Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past. George Orwell
During my observational study searching for TPS in America (see The Tall Poppy Syndrome – The Joy of Cutting Others Down) I observed that our government was a prodigious cutter of its own and the populace. This should be no surprise since the original descriptions of TPS by the Greek historian Herodotus and Roman historian Livy more than 2000 years ago involved governing leaders who cut down their opposition. I devoted a chapter of my book with examples of our government cutting people down.
Followers of my blog know bad envy (see Anatomy of the Tall Poppy Syndrome) is the most common trait in cutters of TPS. Government officials have more means in their tool chest for cutting people down. We discussed two in a recent blog (see Self-Righteousness and Hypocrisy as Cutters in the Tall Poppy Syndrome). Today we will look at some other mechanisms.
Gaslighting originated from the 1938 play “Gas Light” by Patrick Hamilton and was popularized by the 1944 film “Gaslight”. This term referred specifically to the plot device of manipulating someone into questioning their sanity by altering their environment and denying those changes.
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation where someone attempts to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their memory, perception, or judgment. It’s typically done over an extended period.
Gaslighting can lead to confusion, loss of confidence, and dependency on the perpetrator. Gaslighting can occur in various relationships, including romantic partnerships, family dynamics, workplace interactions, and politics. It’s often used to gain power and control over the victim or public.
The designation was adopted in early psychological usage (195os – 1990s) to describe extreme manipulation that could induce mental illness or justify psychiatric institutionalization. Its use was primarily in clinical and academic contexts.
The definition was broadened in the 1990s-2000s to describe psychological manipulation in relationships but remained relatively obscure in popular culture. Mainstream Adoption occurred in the 2010s and entered the popular lexicon more broadly in the mid-2010s. It was named “most useful” new word of 2016 by the American Dialect Society. Usage expanded to include political contexts and less extreme forms of manipulation.
Gaslighting was chosen as Merriam-Webster’s word of the year in 2022 and is more broadly defined as psychological manipulation that causes a person to question their thoughts, perceptions, and reality. It is used in various contexts beyond intimate relationships, including politics, workplace dynamics, and social interactions.
Originally it implied a deliberate, malicious intent to drive someone to insanity. Now it is often used to describe less extreme forms of manipulation or even unintentional behavior that makes someone doubt themselves or the information they receive. Manipulation can be systemic – media, government, and politicians.
“A Tale of Two Parties.” President Joe Biden has presided over some significant, even historic, accomplishments – COVID-19 vaccine mandates, unemployment, spending programs, inflation, wages, national crime, illegal immigration, unity, and foreign policy. Are these accomplishments at the level he claims? The Republicans say “it ain’t so.” It has become difficult to separate the “chaff from the wheat” due to gaslighting.
Blemish Politics was introduced to me in a radio interview with Brian Reynolds (see Tall Poppy Syndrome: A Radio Interview with Brian Reynolds). It refers to tactics that aim to highlight or exaggerate an opponent’s flaws or mistakes to gain political advantage (cut the opponent down). It focuses on criticizing opponents’ flaws rather than promoting one’s positive attributes.
These tactics have general applications to any campaign but are especially effective for close elections when time is of the essence and a positive picture cannot be built. Mechanisms include: smear campaigns – damage an opponent’s reputation through false or exaggerated claims; mudslinging – use of insults and accusations; and character assassination – attempts to damage someone’s public image or reputation.
Swift Boat Controversy refers to a series of political attacks during the 2004 U.S. presidential election aimed at discrediting Democratic candidate John Kerry’s military service record. These attacks were orchestrated by a group called Swift Vets and POWs for Truth (SBVT), which was composed of Vietnam veterans who opposed Kerry’s candidacy.
SBVT was a “527” political advocacy organization formed in 2004 specifically to oppose John Kerry’s presidential campaign. The group claimed that Kerry had lied about his service in Vietnam and was “unfit for command.”
The controversy began with the release of a book titled Unfit for Command, co-authored by John O’Neill and Jerome Corsi, which questioned Kerry’s military honors and actions during the Vietnam War.
SBVT also launched a series of television ads featuring veterans who accused Kerry of exaggerating his war record and dishonorably conducting himself during his service. The first SBVT ad was quickly contradicted by other veterans and official Navy records, leading to widespread skepticism among major newspapers and media outlets.
Investigations by major newspapers like The New York Times and The Washington Post found the SBVT allegations inconsistent and largely unsubstantiated. Despite the inconsistencies and lack of evidence supporting SBVT’s claims, the ads gained significant traction and media coverage, contributing to a decline in Kerry’s poll numbers.
The controversy significantly impacted Kerry’s campaign by casting doubt on his credibility and military service, which were central to his candidacy. Despite the controversy, the SBVT campaign undermined Kerry’s candidacy and contributed to George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004.
The Swift Boat controversy is a notable example of how targeted and blemish political attacks can influence public perception and electoral outcomes. It highlights the power of media and advocacy groups in shaping political narratives and their potential to cut down worthy candidates.
The term “swiftboating” entered the political lexicon to describe unfair or untrue political attacks but lost traction especially compared to gaslighting.
Joe Biden’s plagiarism caused his withdrawal from the 1988 presidential race. During his first presidential bid in 1987, Biden faced multiple allegations of plagiarism. Biden admitted to plagiarizing a law review article during his first year at Syracuse University College of Law (1965). He used five pages from a published law review article without proper quotation or attribution in a 15-page paper. As a result, he failed the course and had to retake it.
The most notable incident involved Biden using parts of a speech by British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock without attribution during a Democratic primary debate (Kinnock Speech Controversy). While Biden had previously credited Kinnock when using similar language, he failed to do so during this crucial moment.
Biden was also accused of using phrases from speeches by Robert Kennedy and President John F. Kennedy without proper attribution.
As these allegations surfaced, Biden’s campaign quickly began to unravel. The plagiarism incidents received significant media attention, casting doubt on Biden’s integrity and authenticity as a candidate. In response to the controversy, Biden released his academic records revealing poor grades in college and law school.
On September 23, 1987, Biden withdrew from the presidential race. While the plagiarism scandal was a major factor, Biden also cited the need to focus on the ongoing Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination hearings, which he was overseeing as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and full of blemish politics.
The 1987 plagiarism scandal has continued to follow Biden throughout his political career. It resurfaced during his subsequent presidential bids, including the 2008 and 2020 campaigns. The term “Bidenism” emerged to describe his tendency for verbal gaffes and misattributions. Bidenism has increased proportionally to his age but not recognition of the expression.
Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court nomination (1991) was full of personal attacks and allegations. The hearings involved claims of sexual harassment against Thomas by Anita Hill, which became public after the initial Judiciary Committee hearings—this focused attention on Thomas’s conduct and character rather than just his judicial philosophy.
There was significant debate over the credibility of both Thomas and Hill. Interpretations of Thomas’s legal views, speeches, writings, and decisions as a federal appeals court judge were also contentious and divisive. Some claim Thomas was “borked” (meaning to systematically obstruct a nominee through media attacks) which was established after Robert Bork’s confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court (1987).
Thomas’s use of the phrase “high-tech lynching” during his testimony introduced racial themes into the proceedings, which proved to be a strategic move in garnering support. The hearings also launched modern-day public awareness of sexual harassment issues in the United States.
Blemish politics is another mechanism for politicians to cut each other down as they have been doing 2500 years. As for gaslighting, keep your eye on the ball and do not let the light diminish.
