TDS, Reductio ad Absurdum, and the real Identify Fusion
In the polarized landscape of American politics, rhetorical techniques like “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) and the phrase “Orange Man Bad” have become go-to tools for conservative commentators and politicians to deflect criticism of Donald Trump. These phrases are often deployed to dismiss progressive critiques of the former president, reducing complex arguments to emotional outbursts or childish complaints.
But what makes these techniques so effective, and why do they resonate with certain audiences? More importantly, how do they obscure the deeper dynamics of political allegiance and identity?
The pattern is familiar: a Democratic politician or progressive critic voices opposition to Trump through a lawsuit, policy critique, or public statement. In response, a conservative commentator or politician dismisses the critique by labeling it as “Trump Derangement Syndrome” or sarcastically remarking, “Orange Man Bad, huh?”
This rhetorical move serves two primary logical fallacies:
- Straw Man Fallacy: By reducing nuanced criticisms of Trump to a simplistic, emotional reaction, the critic’s argument is distorted into something easier to attack. Instead of engaging with the substance of the critique, the response caricatures it as irrational or baseless. For example, concerns about Trump’s policies, rhetoric, or actions are dismissed as personal animosity rather than principled opposition.
- Reductio ad Absurdum: This technique takes an argument to its extreme to highlight its supposed absurdity. By framing criticisms of Trump as childish or overly simplistic (e.g., “Orange Man Bad”), the responder mocks the critic, implying that their position lacks depth or reason. This can be particularly effective in rallying Trump’s base, who may view such critiques as evidence of liberal hysteria or bias.
State Representative Jim Walsh, chair of the Washington State GOP, provides a clear example of this technique in action. In a heavily Democratic state like Washington, where Trump is broadly unpopular, Walsh often frames Democratic actions against Trump as purely emotional rather than principled or politically strategic. By doing so, he sidesteps the substance of the critiques and instead portrays Democrats as driven by irrational dislike for Trump. This allows him to appeal to his base while dismissing the concerns of the majority of voters in his state.
While “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and “Orange Man Bad” are used to paint progressives as emotionally unhinged, the reality is that the most intense emotional attachments to Trump are often found on the conservative side. Think of the houses adorned with massive Trump flags, the pickup truck convoys, or the boat flotillas celebrating the president. These displays are not just political statements, they are expressions of identity and loyalty.
This phenomenon is supported by research. A 2025 study published by Cambridge University Press, titled “The Power of Trump’s Big Lie: Identity Fusion, Internalizing Misinformation, and Support for Trump” by Philip Moniz and William B. Swann, delves into the psychological mechanisms behind Trump’s enduring appeal.
The study followed a cohort of Trump supporters over three years, examining how identity fusion—a deep sense of oneness with a leader or group—led to the internalization of misinformation, particularly Trump’s false claims of electoral fraud (the “Big Lie”). The researchers found that individuals who felt a strong identity fusion with Trump were more likely to dismiss his criminal charges and support his policy priorities, even in the face of contradictory evidence.
This research underscores a critical point: the emotional and psychological attachment to Trump among his supporters is a powerful force that shapes their perception of reality. By contrast, the “Trump Derangement Syndrome” narrative flips the script, portraying progressives as the ones driven by emotion rather than reason.
The effectiveness of “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and “Orange Man Bad” lies in their ability to reframe the conversation. Instead of engaging with substantive critiques, these phrases shift focus to the critic’s motives, painting them as irrational or biased. This not only disarms the critique but also reinforces the loyalty of Trump’s base, who see themselves as rational defenders of a misunderstood leader.
Moreover, these techniques exploit the broader cultural divide in American politics. Reducing progressive critiques to emotional outbursts, they reinforce the “us vs. them” mentality that fuels polarization. This makes meaningful dialogue harder, as each side becomes more entrenched in its own narrative.
“Trump Derangement Syndrome” and “Orange Man Bad” are more than just catchy phrases, they’re rhetorical tools designed to deflect criticism and reinforce partisan loyalty. By reducing complex arguments to simplistic caricatures, these techniques allow conservatives to avoid engaging with the substance of progressive critiques. At the same time, they obscure the deeper emotional and psychological attachment that many Trump supporters feel toward the former president.
Understanding these dynamics is crucial for navigating the current political landscape. Rather than falling into the trap of oversimplification, both sides would benefit from engaging with the substance of each other’s arguments. Only then can we move beyond the divisive rhetoric and toward a more constructive dialogue.
Leave a Reply