“So the final lesson of 1918 (The Great Influenza Pandemic): Those in authority must retain the public’s trust. The way to do that is to distort nothing, to put the best face on nothing, to try to manipulate no one. Lincoln said that first, and best.” (The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History, John M. Barry, Penguin Books, p. 465)

In this essay we revisit our earlier thoughts on Donald Trump and his relationship with his followers through the lense of the concept of “Gaslighting”. By gaslighting we mean the relational experience by which one person gains control over another, through the induction and manipulation of false beliefs, which take on a delusional character, a world of alternative facts. As a result of this psychological abuse, the victim begins to doubt his or her sanity, eventually submitting fully to the lies of the perpetrator. We will show how Donald Trump has made use of this powerful psychological tool to achieve his political goals. In particular we extend our discussion to the President’s use of gaslighting in the Covid-19 Pandemic.

In our exploration of Trump’s use of gaslighting, we are focusing our attention on a core group of Trump supporters, which we will refer to as his “base”. These people are part of the core of Trump’s followers over whom he secures control through gaslighting, as he repeatedly instructs them to disregard the evidence of their own senses in lieu of blatant denials and repeated lies (“What you are reading and seeing, is not what’s happening.”) In addition to the fanatical base, there is a larger group of potential Trump supporters (not as yet identified as part of his base) who, after a long and protracted presidential campaign, may lose their initial tie to their own reality, and succumb to Trump’s. They may not do so with the same fervor of the base supporters; but it is the relentless assault on truth and sustained distortion of reality that will undermine their sanity just enough to draw them in. In addition to these, there are other groups of Trump supporters who do not question their reality testing or sanity and are not as vulnerable to gaslighting. For a variety of reasons these people do not care what he says or the lies he tells (“All politicians lie” They will explain by way of an excuse for his mendacity.). We are not talking about them. Nor are we directing our attention to those who are single issue champions of Trump, such as religious groups who advocate for abortion, Israel, or the stock market. However, come the election, it is the combination of these various groups of supporters that Trump will exploit in his attempt to secure his second term, and to a degree, all may be susceptible to gaslighting. But it is the fanatical base, the target of Trump’s gaslighting and mental coercion, on which he most depends – this is the group we will be focusing on in this essay. We will demonstrate that there is an intersubjective dialogue between Trump and this base that both fuels Trump’s grandiosity and lifts the vulnerable and disenfranchised core of his supporters. It is the gaslighting at the heart of this relationship, which we believe explains the strange distortions of reality which Trump indulges in, the extreme nature of his politics, and ultimately explains his perversion of presidential leadership.

Let us start with a brief overview of the dynamics of the narcissistic/intersubjective bond between Trump and these followers, which we have referred to as “the grandiose bond”, the relational foundation of gaslighting. At the heart of this relationship is of course Donald Trump, or more specifically Trump’s belief that he is truly special, possessing exceptional knowledge, foresight, and entitlement to success and power. On January 6, 2018, he stated, “Like, I’m really smart, a very stable genius.” Inherent in this message is palpable, incontrovertible narcissism. What is much less apparent however, is the invisible delusional underpinnings of such a belief system. It would be much easier for the public to identify with and understand Trump if he suddenly declared that Martian spaceships are planning a landing or that the people on the TV are talking to him – he would just be seen as obviously psychotic. However, the underpinning of his character is an invisible delusional psychotic process that we have defined as cryptopsychotic. This is not a DSM 5 or ICD-10 diagnostic code but a descriptive label that explains a thinking process and communicative style. Language and communication is transactional for Trump. That is, even though he knows that what he is saying is a lie or distortion, he puts aside the truth for the immediate transactional demands. In other words, he uses words to solve problems, and if a “lie” is needed, so be it. For this type of narcissism, the creation and promotion of a system of false beliefs and assertions is a crucial part of protecting self-esteem and self-organization more generally. Heinz Kohut differentiated the “cryptopsychotic character” from a narcissistic personality disorder, primarily due to the centrality of delusional thinking in the former and an inability to truly empathize with another. Trump seeks a mirror for his delusional beliefs in the enthrallment of his base, and craves the experience of confirmation of his grandiosity in their adoration and mutual absorption of delusional claims. His bond with his followers is beyond the scope of a simple and straightforward narcissistic personality disorder, it includes an extraordinary resonance between Trump and his base by addressing their unremitting vulnerability to shame. The resulting bond is powerful and sets the conditions for gaslighting. Kohut wrote about the dynamics of such a bond:

At certain historical moments there exists a widespread painful awareness of narcissistic imbalance in large sections of the population. Shame propensity and readiness for rage are ubiquitous. Individuals seek to melt into the body of a powerful nation (as symbolized by the grandiose leader) to cure their shame and provide them with a feeling of enormous strength, to which they react with relief and triumph. Old fantasies of omnipotence seem suddenly to have become reality; all are proclaiming the invincible strength of the nation, and he who dares to question the omnipotence of the group, and the omniscience of its leader, is an outcast, an enemy, a traitor. (Kohut, 1985, p. 57)

In this way, these people seek a collective state of merger which wipes away shame and is replaced with a sense of power and triumphant vindication. However, on the other hand, Trump’s experience of the bond with his followers actually has nothing collective about it. His cheering, adoring crowds are anonymous to him. There is no empathy in this connection. The bond of grandiosity interferes with Trump’s ability to see them as individuals, “as independent centers of initiative”. In other words, Trump denies the agency of his followers, and as he orchestrates and manipulates at his rallies, he revels at his power to control and arouse adulation. At this time, he is merged with the mass of his followers in a fantasy which serves to assuage vulnerability and feed his archaic grandiose self. “He melts them into his personality so to speak and brings them and their actions under his control as if they were his limbs, his thoughts and his actions” (Kohut, 1985, pp. 54). His grandiosity dominates his psychology and he may give his followers a voice only through his arrogance. Though his followers believe they have found someone who hears and understands them, this is a false expectation and a false sense of empathy because the only thing Trump cares about is his need to win and need for revenge. Again, though momentary shame may be alleviated in some followers, this is a temporary respite, because the conditions of their lives have not changed. His rallies are an echo chamber in which the tremendous personality of the entertainer, now dictator, is mirrored back at him confirming his greatness. For Trump and his followers there is no greater good at stake here. The intersubjective is composed of Trump’s hyper-grandiosity which temporarily alleviates the crowds gnawing sense of shame and Trump’s shame propensity, which he finds intolerable and which must be eradicated immediately. The frenetic crowd is his antidote. The experience of the echo chambers’ grandiosity is its own end.

But does this grandiose bond have any real benefits for its participants? Does Trump’s follower’s identification with him produce collective resilience? No, It produces a response like a mob, expressing only fear, rage and hostility; there is no building up of any shared values or vision which might help to lift them out of their frustration and rage. Their shame must continually be assuaged, and their rage fed with further grievance and targets. We also believe that there is a group within his supporters whose tie to him is one of archaic twinship characterized by cryptopsychotic fantasies of hyper-grandiosity. By means of this twinship bond, Trump’s followers fantasize that they will be transformed from the aggrieved and disenfranchised into triumphant winners.

Gaslighting

In George Cukor’s 1944 film Gaslight, Charles Boyer systematically attempts to undermine Ingrid Bergman’s sense of reality and eventually her sense of herself and her sanity, in order to gain control of her and make use of her estate for his personal enrichment. The ostensive reason for his gaslighting is not very important, but the process as dramatized in the film is vivid and riveting. Boyer’s power over Bergman is founded in his wife’s vulnerability due to the traumatic murder of her aunt, the immediate aftermath of which she witnessed. Her willingness to engage in a shared fantasy of ideal love, allows Moyer to convert her trust into submission as he craftily suggests certain mental problems she is exhibiting, suggestions which eventually become accusations and finally psychological assaults. Ultimately Bergman’s hold on reality is shattered, and she begins to go mad.

We should note that the type of gaslighting dramatized in Cukor’s film is different from that between Donald Trump and his followers. First off, Trump’s followers are enthusiastic about ceding control to the leader, freely submitting to his manipulations, denials and lies. In the film, Bergman is terrified by the supposed loss of her tie to reality, Trump’s followers revel in their supposed freedom from facts, and seem liberated and ecstatic. The group psychosis accompanying their merger with the grandiose man fuels their belief in his omniscience and the rightness of his power. They crave submission and experience his gaslighting of them as a merger with that power.

However, despite these differences, the core process in Trumpian gaslighting is the same as in the film. The abuser manipulates the victim into questioning reality, and substitutes a set of alternate truths, e.g. false beliefs (a type of induced cryptopsychosis), and then by means of this newly acquired authority, he or she manipulates the victims vulnerabilities, seeking to control their mood and self-state for the abusers own interests.

In the movie Gaslight, Ingrid Bergman is portrayed as a passive victim who resists Boyer’s manipulations and is terrified as she succumbs to his will. On the other hand, Donald Trump’s victims actively seek out a tie with the grandiose leader in order to share in his fantasies of perfection and power. In fact the community of followers, especially during Trump rallies, take part in encouraging and joining in the repudiation of facts, as they chant and bellow out vengeful insults and slogans. For example, despite Hilary Clinton’s loss and retirement they still demand that she be “locked up”, and howl in pleasure at the great leaders’ parodies and insults. In this altered state and alternative reality, they believe that they and he will “Make America Great Again”, a reparative fantasy in which shameful self-states and deficits are magically repaired as they and their leader triumph over their enemies.

In many ways Trump’s gaslighting relationship with his followers is similar to that between some, but not all domestic abusers and their partners. In such situations, when this dynamic is applicable, the power of the abuser is maintained and the submission of the abused partner assured by a process of intimidation in which the obvious reality of the abuse, scars, bruises, broken bones, are denied and explained away in other terms, while the abuser assures the abused that he or she is the one at fault for their problems and that the abuser is blameless. This is the same process that exists between a child who is sexually abused by a parent or adult caregiver. In such a situation, a child may be told that they are the favorite and as such are often treated by the abuser as a favorite. The abuse is never discussed and if ever confronted about it, the abuser looks at the child or young adult as if they are crazy.

In Trump’s case even as he asserts his loyalty to his followers and their way of life, he and his party are actively (even aggressively) pursuing political and economic goals that are in many cases destructive to their health and interests. This lack of empathy in pursuit of his own goals is another example of his cryptopsychosis. The clearest example of this is his ongoing legal effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act as well as Republican Party’s efforts to limit access to Medicaid and Food Stamps. For example, early on, he attacked the ACA: “When Obamacare kicks in in 2016. Really big league. It is going to be amazingly destructive. Doctors are quitting….It’s a disaster. They had a plan that was good. They have no plan now.” Then several years later he promised: “Obamacare. We’re going to repeal it, we’re going to replace it, get something great. Repeal it, replace it, get something great!”

Despite the fact that many of Trump’s supporters are ACA recipients and others depend on Medicaid and SNAP (Food stamps), his promise to repeal the ACA is met with cheers and unanimous applause. His assertion that a “great” replacement is coming is never realized, nonetheless the deluded claim that he is saving the people from a disaster in order to give them something far better, remains a powerful message which he drives home to the frantic acclaim of his base. The power of the message, the antidote to shame and the narcissistic disequilibrium, is like heroin to a drug addict who cannot acknowledge the self-harm they are inflicting with the potential loss of the ACA. If anyone were to challenge his assertion (many do) he attacks them as socialists and Democrats in cahoots with the medical and pharmaceutical industries. In his cryptopsychotic world his lies meet the transactional needs of the moment, and when confronted with the truth, he doubles down on them.

Much of Trump’s gaslighting is enacted through social media. He uses Twitter as his personal life line to his followers. The cryptopsychotic messages of delusional lies and false accusations that he himself believes are kept alive with a Twitter feed that is the oxygen that both he and his followers desperately need to continue to assert the illusions and maintain the gaslighting. The need for this consistent messaging and feeding frenzy is akin to an intravenous infusion, the sometimes minute to minute messaging that Trump uses to ramp up the grandiose delusional echo chamber. We will now touch on several of the specific techniques which Trump uses to gaslight his followers and the American people.

Trump’s Gaslighting the Pandemic

Lie as needed: In the movie Gaslight, the perpetrator creates a series of lies about what is really happening, and drives them home, questioning the victim’s hold on reality. Ingrid Bergman’s effort to question these claims is attacked as a symptom of her incipient madness; eventually she succumbs. Similarly, one of Trump’s simplest, tried and true techniques is to repeatedly and shamelessly assert his own lies or those being promoted by others in the media or social media. In this regard he is without peer in politics: no amount of facts or evidence contrary to his claims will sway him. ( In a recent article in the New York Times Michael Tomasky points out that as of May 29, 2020 Trump has uttered 19,127 false or misleading claims while in office.) Trump believes that his contradictory remarks are always consistent, because each transaction exists independently from the other. His gaslighting and enthusiastic promotion of “alternative facts” is also taken up by his base, who rise to the defense of the great leader, chanting lies at rallies (“Lock her up!” for the “criminal” Hillary Clinton and “Send her back!” for Llhan Omar). These hostile lies become rallying cries, binding the group together, asserting fundamental beliefs (that career politicians are all corrupt, that all foreign born people should be barred from the country). In their frenzy to join Trump in his grandiose quest to “build the wall” and “drain the swamp” the psychological and emotional archaic merger has its purest and most vicious expression. During the early days of the current Covid-19 pandemic, Trump asserted a false narrative that the illness would simply disappear, the unproven medications would be panaceas, that anyone can get testing, etc., etc. Eventually, when it appeared that he had accepted the reality of the epidemic, this was just another ploy. When needed, Trump would repeatedly fall back on lies, false assertions and far right conspiracy theories, often derived from and supported by conservative pundits and quacks. In regards to Trump’s relationship to his base the technique is simple: tell yourself what you need to hear: tell them what they want to hear, be relentless, keep doing it until the intersubjective becomes an hypnotic cryptopsychotic echo chamber.

Attack anyone who contradicts your message: Gaslighting requires that the perpetrator be persistent and even aggressive. The victims effort to test reality and restore a feeling of sanity must be attacked and repeatedly refuted. Like Charles Boyer in the movie, the perpetrator fains exasperation with the victims sense of reality. He becomes irritable and short tempered as the victim tries in vain to assert the facts. Donald Trump uses this technique relentlessly. Recently during a Covid-19 Task Force news briefing, he repeatedly accused reporters of being unprofessional and peddling “fake news” even when asking simple, obvious questions. Although primitive in form, Trump’s ability to persistently attack and refute his “enemies” is a key part of his effort to sustain his message and wear down the public, who become numb to his insults and begin to question their own sense of what’s real. Meanwhile his base of support revels in his rudeness and assertion of their shared delusions and twinship of the “real” situation and denigration of expertise.

Twitter has allowed Trump to sustain his attacks. There are many days (and often nights) when a barrage of tweets inundate the phones of followers and enemies alike, with repeated attacks against Trump’s enemies. Even on off days, Trump rarely misses an opportunity to project blame and to attack those whom he feels have betrayed him, opposed his policies, or simply told a truth that he does not share. The maintenance of an attitude of blaming and verbal attack, sustains the ire of his followers and creates a siege mentality, while he urges his base to go after some opposition candidate, foreign dignitary or organization, or perhaps a dead senator or a “nasty” woman newsperson. By sustaining the attack he keeps his followers effectively revved up and focused on the enemy.

Exaggerate your success and efforts (especially when you have done nothing): One very common form of this technique Trump uses is to circulate a public statement asserting (regardless of evidence to the contrary) that Trump and his administration have been victorious, done a tremendous job, and should get a grade of A+. On April 30, Trump did just that by coordinating statements with his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, at the White House. Trump began by claiming “We did all the right moves. If we didn’t do what we did, you would have had a million people die, maybe more, maybe 2 million people die.” And later Jared claimed: “I think we have achieved all of the milestones we needed. The federal government rose to the challenge, and this is a great success story. And I think that’s really, you know, what needs to be told.” What is breathtaking both these claims is that they are easily disproved by facts from the public record (currently, 2.4 million infected, 117 thousand dead), however this gaslighting technique is fundamental to the abusers aim – to blatantly and proudly assert that what is false is true, and that anyone claiming the contrary is a liar: “fake news”.

Use confusing rhetoric: Another gaslighting technique which Trump relies on almost continually, is confusing, often contradictory rhetoric. Rather than full sentences where an idea is made explicit and clear, he uses phrases and incomplete asides which lead the audience to feel uncertain regarding what he means and what he might be referring to. He states several different things at one time, sometimes even in the same sentence. For example, regarding his handling of the Covid epidemic: “Yeah, we’ve lost a lot of people. But if you look at the original projections, 2.2 million. We’re probably heading to 60,00, 70,000. It’s far too many. One person is too many for this. And I think we’ve made a lot of really good decisions.” Listeners are justifiably confused by this statement. What does he mean? What point is he trying to make? Rather than scrutinizing the claims, a loyal follower will simply latch onto pieces of the statement: 60,000 is less than 2.2 million. Yes one person is too many, he cares for all people. And finally that he is doing a “tremendous job”. In this approach rhetorical coherence and syntactic conventions are ignored as communication is reduced to disconnected phrases and affectively charged punchy assertions. This is the language of cryptopsychotic narcissism in which the communication functions to strengthen and clarify the grandiose bond with the audience, while at the same time confusing and ultimately numbing the attention of the public and hopefully, opponents.

Deny everything: At first Trump simply asserted: “I don’t take any responsibility for this.” blaming President Obama as the Covid-19 death rate began to increase beyond Trump’s “rosy” predictions (50,000 dead!). Rather than admit his miscalculation, he began to assert the false claim that the medical profession was intentionally exaggerating the death rate to undermine his policies. Allied pundits joined in giving cover to his denial of the reality of death and the sacrifice of first responders. Even a quack physician was elevated to support this claim. In the end, this is Trump’s ultimate fallback position: “It didn’t happen.” Already there are signs that Trump’s followers are claiming that the pandemic is fabricated, that it was created by Bill Gates to make a profit on a vaccine, or that it just didn’t happen as the media and liberal doctors claimed – another instance of “fake news”. Recently a video went viral online, titled “Plandemic”, touting a conspiracy theory regarding a collusion between the deep state and private industry to create and profit from the epidemic. (Trump’s gaslighting is enhanced with the aid of fringe groups and conspiracy theorists).When confronted with failing poll numbers in the fall, Trump may simply claim that pandemic simply didn’t happen. That the grim facts of disease and death were ploys of the liberal media and Democratic party to “steal” the election from the American People (e.g. using the excuse of the pandemic to promote unlawful mail-in voting). With Donald Trump, truth is fair game, any lie, no matter how grotesque can be a tactic to manipulate the public into doubting their own perception of reality – to protect his hold on power, and his hunger for success.

Blame someone whenever advantageous: The grandiose bond between Trump and his base of followers is strengthened when there is an Other to be blamed, often for developments for which Trump is in fact culpable. Retaliatory rage is provoked and directed at the enemy as the base rallies round the hero president, as he repeatedly targets the frequently innocent person or institution. This has been a Trump tactic for many years, but now, during the Covid-19 epidemic, its use is especially odious. For example, Trump has been rightly accused of denying the looming epidemic for weeks as it spread through the country. Even when every authority confirmed the spread, Trump minimized the risk and predicted it would be “no big deal”. Soon, as increasing numbers of people became sick and dying, he changed his tune, blaming the Chinese government and the World Health Organization for hiding essential information and thus delaying the American response. Despite the fact that this was an obvious lie, Trump has continued to blame and accuse the WHO, which he is defunding in retaliation. He has also blamed responsible (and popular) governors for infringing on their citizen’s liberties by issuing protective orders to shelter in place, egging on his followers to take arms against their states in defense of “liberty”. Finally, as always, Trump had turned on his predecessor, Barack Obama claiming that the prior administration shirked responsibility and failed to alert the country to the risk of epidemic, even though the Obama White house wrote a detailed warning and plan for just such a contingency. Trump recently broadened and escalated these attacks by claiming Obama was a criminal who committed, “the biggest political crime in American History, by far!” The crime? The investigation of the Russian effort to undermine our democracy.

Exacerbate political and social divisions: As we have noted, the identification of enemies is essential to the maintenance and strengthening of the grandiose bond. In this way shame is deflected onto the hated “other” and rage is justified and channeled outside the domain of the leader and his followers. Donald Trump seeks to intensify political and social divisions by praising his base (hard working people, patriotic Americans, freedom loving folks, etc.,) while denigrating and mocking liberal elites, socialists, foreigners, Democrats and even (if it suits his purpose) fellow Republicans. Using demeaning nicknames he targets other leaders and competitors as he fans the fury of disdain among his base. The more he leers and insults the “other groups’ the more the faceless mass of followers rises up to meet his scorn with passionate jeers and contempt. The leader and his base are fused in a state of joyful outrage, as the charge of grandiosity fires up the crowd – yes, we are great again!

Declare victory as the situation worsens: Despite the fact that Trump lost the popular vote, he has repeatedly touted the fact that he won the Electoral College in a landslide. Despite having a low turnout at his inaugural, he asserted it was the largest crowd ever in American history, and he has his press secretary echo his lie. This claim of victory despite obvious defeat has been a familiar strategy of Trumps throughout his career. In fact several weeks ago, as the Covid-19 epidemic raged on, Trump and Jared Kushner organized a victory celebration on the South Lawn of the White House to declare victory over the virus and to assert the splendid success of the Corona Taskforce and federal response. Since in the minds of his followers the truth has never been trusted, let alone valued, the gaslight has never burned brighter – the a priori belief in Trump as a winner is held to ever tighter when contradicted by facts, and any attempt to hold up the light of truth to the lie is ridiculed and attacked. The frenzy of the Trump base is heightened to a fever pitch in direct proportion to the obviousness of the lie and the irrefutable evidence of mediocrity and failure. Truth does not matter, the glory of winning is everything, even when (especially when) all is lost, which leads us to a discussion of the upcoming campaign.

What to Expect from Now Until the Election

Current polling shows Trump trailing the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden. In addition, down ticket candidates campaigning in various parts of the country fear that association with Trump will harm their bids for office and have begun to distance themselves from him. Hence, there is a real risk that come November, Trump may lose the presidential election. Regardless, if this actually comes to pass, the possibility of losing will surely become the primary organizing principles of Donald Trump, his administration and Republican party for the next 6 months. In the process the gaslight will be burning 24 hours a day – and it will be white hot. We can expect that the specific gaslighting tactics which we have been describing will be intensified, elaborated and projected into myriad aspects of political, social and economic life. This will be done without regard for fairness and respect, nor will the health of the citizenry or the integrity of the body politic be valued. The tactics which we describe below are somewhat different from Trump’s other gaslighting techniques. The only goal will be winning reelection by an intensification of the grandiose bond through an increasingly fanatic and cryptopsychotic gaslighting. Let’s consider how this might look.

Let Russian interference go unchecked: Often it is unnecessary for Trump to directly engage in gaslighting and the creation and promotion of falsehoods and lies. There are legions of Trump supporters and other rightwing standard media and social media “influencers” who constantly promote conspiracy theories, racist tropes, etc. which can go viral on their own, or are reposted by Trump himself on his Twitter account. But the most effective method of indirect gaslighting in Trump’s arsenal is the simple relaxing of vigilance regarding Russian election interference. Even Trump’s own intelligence services confirm that the Russians (as well as other bad actors) are already busy spreading division and lies to influence the election in Trump’s favor. All he has to do is sit back and do nothing, as the gaslighting by proxy takes effect.

Use the Justice Department to attack opponents: Another approach is to use what remains of the credibility of the Justice Department to plant the seeds of suspicion and doubt regarding Trump’s opponents. This worked well during the last campaign as James Comey informed the nation of the reopening of the investigation of Hillary Clinton in the last week of the 2016 campaign. It would not be surprising if at some point in the fall William Barr announced an investigation of Joe Biden, either for his supposed Ukrainian ties or Tara Reade’s sexual harassment accusations.

Encourage civil disturbance: As we have seem in the past several weeks during the nationwide protests of the murder of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis, rather than calming the disturbances, Trump actually exacerbates them and sows division. Also, rather than responding to the peaceful and legitimate protests, Trump stressed the looting and violence perpetrated by a minority of activists (of perhaps right wing agitators) and attempted to delegitimize the protests and even threaten the use of active duty military to “dominate the battlespace” of the American streets. This was a blatant and bizarre heightening of the gaslighting project as Trump took advantage of a national tragedy to promote many of his most blatant falsehoods and nationalistic tropes: the “law and order president”, the need to seek dominance, the power and glory of the military, second amendment rights, militant Christian fundamentalism. As we note below, this may have been a bridge too far, but Trump has made a career of such bold faced lying, gross insults and racism.

Declare a national emergency, maybe start a war: Early in his presidency Trump declared a “national emergency” to create a false belief that the nation was under assault by a horde of invading foreigners. Then he used this fabrication (which was echoed throughout the conservative media and social media ad nauseum) to reallocate money for the building of his border wall. In the last few weeks it appeared that Trump was once again reactivating the national emergency claim to allow him to take militarily control of state governments, ostensibly to protect the nation from Antifa sponsored chaos. As of today June 8, 20020 Trump appears to have backed down, “now that everything is under perfect control”, however at the same time asserting that the soldiers “will be going home, but can return quickly, if needed”. Of course, it is probable that Trump never intended to use the American military to invade the states, rather it is more likely that this was just another instance of Trumpian theatrics, an admittedly ominous escalation of gaslighting tactics, aimed at the paranoia of his “base” and their hunger for control, revenge and guns. At the very least he was successful once again at wresting control of the national debate, and stirring animosity and division. Finally, Trump may start a war. He has over the last few weeks been more bellicose in his rhetoric about China and has even mobilized forces in the South China sea, threatening an already trigger happy Chinese navy. As Trump well knows, the rhetoric of a foreign war is a most potent gaslighting technique.

Cancel or indefinitely postpone the election, or refuse to accept the results. claiming fraud: Trump is the only victorious president who continued to claim, even after assuming office, that the 2016 election was “rigged”. Even now, he continues to engage in this fantasy and he has persistently attacked local policies around mail-in-voting, despite no evidence of fraud. But the point is that over the next few months we will probably see Trump continue to sow doubt, while at the same time undermining legitimate attempts to protect the elections from interference. In this way Trump is setting the stage for his potentially final gambit, to rally his base in an illegitimate and cynical power grab, as he attempts to discredit the results of the election and refuses to leave office. This ultimate subversion of the constitution and democracy, will be cynically promoted as an act of patriotism and duty.

Conclusion: Trump, Gaslighting and Cryptopsychotic Beliefs: Central to Donald Trump’s particular brand of Gaslighting is the manner in which he and his followers assert what they claim is the “truth” while at the same time secretly maintaining a false array of beliefs and fantasies. What goes unacknowledged is that their primary relationship to reality is purely transactional as they maintain admittedly false beliefs in order to achieve their goals. These goals, energized by the grandiose bond between Trump and his supporters, are primarily ones of power, self-righteous aggression, racial hegemony and a fundamentalist moralistic agenda. Secretly, they know that their claims and assertions are false, but that no longer matters. Trump’s followers have come to crave the certitude of the gaslight, they have enthusiastically given themselves over to a cryptopsychotic state in which madness is right and delusions legitimate alternatives to truth.

Eventually towards the end of Gaslight, Charles Boyer is successful in breaking down Ingrid Bergman’s resistance until she is entirely under his control. However, a detective played by Joseph Cotton, having become suspicious of Boyer’s motives, has secretly been investigating the reclusive couple. Eventually he uncovers irrefutable evidence and confronts Bergman with the facts. Cotton’s earnestness and concern for Bergman’s welfare (combined with some erotic undertones) is persuasive and eventually she is won over by the truth. Her sense of sanity is restored as Boyer is confronted and his plot revealed. Honesty and goodness win out over lies, manipulation and villainy.

Perhaps there may come a point in which Trump’s gaslighting will no longer sway those voters outside the most fanatic of his fringe base, whose support he needs to win the presidential election. For example, after the recent killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman, Trump staged a photo op when he ordered the military to attack peaceful protestors ahead of his walk with the Bible to the steps of St. John’s Church. Will Trump’s photo and abuse of these sacred symbols cross a proverbial line and contribute to his defeat? Will his denial of the pandemics virulence and lethality, eventually collapse under the awful tally of the dead? Will his prediction of the economy “roaring back” be seen as a cynical ploy as the percentage of unemployed continues to rise? Will these grandiose messages eventually fall on deaf ears as the vulnerable, concerned and mature citizenry begin to question not just his moral authority, but his intentions as President – perhaps, after all, he is in fact dangerous. We can only hope that more and more of the American people are no longer susceptible to his cryptopsychotic messaging and lies. We will know on November 4.