According to this OpEd that the L.A. Times saw fit to print three day's ago, many of us on Dailykos who can’t stomach the specter of a Trump presidency have a psychological disorder. The article describes some of the more minor depredations of Trump as a candidate, and “acting-President,” and then the “condition” of those of us who are viscerally disturbed by his election, such as myself. He closes with this ominous warning, “….. the final stage of the TDS epidemic (is) violence* against a democratically elected leader. Unless a cure for TDS is found, this is where we are headed.” (My headline here is “assassination,” or its attempt, which he described in the article)
The diagnosis of a mental disorder is wrong when abused by professionals, but dangerous when used to attempt to define a reasonable response to an historic event. My initial letter to the editor after reading it was intentionally short, to be included with what I assumed would be the widespread anger over printing this.
"Mr. Raimondo attempts to equate rational criticism of the President elect with going down a path that will lead to his assassination. The only presidential candidate in this election, or our nation's history, who ever considered such action is Donald Trump in an offhand public comment about redressing his opponent's victory "Though the Second Amendment people." We who oppose him will continue to do so, with none of his statements more condemned than this one."
Seeing no letters at all condemning this “whimsical” diagnosis of those who are profoundly disturbed by this election, I wrote a fuller description to the letters editor whom I had previously corresponded with. I now realize it’s probably a policy not to post letters responding to OpEds, as I can’t believe I’m not alone in condemning this one. My letter follows:
---------------------—
Justin Raimondo’s OpEd, “Do You Suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome,” trivialized the response to this game changing election as a type of mass social contagion like that which caused the spate of witch trials centuries ago. The response to the Trump election is anything but the irrational group hysteria he parodies, and to let his distortion go without a cogent rebuttal would misrepresent the uniqueness of this historic moment of time. His conclusion that such a reaction will lead to a presidential assassination is nothing less than contemptible.
Since the beginning of our republic political speech has included distortions and exaggerated vilification, however Donald Trump in his actions and persona, and his mastery of a weaponized social media whose potency had not previously been known, has resulted in his achieving a degree of power that could never have been foreseen by the writers of our constitution. Mr. Raimondo makes the assumption that the ceremonies surrounding the Presidential inauguration have a sacredness about them and we all should kneel, no matter the individual who will be anointed. His mental illness analogy ignores the reality of damage to a country that has been held together by unwritten rules, none more important than during the election and tenure of the President.
.
Refusal to embrace Mr. Trump as President is not because of disagreement on policy, but because he won the election by threat of violence. The unspoken message of his threat to ignore an adverse outcome was that his followers would be encouraged to take whatever action was needed to overturn the choice of voters. The calumny of accusing his opponent of being the founder, the driving force for the creation of ISIS, was virtually equating her to Osama Bin Laden. While seeming absurd on its face, it was calculated to incense those who would feel justified to take the very action that Mr. Raimondo describes as the inevitable result of those who refuse to accept Mr. Trump as their President.
.
While January 20th at noon will have the trappings of the fifty four inaugurations since our founding, it is functionally a culmination of a bloodless coup. It did not have human casualties, however, the death of truth itself is even more profound. While, the results were as much a result of systemic cyber vulnerability as of Mr. Trumps venality, nevertheless the one taking the mantle of the Presidency of the United States fostered these depredations without restraint. To accuse those of us who refuse to view this inauguration in the spirit of those that came before it, and whose refusal is then deemed a precursor to assassination, is an absurdity on its face. Such an accusation will, whether by intent or ignorance, act not to prevent violence against Trump, but foment it against those who oppose him politically.
.
The profound challenge of restoring the comity of our nation will only be exacerbated by violence, whether against this President, or those who peacefully resist his policy. This task, a complex, and challenging one, has little chance of being led by the person holding the highest office in the land, but by those who will try to find a path towards the civil discourse that he has done so much to destroy.