Derangement is not a casual word. It speaks to a real disruption in someone’s ability to think clearly, to process reality, to function. It belongs in the realm of mental health, where words matter, and where we don’t get to invent diagnoses because it suits an argument.
Which is why I pause every time I hear “Trump derangement syndrome.” And to be clear, I’m not talking about Donald Trump’s mental capacity here. I’m talking about the casual assignment of a “syndrome” to people who simply disagree with him.
This morning, coffee in hand, I listened as a pundit described the U.S. President’s recent speech as great. And right on cue, anyone who didn’t see it that way was dismissed as suffering from this ‘syndrome’.
And I’ll be honest, I catch myself thinking… maybe it’s not the people asking the questions. Maybe it’s those cheering this President on who are missing something. Maybe they’re the ones with some kind of… syndrome.
And then I stop. Because I don’t get to do that. I don’t get to step into the world of mental health, assign diagnoses, or worse, invent them, just because I disagree.
But here’s the problem. When that kind of language comes from the top, it doesn’t stay casual. It becomes permission and it turns disagreement into diagnosis.
And it travels. I’ve been told, more than once, that I have my own version of it. A northern version. A Canadian version. A distorted view of our own Prime Minister, apparently. Same idea, just wrapped in a different flag.
So maybe this isn’t about who’s right. Maybe it’s about the words we’re choosing. Because if “derangement” is being used as a stand-in for perspective, then I suppose we’ve all got one. But perspective isn’t pathology.
And it’s probably worth remembering the difference.
Nancy's Notes 