Posted on 10/27/2025 7:34:33 AM PDT by CIB-173RDABN
In recent years, political hostility toward President Donald J. Trump has been so intense that some label it a form of irrational obsession—Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). But is this a new phenomenon? Or is it part of a recurring cycle in American history in which the nation becomes split into opposing camps that no longer agree on what America is—or should be?
Before proceeding, it is important to note that this essay does not attempt to provide a detailed history of every presidency or political conflict in American history. Each example mentioned—Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Nixon, FDR—has a far deeper and more complex story than can be fully explored here. The purpose of this discussion is not to provide comprehensive biographies, but to illustrate a recurring pattern: when the nation is divided between two incompatible visions of itself, intense personal and political hatred emerges. These examples serve as representative snapshots, showing that what appears new today in the form of TDS is actually part of a long-standing American tradition.
In every era of extreme presidential hatred, the issue was not merely the personality of the leader—but the fear that this leader represented one half of the nation rising to dominate and extinguish the other. The conflict existed independently of the individual; the person simply became the public symbol around which the dispute crystallized. If Jefferson and Adams had not been the figures of their time, someone else would have emerged to embody each side. The structural conflict—over federal power, economic organization, social order, or national identity—would have persisted regardless.
The nation was nearly evenly split between Federalists (urban, commercial, pro-British, strong federal government) and Jeffersonian Republicans (agrarian, rural, pro-France, decentralized power). Opposition did not appear out of nowhere; these divisions had been simmering for years over policy, ideology, and the nature of democracy. Core issue: Who should govern America—elite institutions or the common people?
Jackson had massive support in the rural South and West, while the Northeast elite despised him. Core issue: Should the nation be run by a centralized financial aristocracy or a populist democracy rooted in land and local control?
Lincoln did not win a single Southern state. His election triggered secession because the South viewed him as a symbol of the incompatibility of their slave-based society with the industrial North. Core issue: Can two different civilizations—slave-based and free labor—coexist in one nation?
FDR won large public support, but financial and corporate elites openly opposed him. Core issue: Should government guarantee economic security, or should it remain largely hands-off?
Nixon’s opposition began long before his presidency, rooted in his anti-communist Senate career, yet it intensified during the 1960s cultural and urban upheavals. Core issue: What is America’s identity—traditional, conservative, law-and-order, or a nation remade by secular, cultural, and global forces?
Urban, coastal, academic, and media elites largely oppose him; rural, working-class, religious, and middle America support him. This is nearly a 50/50 cultural, geographic, and ideological divide. Core issue: Is America a sovereign nation with a distinct identity, or part of a global system managed by international elites?
Across history, intense political opposition emerges when structural conflicts cannot be resolved. The individual at the center—Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Nixon, Trump—becomes a lightning rod, a symbol of one side of the debate. The conflict existed before the person became prominent and would have persisted afterward, manifested through someone else if necessary. This perspective clarifies why TDS is not a new psychological phenomenon, but the latest instance of a pattern: Americans rally against the person who embodies the threat to their vision of the nation.
The hatred itself is not unprecedented; only its speed, scale, and visibility are.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is not about Trump himself. It is about a nation split between incompatible visions of its identity, governance, and place in the world. Historical examples—from Jefferson and Jackson to Lincoln, FDR, and Nixon—show that when such fundamental divisions exist, intense personal and political hatred inevitably emerges. Individuals become symbols, not creators, of these conflicts.
What appears to be unprecedented today is largely a product of technology and media. The structural tension—the real cause of TDS—has been a constant in American political life. Recognizing this helps us see TDS not as a new pathology, but as the latest expression of a recurring, deeply American phenomenon: the clash between competing visions of what the nation should be.
The Daisy Commercial, but no it did not start there. I started in 1776 when the nation was being born. The United States is such a diverse nation it is a wonder it works at all. My point is that TDS is part of the United States history, it just seems more intense, well actually it is more intense, because of our technology. It amplifies everything.
As Lincoln was a man of his times. President Trump is a man of this time.
“Individuals as Symbols, Not Root Causes”
A key section. Trump is the current standard bearer of the MAGA cause, not the creater of the movement. Others could fill the same role. Hopefully someone will going forward!
It’s a good essay, but I’m not sure there was TDS-like hatred in the past. The modern Democrats and their buddies in the media have said that Trump is Hitler and a “threat to ‘our’ democracy” to the point that I think they actually believe it.
It's both about Trump AND how effective he is.
And it was the commercial urbanites who were the conservatives. The rural agrarians supported the French Revolution. (Also remember, George Washington was a Federalist.)
The same could be said about the Jacksonian era.
Before “Trump Derangement Syndrome” there was “Bush Derangement Syndrome”.
Before that ... we didn’t call it “Reagan Derangement Syndrome” or “Nixon Derangement Syndrome” ... but the terms would definitely have applied to the democRATs’ state of mind.
It’s a good essay, but I’m not sure there was TDS-like hatred in the past. The modern Democrats and their buddies in the media have said that Trump is Hitler and a “threat to ‘our’ democracy” to the point that I think they actually believe it.
—
Actually it was.
How quickly "we" (some of us, anyway) forget.
The term "XXXXX Derangement Syndrome" was coined on FR when George W. Bush was President.
Remember this?
Some people on FR might actually agree with that ... the groupthink around here has certainly changed in the last 20 years.
Didn’t Lincoln face the same thing?
I agree there was hatred and a pre type TDS hatred in the past.
That said, the degree of lunacy has increased with the woke, gay, and trans, idiocy.
The TDSism has become very violent and the people severely infected are much more dangerous than in the past. You can see it in the looks and demeanor of many of the dangerous ones.
Extreme hate has become fanatical obsessed hate. I believe the internet has been a great tool to indoctrinate and spread the hate. These people are really mentally deranged now. They have lost any shred of a conscience.
Didn’t Lincoln face the same thing?
—
Yes.
It’s never been just Trump Derangement Syndrome, it has been any republican president elected after Eisenhower.
It’s never been just Trump Derangement Syndrome, it has been any republican president elected after Eisenhower.
Trump Derangement is not new. There was BRS (Bush derangement syndrome), there was MDS (McCaine derangement syndrome). Anyone the Republicans put up will be labeled as Nazis.
“ What appears to be unprecedented today is largely a product of technology and media.”
That’s rather obvious and could have served as the entire post or in a good analysis the introduction.
“ Before proceeding, it is important to note that this essay does not attempt to provide a detailed history of every presidency or political conflict in American history.”
So you’re not going to do what could possibly be novel and worthwhile
Since the 1948 election.
Prior to that we were something that if I say it on FR I will get this post pulled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.