“The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” This paraphrase of G.K. Chesterton could come to mind when pondering now notorious TDS — Trump Derangement Syndrome. A bizarre phenomenon affecting millions, it yields an irrational hatred for the president that dwarfs hostility other politicians have faced. Why, Democratic officials themselves are so overcome with it (by appearances) that they rarely express love for what’s behind them. That is, they almost never articulate policy ideas now. It’s just attacking one man, Donald J. Trump, viciously and unrelentingly, assassinating his character while sometimes hoping to assassinate him.
Oh, it’s not that spewing hate is new for the Left. Liberals despised President Ronald Reagan, calling him “Ronald Ray-gun.” (Now they may co-opt his memory, claiming “Reagan would neeever approve of today’s Republicans!”) Likewise it was with George W. Bush, who was sometimes portrayed as a monkey. And both men were labeled stupid. Then there were the vicious attacks on anti-communist crusader Senator Joe McCarthy (R-Wis.), impugned as a lying, drunken, unstable man. Yet if these were conventional attacks, with Trump the Left has gone nuclear. What explains this unprecedented rage?
Anatomy of a Hatred
Writing at American Thinker Wednesday, commentator and author Blaine L. Pardoe presented his theory. What follows is a summary of it (courtesy of Grok):
The vitriol against Donald Trump stems from a decades-long ideological war waged by the Left against conservatism, beginning with the unilateral passage of Obamacare. Democrats rejected bipartisanship, aiming to erase opposition and establish one-party rule, while Republicans naively compromised, unaware they were under siege. The media, education system, and party operatives advanced synchronized narratives, winning a war the Right didn’t recognize.
Trump’s arrival disrupted this machine. His first term, hampered by disloyal appointees and reactive rhetoric, made him the perfect villain — uncontrollable, outspoken, and immune to manipulation. The Left weaponized COVID, 2020 riots, and January 6 as pretexts for lawfare, ballot removal, and fascist smears, even as assassination attempts followed their inflammatory rhetoric.
In his second term, Trump evolved: strategic, loyalist-staffed, and unapologetic. He adopted the Left’s playbook — unified voting, no concessions, and financial pressure via lawsuits — while refusing to negotiate. The recent government shutdown exemplifies this: conservatives held firm, mirroring Democratic tactics.
Ultimately, the hatred boils down to control. Trump cannot be bent, bribed, or broken. …That independence terrifies his enemies, who rely on compliance to maintain power. His defiance exposes their fragility — and fuels their rage.
“Conservative” No More?
While much of Pardoe’s analysis appears valid, more should be said. First realize that the “Left” is not what it once was, in that it has increasingly left sanity. Tacking along with America’s general moral decline, leftists are less virtuous than ever — and hence more hateful.
Second, however, and more significant is something else. Pardoe mentions that unlike earlier Republicans, Trump doesn’t compromise. What he doesn’t say is that this reflects how Trump is not a conservative. And it’s conservatives whom liberals are accustomed to “managing.”
Questioning Trump’s conservatism is no insult. Rather, it harks back to another Chesterton observation: “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”
The only consistent definition of conservatism relates to a desire to preserve (“conserve”) the status quo. The only consistent definition of liberalism relates to a desire to change it. And as society’s change agents, leftists would ever drive the political/cultural agenda and incrementally move civilization “left.”
That is, they’d come to the bargaining table asking for a given change (law, program, regulation regime, etc.) Conservatives would resist but, wanting to be “reasonable” — and perhaps bowing to political realities — would compromise. Oh, they might in one instance give the liberals 50, 30, or even just 10 percent of what they wanted. If the last figure, it might be fancied a “win,” too. But it’s always a loss because the percentage doesn’t matter. For the Left will return next month, next congressional session, or next year asking for another portion of tradition’s territory. And as the process continues over time, the Left can eventually occupy the whole ideological land.
A New Sheriff in Town
Thus would Democratic administrations always move the country left (with cultural winds at their back). GOP executive control, however, typically just resulted in “holding actions.” The remaining traditionalist governmental territory was retained, although perhaps only mostly; that is, until Democrats regained the reins.
Those days are over. In many respects, Trump isn’t conserving today’s leftism-born status quo but attacking it. He himself is a change agent. For example, affirmative action metastasized into DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), and a “conservative” might just try to forestall the next iteration. Trump is trying to eradicate it altogether.
It’s likewise with so many things, too. The president isn’t just paying lip service to border security while implicitly tolerating amnesty efforts, but is aggressively deporting illegals. He isn’t kowtowing to the “transgender” lobby but is reversing some of its gains. He isn’t intimidated by “white supremacy” accusations but insists that it, and other racialism, be purged from education. He isn’t accepting the globalist status quo, while just trying to apply a GOP spin, but is overtly advancing nationalism. Put simply, he’s not backing down and relinquishing territory. He has gone to war. The change agents, once met by only holding agents, are having their change changed back. And it’s driving them insane.
Hitting Back
The same posture is evident with personal attacks. A George W. Bush would respond (and usually wouldn’t respond) with circumspection and gentility. He’d accept the beating as inevitable like a chronically abused spouse and soldier on; he’d deescalate. Not Trump. And just conceptualize the matter as a boxing match between conservative and liberal fighters. Whether policy or personal attacks, the conservative generally exhibits his specialty: playing defense. Oh, he’s nonpareil at bobbing, weaving, blocking, and slipping punches, but never throws any. He then, when the last bell is rung, looks up smiling, displaying bloody teeth, multiple cuts, and a black eye. “Look,” he boasts, “I blocked 93 percent of the punches today! This is my best victory ever!” Of course, he still lost on points.
Trump, in contrast, doesn’t fight by Queensberry rules. If the other side gets dirty, he gets dirty back. If they throw elbows, he throws elbows and fractures an orbital bone. If they gouge the eyes, he gouges theirs — with hot liniment on his glove. His refusal to deescalate escalates the Left’s anger, too.
Note also that the media revolution is part of this. When the legacy media still controlled the market and narrative, it could gang up with leftist pols to give a GOP victim a gang-on-one beat-down. Trump never could’ve been elected under the old landscape. But the new media — podcasters such as Joe Rogan, The New American, and multitudinous other entities — can expose deceitful blows. It can disseminate knockout truths. It can have Trump’s back so when the gangsters come, they’re met with equal or greater force.
As Pardoe said, the Left can’t control Trump, but this is largely because they can no longer control the media. This facilitates Trump’s and the MAGA movement’s success. And this is what truly upsets establishment leftists, because it threatens what they treasure most: their power. Then, of course, they can catalyze their rank-and-file followers’ anger against Trump, nurturing TDS, by portraying his reciprocal force as unprecedented, unprovoked attacks.
So TDS really is a type of mass formation psychosis. It’s easily induced, too, because leftists are creatures of the hive.
