). TDS is characterized by an irrational, obsessive antipathy toward Donald Trump that leads to abandoning reason, principles, and perspective when discussing or reporting on him. This manufactured hysteria created a media environment where virtually every Trump word or action, regardless of substance, was portrayed as catastrophic or malevolent.

The resulting trauma of TDS – both for those who experienced it directly and those who suffered from its use by the media and others – has manifested in two distinct forms of PTTDS, each requiring its own path to recovery.

1. PTTDS Type 1: “The Disenchanted Reactionary”

Those who once vehemently opposed Trump and now recognize they were caught in a cycle of media-fueled outrage. These individuals have awakened to realize their reactions were conditioned responses rather than thoughtful analysis. They’ve come to see how media narratives trained them to react negatively to everything Trump-related, regardless of substance.

The Disenchanted Reactionary experiences a form of cognitive dissonance – reconciling their previous intense opposition with the recognition that some opposition was manufactured or exaggerated. They often feel manipulated by trusted information sources and question their own judgment.

1.1 Self-Analysis: You Might Be a Disenchanted Reactionary If…

• You find yourself feeling embarrassed about the intensity of your past emotional reactions to Trump news
• You’ve caught yourself thinking, “Maybe that wasn’t as bad as I thought at the time”
• You’ve begun questioning media narratives you previously accepted without hesitation
• You notice a pattern of predictions about Trump’s actions or policies that never materialized
• You feel betrayed by news sources you once trusted implicitly
• You’ve had moments of realizing your social circle reinforced and amplified your negative reactions
• You now recognize that some of your opposition was based on personality rather than policy
• You find yourself more willing to evaluate Trump-era policies on their actual outcomes rather than presumed intentions

2. PTTDS Type 2: “The Defensive Loyalist”

Those who supported Trump through waves of media criticism and social backlash. After years of deflecting what they perceived as unfair attacks and hoaxes, these individuals have developed a protective skepticism that sometimes prevents objective analysis of legitimate criticism.

The Defensive Loyalist has been conditioned by experience to assume bad faith in any Trump criticism. This defensive posture, while understandable given the history of exaggerated claims, can hinder healthy political discourse and prevent constructive criticism even from allies.

2.1 Self-Analysis: You Might Be a Defensive Loyalist If…

• You immediately feel defensive when anyone criticizes Trump, even if the criticism seems reasonable
• You find it difficult to acknowledge any missteps or flaws in Trump’s approach
• You’ve caught yourself dismissing legitimate concerns solely because they came from typically anti-Trump sources
• You feel compelled to defend Trump’s statements or actions that you would criticize in other political figures
• You’ve experienced social penalties for your political support and now anticipate attacks in any political conversation
• You feel wary of media coverage to the point where you distrust reporting regardless of the source
• You notice yourself becoming cynical about any institutional critique of Trump
• You find it difficult to engage with nuanced policy discussions without feeling like you’re betraying your political side

Here’s section three revised using your verbiage, cleaned up, with a few formatted citations:

3. The Real Source of the Problem: TDS

Trump Derangement Syndrome represents a breakdown in rational discourse. It’s characterized by a reflexive opposition to anything associated with Trump, regardless of content or context. This phenomenon created an environment where reasonable discussion became nearly impossible, as any nuance was abandoned in favor of moral certainty and righteous indignation.

3.1 Media Inflammation

Media has become increasingly sensationalistic and polarized, creating an atmosphere of contention. TDS origins, like Covid, are not the fault of nature but of specific actors who unwittingly (or purposely in some cases) poisoned the well of rational discussion. The pursuit of engagement metrics drove coverage toward the extreme, abandoning nuance for outrage. ¹

3.2 Social Stigma

Many Trump supporters were hidden before the election because the negative feelings engendered by the ridiculing media were picked up by many citizens, which caused all but the most fervent Trump supporters to be visible. Many suffered in silence and grew resentful because they felt that they could not bear the social reproach, or felt like they could not support Trump’s policies outright because of the associations with his character and demeanor. ² This created a climate where political identity became a source of potential social punishment.

3.3 The Loss of Information Credibility

One of the worst effects of TDS was that it promoted, first from the media and government authorities, and then by radicalized reactions in the conservative opposition media, a loss of credibility in all information sources. Even the most trusted outlets became engaged in obvious one-sided partisanship, hagiographies, and lies. This has gotten so bad that we are now in a “post-expert” society, where even appeals to authorities are no guarantee of confidence. ³ In this environment, we are now all victimized by a lack of sources that anyone could trust or argue from, creating a crisis in our shared reality.

4. Paths to Recovery

Let’s endeavor to recover from either Trump “hate” or Trump “worship,” shall we? I’m sure none of us would choose those extreme descriptors for ourselves, but let’s just think of them as “disgust” and “support” if you will.

4.1 For the Disenchanted Reactionary

• Practice media literacy by consuming diverse news sources
• Separate policy disagreements from character judgments
• Acknowledge the complexity of governance and the limitations of any single narrative
• Engage directly with opposing viewpoints rather than caricatures (See Straw Man, Stick Man, Steel Man) ⁴

4.2 For the Defensive Loyalist

• Recognize that criticism can be offered in good faith, even when coming from traditional opponents
• Develop standards for evaluating Trump’s statements and policies that aren’t simply reactive to media coverage
• Engage with substantive policy questions without feeling obligated to defend every position
• Resist responding with anger instead of dispassionate reasonable arguments

5. Finding Balance

The path forward requires humility about economic and political complexity. We must recognize that no political figure possesses perfect knowledge or implements flawless policy. At the same time, we should avoid cynicism that assumes the worst motives in those with whom we disagree.

For Trump supporters, this means maintaining the ability to offer or receive constructive criticism without feeling disloyal. For former critics, it means evaluating policies on their merits rather than through the lens of personality.

5.1 The Christian Community Divide

Perhaps nowhere has the trauma of TDS and resulting PTTDS been more disruptive than within Christian communities across America. Churches that once found unity in shared faith now experience deep divisions along political lines, often centered around Trump.

Trump-supporting Christians (myself included) have sometimes responded with uncharitable acerbity toward fellow believers whose support for Trump is tepid or nonexistent. This lack of vocal support for Trump, while understandable given his matrimonial background, lost court cases, and toadish approach could embarrass the faith, also seems like it could be tainted with both self-preservation and working on an arguably outdated biblical political calculus:

In the 1990s, conservatives heavily emphasized the importance of personal character and sexual morality, as evidenced by their strong critique of Bill Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal. However, in recent years there has been a shift on the right towards a more pragmatic approach focused on effectiveness and advancing the conservative policy agenda. Mystery Solved: Why supposed Christians support Donald Trump (wholereason.com) ⁵

At the same time, many Christians who oppose Trump have struggled to acknowledge how his administration has practically achieved many traditional conservative goals valued by the faith community – from judicial appointments to religious liberty protections – albeit sometimes through unconventional or capricious methods. ⁶

5.2 The Path to Healing and Progress of Christian Values in Politics

The path to healing in Christian communities requires grace on both sides. Trump supporters must recognize that fellow believers can have legitimate concerns about character, rhetoric, and certain policy positions without being classified as mere victims of media demonization and brainwashing. Those opposed to Trump should acknowledge the practical policy achievements that align with long-held conservative Christian values, distinguishing between personality and policy impact.

Above all, Christians on both sides must remember that our ultimate citizenship and allegiance transcends temporal politics. We can disagree on political means and even levels of political activity and vocality while maintaining unity in our shared faith and values. Love covers a multitude of sins, and a gentle answer turns away wrath.

6. Conclusion

The traumatic effects of TDS have damaged our political discourse in profound ways, but recovery is possible. By recognizing our own psychological responses to the Trump era, we can begin to rebuild a political conversation based on substance rather than reaction. The future of American politics depends on our ability to move beyond the patterns of the past and engage with each other – and our leaders – with both critical thinking and good faith.