TDS Revives Bush, Obama Derangement: Not Illness, Just Politics

𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘱 𝘋𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘚𝘺𝘯𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘦 (𝘛𝘋𝘚) 𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘉𝘶𝘴𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘖𝘣𝘢𝘮𝘢 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴—𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴. 𝘛𝘋𝘚 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘷𝘪𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 2025 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘧𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.

𝗔𝗻𝗮𝗹𝘆𝘀𝗶𝘀 By Bruce Alpine..

T

he term "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) is often attributed to Donald Trump as a novel invention to dismiss critics, but it echoes earlier partisan barbs: "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (BDS) and "Obama Derangement Syndrome" (ODS). 

These non-clinical labels weaponize psychology in political rhetoric, framing opposition as irrational hysteria rather than reasoned dissent. 

Emerging in eras of deep polarization, they reveal a bipartisan tradition of pathologizing the "other side," amplified by media echo chambers. 

Labeling fervent political opposition to a leader as a psychological affliction, devoid of any clinical or diagnostic legitimacy. 

Let's dissect this puzzle: trace its roots and unpack why it's deployed as a barbed slur.

BDS originated in 2003, coined by conservative psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer. 

He described it as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people" triggered by George W. Bush's mere existence—particularly his post-9/11 policies like the Iraq War. 

Bush supporters wielded BDS to caricature left-wing protesters as unhinged conspiracy theorists, accusing Bush of orchestrating 9/11 or embodying pure evil. 

It peaked during the 2004 election, helping delegitimize anti-war fervor amid national trauma. 

BDS set the template: a president's allies accusing foes of emotional overreach to sidestep policy debates. 

By 2008, ODS adapted this for Barack Obama. Conservative activist David Horowitz popularized it to critique right-wing excesses, like the birther movement questioning Obama's U.S. citizenship. 

It targeted Tea Party outrage over trivialities—Obama's tan suit or Dijon mustard as "elitist" symbols. 

Unlike BDS, ODS occasionally served intra-party reflection; even Krauthammer disavowed its loose application. 

Yet it underscored racial and cultural anxieties, fueling Obama's early presidency amid economic crisis. 

ODS highlighted how such terms can police one's own camp, though conservatives primarily used it against perceived liberal enablers. 

TDS, surging in 2016, builds on these precedents but escalates via social media. 

Trump and allies like Sean Hannity deployed it against liberals equating his rhetoric to fascism or obsessing over tweets. 

Examples include media fixations on Trump's personality over trade policies. 

By 2025, TDS has formalized: Minnesota Republicans proposed classifying it as a mental illness, a first for any president. 

This legislative push—absent in BDS or ODS eras—signals intensified tribalism, where mockery becomes codification. 

Similarities abound. All three syndromes target the opposition party: BDS and TDS from the right against left-leaning critics; ODS mostly right-on-right, with spillover. 

They thrive on polarization—9/11 for Bush, recession/race for Obama, cultural wars for Trump—turning critique into "madness." 

Psychologists view them as symptoms of "affective polarization," where tribal loyalty trumps facts, eroding discourse. 

None are DSM-recognized; they're insults, not diagnoses. 

Differences lie in scope and virality. BDS was journalistic, confined to op-eds; ODS narrower, less meme-driven. 

TDS, however, is omnipresent in MAGA culture—books, hashtags, even self-parody. 

Trump revived birtherism, inverting ODS against Obama fixation. 

Intensity-wise, TDS feels most personal, with Trump's direct taunts ("losers and haters") blurring lines between leader and troll. 

Ultimately, these syndromes aren't about presidents but America's fractured psyche. 

They shortcut debate, fostering cynicism. 

As divides deepen—evident in 2024's election TDS memes—they risk entrenching echo chambers. 

True "cure"? Bridging empathy over pathology. 

In a democracy, disagreement isn't derangement; it's oxygen.

—