Photo credit: www.foxnews.com
Proposal to Classify “Trump Derangement Syndrome” as Mental Illness in Minnesota
A bipartisan group of Republican lawmakers in Minnesota is preparing to introduce legislation that would add “Trump derangement syndrome” to the state’s definition of mental illness. This legislative effort has garnered attention ahead of its expected submission in the state’s Senate.
According to reports, five GOP senators will present the bill on Monday and direct it to the Health and Human Services committee. The proposal aims to define “Trump derangement syndrome” as a specific mental health condition stemming from reactions to the policies and presidency of Donald Trump.
The bill describes “Trump derangement syndrome” as resulting in “acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal persons,” indicating a strong emotional response to the actions of the former president. It continues by outlining potential symptoms, including heightened levels of hysteria caused by Trump-related events, which the proposal claims might lead individuals to confuse political disagreements with psychological issues.
Given the current split in the Minnesota legislature, the likelihood of this bill passing appears slim. The diagnostic criteria for mental illness typically rely on established lists of recognized disorders, none of which currently include “Trump derangement syndrome.”
This term has been adopted by Trump and his supporters to refer to critics perceived as obsessively hostile towards his leadership and policies. Interestingly, while “Trump derangement syndrome” has emerged prominently in recent political discourse, its origins trace back to a coinage by Charles Krauthammer in 2003, who first used it to characterize opponents of then-President George W. Bush.
The Minnesota proposal notably echoes Krauthammer’s earlier formulation for “Bush derangement syndrome,” reflecting a trend in political rhetoric that frames opposition as a form of psychological disturbance.
As lawmakers consider the implications of this bill, it illustrates the polarized nature of contemporary politics, where labels and definitions can carry significant weight in public discourse. The introduction of such a proposal not only raises questions about mental health definitions but also reflects ongoing cultural and political divides.
Source
www.foxnews.com