Being in the mental-health profession for close to two decades has afforded me the unique opportunity of working with a great number of people from very diverse backgrounds. From the young to the aged, from the destitute to the extremely wealthy, from the janitor to the professional athlete, I have sat with people from virtually every demographic while listening closely to the stories that led them to my office. Through thousands of hours of close and careful observation, I have learned a great deal about the human condition and what leads to dysfunction and recovery on both the individual and community level.
As may be expected, it is also typical for me to hear more politically associated concerns approaching election time, although that has exploded over the last two election cycles. Hereto, working with a diverse range of individuals, whose political beliefs also span the spectrum, has proven beneficial. In this role, I have identified commonalities related to the psychological underpinnings that also influence our political landscape. I have considered writing about some of what I have observed for some time now, but until a powerful session I had with a client of mine the day following the election, I have found reasons to avoid doing so.
The client in reference is someone I have worked with in the past. A couple of years ago she had found herself in a better place and felt that it was a good time to end that cycle of therapy. As is often the case, as one goes through life, new and different challenges may emerge or old symptoms can be reactivated, signaling it may be time for another cycle of therapeutic work. That was the case here. Having benefitted from therapeutic work in the past, she came back with a clear plan in mind this time; however, on this day, the election results and the high degree of political-related angst usurped those plans. Borrowing from the strength she gained from her previous round of therapy; she sat down and said the following: “Is it okay to ask… Can I ask who you voted for? I just don’t think I can work with a therapist who voted for Trump.”
There are differing views when it comes to whether professional therapists should divulge such information. And there are differing opinions regarding self-disclosure in general. I have found that there is an art to using self-disclosure, with timing, amount, and focus all determining if it will be helpful or not to the client (which should always be the motivating factor). In most cases—especially this one—I believe clients have the right to know about their clinicians’ general values, beliefs, and therapeutic experiences as they may relate to the clients’ own challenges and treatment goals. In fact, I have written a lengthy piece which can be found on my website that offers some examples of the types of questions I encourage new clients to ask potential therapists to better determine fit and the likelihood of a positive therapeutic outcome.
Historically, the most common questions I am asked surround religious or spiritual beliefs, and experiences with addiction. These questions are important for clients who want to ensure they are working with someone who honors and understands what may be most important to them, or in relation to their challenges. Those with a deep Christian faith, for example, may understandably want to work with a counselor who shares in these values and may incorporate scripture or prayer in their work. Because this is common, certain counselors offer Christian-based counseling and advertise as such. Those struggling with addictions often want to know if their counselor has any personal experience with addiction, as they wisely intuit that someone without such experience is unlikely to be helpful, no matter what their degrees or credentials profess. And now, for the first time in my career, I was asked about my political position and candidate support.
With that respect in mind, I replied: “Yes, you may; I voted for Jill Stein,” an answer that often leaves both republican and democratic voters angered with me.
There was a brief pause—no doubt to consider if this were the deal breaker that the Trump vote would have been—and then, her reply: “Well, I still don’t like it. I think it was a throwaway vote, but I guess that’s better.”
She did not leave, and the session continued, while I listened intently to her fears and concerns, including predictions surrounding what a second Trump presidency would mean for the world. As I listened, I began detecting a particular inner conflict: not only were there concerns about working with a therapist who may have been a Trump supporter, I also detected concerns about how to navigate all relationships going forward, from friendships to romantic interests.
Nearly every democratic voter I have heard from who is deeply troubled by the election results has the same primary concern, and this was no exception: the belief that Donald Trump remains an “existential threat to democracy,” and is the next incarnation of Adolph Hitler. With this deeply held belief, strong reactions and pronounced inner conflicts are understandable. Further, while we remain in the grips of the cancel culture movement, fear of holding any opinion or associating with anyone outside of these pre-approved ideological positions is risky business indeed. While the topic of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) dominates the democratic media landscape, sadly, diverse viewpoints are often not well-tolerated, and certainly not meant for inclusion.
I can certainly appreciate such concerns. Several months ago, a long-term friendship of mine—one that spanned more than 30-years—ended abruptly. Some of my updated opinions, based on some of the evidence and examples I will present later, meant that I too became someone no longer worthy of conversation, friendship, and respect. I may be wrong, but I sensed a similar concern in what I was hearing from my client on this day, as she referenced previously being willing to engage with Trump supporters, even if she disagreed with their politics, and it appeared that she no longer believed this would be allowable or acceptable behavior to continue. I found this both concerning and heartbreaking.
As we approached the end of our time, I was aware that while I answered her question truthfully and accurately earlier, she deserved to know more regarding my broader opinions and psychological concerns to best decide whether to continue our work together. Thankfully, on this day, we both had the time to extend the session slightly, and I mentioned this concern while offering her the opportunity to hear a little more about my overall beliefs regarding my vote, the outcome of the election, and what led up to it. She said she would like that, so I continued: “While it is true that I did not vote for Trump, it is also true that I preferred Trump to Harris, and from what you’ve shared with me, I would not presently be in agreement with many aspects of the political analysis you’ve shared with me, and knowing those differences exist, I want you to be able to make the best decision for yourself.” Curious as she was, she asked more questions.
Before I offer more detail related to my brief responses on that day; first, let me skip to the end: While my client and I may not be in complete agreement or in perfect political alignment now, the outcome of that exchange was powerful enough that I found it important to try and put into words. I am not sure if it was being in-person, the strong therapeutic relationship we had prior, the quality or strength of my argument, or how I approached it that influenced the outcome most, but what I do know is that I witnessed someone who went from considering ending therapy with me to asking for a hug before leaving—something that had never happened in our work together prior. And I retain the belief that we would be better off as a society if that was a more common occurrence.
Abuse Dynamics
Much of what informs my political assessment comes from the first decade of my career as a professional counselor. During that phase, I worked primarily as domestic violence (DV) treatment provider for male offenders. In the past, when people would learn about this professional role of mine, I would be asked, “Why do woman stay in these relationships?” My reply, “Because manipulation works.” And with great concern, I have witnessed our government (yes, both the Republican and Democratic Parties) deploy many of the same abuse tactics on its citizens. Unfortunately, however, while both sides have been guilty, it is also the case that the most aggressive deployment I have witnessed thus far occurred under the Biden administration.
There is a common model used in working with DV offenders known as The Power and Control Wheel.[1] Looking at this wheel (which I recommend before continuing), we see the words “power and control” at the center. This is the driving force that motivates the strategies described in the inner segments and outer circle. The inner segments are dissected in a pie-like display, with various forms and examples of psychological abuse strategies. Looking at the outer circle, we see physical or sexual abuse strategies listed. As long as the psychological strategies remain sufficient in affording the perpetrator the power and control they desire, physical abuse may not be used, but if those strategies begin to lose effectiveness, then those outer strategies may be deployed.
While this diagram may give the impression that each inner strategy is used proportionally, that is not the case. In my experience, there are a few that are more common. These would be those under the following headings: emotional abuse, isolation, and, minimizing, denying and blaming. Referring to the question as to why most victims do not leave abusive relationships, the primary reason is that skilled perpetrators use emotional abuse to great effect, and they are able to convince their victims that they cannot find better, and that it is they—the abuser—who cares about them more than anyone else ever will.
It is also typical for abusers to use a slow but consistent drip of derogatory names, putdowns, and insults. This serves to further erode their victim’s sense of self-worth, making it less likely they will fight back or leave. And while it is also common for abusers to deny what they have said or done in the past, if they are ever unable to fully deny any component of their abusive behavior, they are often excellent at convincing themselves, and the victim, that the abuse would not have occurred if the victim had not “made them” (through something the victim did or did not do). And because this strategy often leads victims to believe they are responsible for the perpetrators’ actions, their energies go not towards leaving, but towards trying to change themselves in a way that satisfies the perpetrator. As such, many victims become highly compliant with the abusers’ demands. In the way the dynamic is set up, the abuser is the authority, and obedience is the only way to make the abuse stop. Perpetrators also know that a key component in maintaining power and control over their victims is to limit their access to information and resources which could promote insight and awareness regarding the truth of their circumstances, and the lies the perpetrator has been propagating.
My General Political Position
Before I offer some examples, perhaps it is important to know my general political values. Simply stated, I am antiwar, anticensorship, prodemocracy, and pro bodily-autonomy for adults—those values that would have been traditionally left or democratic but are no longer supported by the Democratic Party. Because these principles guide me more than fear and ideology, whether religious or political, Jill Stein earned my vote. And the main reason I preferred Trump over Harris comes from the “lesser of two evils” position that remains the voting strategy of the majority.
The way I see it, in this ongoing political race toward total devastation, we walk toward the cliff’s edge with a Trump administration, while we continued running full speed towards it with a Harris administration. While I appreciate that Trump has expressed his desire to end the proxy war with Russia, for example, I strongly oppose his positions regarding the Middle East, and Gaza specifically. And, while his free speech stance is certainly better, I find it too concerning.[2] So, while I will make the case for a Trump administration being the “lesser of two evils,” I personally cannot endorse any amount of evil, even if there are other elements or plans within the administration that I may prefer and believe we desperately need, such as changes regarding the corporate capture of our regulatory agencies, for example.
Being principled has been very costly over the course of my life, both financially and relationally speaking, with the recent loss of a dear friendship being only one example, but I have witnessed what the “lesser of two evils” voting strategy has led to over the course of my life, and as one should expect, evil has been the consistent outcome, and I’m not sure how much “less” of it has resulted. And just as I find no historical evidence that racism can be defeated with racism, or sexism defeated with sexism, I have found no examples of authoritarianism being defeated with authoritarianism, which is what I continually see and hear being proposed by the Democratic Party and many within their voting base. As such, despite the hate and criticism that comes my way, and the profound loneliness I walk with, I see myself continuing to vote for the most favorable candidate I can find—those whose values most align with my own—while imagining what things may look like if everyone did that. I am certainly not alone in desire, just mostly alone in practice.
Examples of Political Manipulation & Abuse
According to Gallup, as of October 4, 2023, 63% of people supported a third US political party.[3] As of October 1, 2024—a year later—that dropped to 58%.[4] At the conclusion of the 2024 election, the percentage of those who voted for a third-party dropped to 1.5%.[5] Why? Because most of the voting population has been successfully manipulated into believing that they “can’t do better!” As a result of this ongoing, fear-based propagandistic messaging, only 1.5% acts in accordance with their beliefs and the citizens remain pawns in the ongoing civil war between the oligarchical elite and corporate elite who fund the Democrat and Republican Parties, as Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Chris Hedges, beautifully articulates.[6]
On April 1, 2024, in response to a question about voters who may be upset with the then Biden or Trump options, Hillary Clinton told voters on the Tonight Show with Jimmy Falon, to “Get over yourselves, those are your two choices!”[7] And this was the platform the Democratic Party ran on: Trump is an evil, fascist dictator the likes of Adolph Hitler, and if you do not vote against him, then by default you too are racist, sexist, etc. Sound abusive? It was, and none of it was based in reality. First, when I received my ballot, I had eight choices, not two. Not persuaded by the lie or the insulting and derogatory tactics she deployed, I exercised a different choice. Next, while racism and sexism do exist, they do not represent the views held by most Americans. My proof here: we nominated a Black president twice (Obama), and Hillary Clinton (a woman) won the popular vote in 2016. When evidence contrasts with rhetoric like this, is highly likely that propaganda has been deployed, not for your benefit—as all abusers claim—but for the one who is doing the propagandizing, and we should be suspicious of anyone or any institution who uses rhetoric that is easily debunked by real-world evidence.
What First Brought Trump to Power In 2016?
While there are certainly many more factors than I will cover here, I will focus on a few that not only led to the rise of Trump, but those which offer concrete examples of genuine authoritarianism in action. Leading up to the 2016 election, there was considerable support for Bernie Sanders. During the primary process leading up to that election, Sanders would win a state, but not the delegates. For those who may not be aware, it is the party delegates that ultimately decide the nomination within the Democratic Party, not the voting public. The opposite happens within the Republican Party’s nomination process. Within the Republican Party, the one who wins the popular vote in the primaries, also wins the delegates, which is more in line with a truly democratic process. Based on this alone, it could be argued that between the two, the republican vote was the best vote to “save democracy.”
In a review of the Michael Moore documentary, Fahrenheit 11/9, a similar point is made: “Moore informs his viewers of some unsettling facts that most Americans are unaware of. One such fact is that in the 2016 Democratic primary in West Virginia, Bernie Sanders won all 55 counties—yes, all of them; yet because of the authoritarian and corrupt Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee, Clinton ended up with more West Virginian delegates than Sanders. And Moore points out that West Virginia was not the only state where this kind of disenfranchisement occurred.”[8]
Speaking of “other states,” in the lead up to the 2016 election, MSNBC host, Joe Scarborough offered the following regarding the Wyoming primary caucus: “We’ve been talking about rigged systems. . . Bernie Sanders wins 56- to 44-percent in Wyoming. The delegates rewarded: Hillary Clinton 11, Bernie Sanders 7. Why does the Democratic Party even have voting booths? This system is so rigged!”[9] Yes, sadly it is, and not only did the rigging not stop, keeping his job meant he would no longer be allowed to tell such truths going forward. Many Sanders supporters did not forget what happened in the lead up to 2016. This, not racism or sexism, was a major reason those who voted for Obama twice previously, voted for Trump in 2016.
How Was the Democratic Party Able to Reclaim the Whitehouse Again in 2020?
There are of course many factors that likely played a role in Trump’s 2020 loss, but his unsavory personality and general lack of professionalism and competency were the complaints I heard most. He was not remotely successful in “draining the swamp” as he promised, and overall, he never gave the impression he had any real grasp on what he was doing in his role as President. This along with his bombastic, freestyling approach at press conferences often left voters with feelings of embarrassment and concern, but that was not all.
Having lost to Trump in a surprising upset in 2016, the Democratic Party had the two choices all abusers face when a power and control strategy has lost effectiveness. One, they can engage in honest self-reflection, accepting responsibility for their behaviors and/or strategies that led to the outcome. Or two, they can attempt even more aggressive power and control strategies. Regrettably, as is common in these dynamics, they chose the latter, as anyone or any group will do when power and control is the primary motivating source. While often unconscious, the thinking is that because this strategy was effective before, more will make it effective once again. This usually works a few times, but there is a limit. Like a rubber band that can tolerate some increasing tension before breaking, there is a point of maximum elasticity where the application of anymore tension leads to a break. As the results of the 2024 election suggest, these strategies were greatly overused on their comeback tour beginning in 2020, and the band broke with many previous democratic voters. This type of phenomenon was perfectly captured in a text exchange I had with a dear friend following the election, which read: “Oh man, yeah I had to go full MAGA this time around. If you would have told me that in 2016, I would have lost my shit.”
The Greatest Authoritarian Concerns and the 2024 Election Results
Fears of authoritarianism are shared by democratic, republican, and independent voters alike. The only difference is where we believe those fears are most justified and what to do about them. Why did I and so many traditional democratic voters come to favor Trump over Harris in 2024? Evidence. Guided by the important adage, “Actions speak louder than words,” when comparing the past two administrations, I and millions of others found the greatest authoritarian threats to be coming from within the Democratic Party.
When it comes to evaluation and predictions in general, everyone is capable of being wrong, but how we evaluate evidence greatly improves the odds of being right and/or course correcting sooner than later when we have made an error. As such, I encourage weighting evidence in the following way. First, whenever possible and available, concrete evidence and past behaviors should be our primary evaluative and predictive tool. Next, we may consider what an individual or institution says when we have verifiable audio or video proof taken in context. And finally, we may consider opinions and analysis from honest and trustworthy sources who openly admit to past mistakes or errors that have been made, especially when new data or evidence emerges that proves a past position invalid.
Using this rubric, when we look at Trump’s behaviors during his first term, do we see authoritarian actions, or are we instead told that he has made authoritarian comments? Many people will point to his ongoing tantrum surrounding the election results in 2020, along with his role in instigating the capitol riots on January 6th, 2020. I share in the view these actions were concerning and certainly not mature or presidential; however, we also know that he left office when he was supposed to, which is the best predictor of what will likely happen at the end of his next term.
More recently, those who remain most terrified of Trump invoking his inner Hitler have continually pointed to the article in the Atlantic written by Jeffrey Goldberg, where he states that General John Kelly was said to have overheard Trump make many claims praising Hitler, including “Hitler did some good things too,” and “I need the kind of generals Hitler had.” The article is filled with the kinds of accusations, which, if true, would certainly be concerning. But we also know from the article itself is, while two generals reportedly heard him make these statements, another individual (Pfieffer) is said to have denied Trump ever making these statements, so we’re left to simply guess, based on our personal feelings, not solid evidence, which claim may be true.[10] And yet, if we consider what former constitutional lawyer and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Glen Greenwald said in response to this article, we are offered something worthy of consideration in further helping us decide which scenario is likely true: “Apparently, General John Kelly was so disturbed by what President Trump said five years ago, that he’s waited this entire time to unveil this until right before the election.”[11] What a great point, if Trump did say those things, waiting five years to alert the American people is a pretty reckless and irresponsible act on part of General Kelly.
Censorship: The Foundation of Authoritarianism
Regarding abusive relationships and historical authoritarian regimes, we see many common features, but one feature rises to the top: information control and censorship. And during the recent administration, the Democratic Party engaged in the most aggressive censorship efforts ever deployed in the history of this nation. While it was quickly suspected, and not all that hidden, the scope and scale remained unknown until Elon Musk purchased Twitter and shortly thereafter allowed a team of independent journalists the opportunity to investigate many of the company’s prior email exchanges between members of the government and the social media company. This reporting—known as the Twitter Files—led to the investigation by the House Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government. As journalist Matt Taibbi reported in his testimony to congress during those hearings, the most alarming thing he found was, “a regular, organized stream of communication between the FBI, the DOHS, and the largest tech companies in the country. They had an organized system for flagging content, not occasionally, but in enormous numbers involving spreadsheets of accounts that ran into the hundreds and thousands… this isn’t a crazy conspiracy theory; we’ve already had four federal judges’ rule that they believe this activity violates the First Amendment.”[12]
Later, similar acknowledgement from Meta Platforms CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, came as he wrote in a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee: “In 2021, senior officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content.” Zuckerberg goes on to say, “In a separate situation, the FBI warned us about a potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma in the lead up to the 2020 election. . . It is since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we should not have demoted the story.”[13] Sadly, this was the second time Russia was fraudulently implicated in election interference by the Democratic Party: “No collusion,” the primary finding of the Mueller report read.[14]
No longer hiding their efforts, the democratic establishment began to argue for censorship more openly. In late April, or early May of 2022, The Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the launch of what was being dubbed a Disinformation Governance Board to combat supposed “misinformation.” Thankfully, that board was disbanded, but the sentiment and efforts towards its creation in the first place remain intact, which I and others find deeply concerning.
In my assessment, the censorship efforts and botched response surrounding COVID-19 also proved highly influential in turning voters away from the Democratic Party in 2024. If at any point during the last administration someone said anything out of step with the mainstream narrative coming from the democratic establishment, they were immediately smeared with a host of derogatory pejoratives: “conspiracy theorist,” “racist,” “antivaxxer,” etc., came barreling toward them along with aggressive cancelation attempts. This resulted in profound income or job loss for those who disagreed with the narratives, data, or overall approach. Most noteworthy, in my opinion, was that these actions were all taken under the familiar guise I mentioned earlier—that these measures were necessary and justified for your protection and certainly had nothing to do with the establishment’s insatiable desire for power and control, nor the money that confers that power upon them. The COVID response led to the largest upward transfer of wealth in recorded history—an estimated $5 trillion dollars went to the richest among us. The ten richest men in the world doubled their wealth, while the incomes of 99% of humanity fell as a result.[15]
The establishment also claimed that they had “the science” and expert consensus on their side. Once again, however, the results did not bear this out. We were emphatically told: “Trust the experts,” but what we were not told was how many “experts” dissented from their general guidance and recommendations. Many well-credentialed doctors and scientists were silenced via the government’s collusion with social media platforms as described above, removing many sensible and reasonable voices from the conversation. For example, when well-credentialed doctors and scientists such as Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD or Harvey Risch, MD, PhD spoke out against the advice surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic response, they were smeared and discredited. But for those who decided to look at the credentials of these two men, they quickly saw the tactic for what it was. Jay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University. He holds both an MD and a PhD in economics from Stanford University. He has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals in the areas of economics, statistics, law, medicine, public health, and health policy.[16] Harvey Risch, MD, PhD is Professor Emeritus and a Senior Research Scientist in Epidemiology (Chronic Diseases) at Yale School of Public Health. He has published more than 400 peer-reviewed publications and has been cited more than 55,000 times.[17]
Despite such aggressive efforts, a few individuals like Dr. Bhattacharya still managed to make it into some of the mainstream conversation, though he was never described in honest terms. Dr. Bhattacharya is now known most notably for his authorship of The Great Barrington Declaration—a proposed pandemic response—along with two other highly-qualified and well-credentialed persons: Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.[18]
What was the establishment’s response to these expert opinions as described in this declaration? In an email produced through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, we learned that Francis Collins, the then director of the National Institute for Health (NIH), in an email to Anthony Fauci, wrote the following: “Hi Tony and Cliff, See: https://gbdeclaration.org/. This proposal from the three fringe epidemiologists who met with the Secretary seems to be getting a lot of attention – and even a co-signature from Nobel Prize winner Mike Leavitt at Stanford. There needs to be a quick and devastating published takedown of its premises. I don’t see anything like that online yet – is it underway? Francis.”[19]
We were told that these views and opinions were on the fringe and from the fringe. Through censorship efforts and media control, millions of people were effectively manipulated, and the aggressive command to “trust the experts” marched on. But there was never a scientific consensus among the expert class, only the illusion of one, as the signatures of 16,141 medical and public health scientists, and 47,755 medical practitioners in support of the Great Barrington Declaration attest to.[20] Like me, many people found this behavior on part of public health officials abhorrent.
Then came the “vaccines” and the litany of propaganda surrounding them. As history has borne out, there was substantial misinformation in this area; it just was not coming from where we were told in most instances. For example, on March 29, 2021, Rachel Maddow emphatically implored everyone to get the COVID-19 vaccination, stating: “Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. The virus does not infect them and cannot go on to use that person to infect anyone else.”[21] By now, everyone should know, based on their personal, real-world experience, if nothing else, that this was misinformation. And yet, because she was willing to continue lying at the behest of the establishment, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, she never faced any consequences, nor the type or deplatforming, humiliation, and censorship that others like Dr. Bhattacharya faced. Instead, she was awarded a contract extension reportedly worth $30 million.[22] While that figure has been disputed, we certainly know there were no negative consequences for spreading this misinformation.
Today, I cannot think of a single thing we were told by the mainstream media that was truthful and/or correct regarding the virus or the efficacy of the harm mitigation efforts that followed, including measures like masking and social distancing. For example, when the Cochran report on masking was published, their conclusion was: “The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.”[23] This organization was previously considered by many to be the “premier evidence-based organization in biomedicine.”[24] Of course that was until the findings were unfavorable to the establishment agenda and the measures they had taken.
The “rules for thee, but not for me” and related censorial efforts, I believe, where major contributing factors in helping Trump gain the additional support in this last election. But so far, even post-election, the Democratic Party and their most ardent supporters have instead decided to double down and argue for even more censorial powers.[25] As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFKJ) wisely pointed out, “There has never been a time in history when the good guys were the ones censoring stuff.”[26] I must concur; I cannot think of a single historical example either, and more people have become similarly concerned, and that has almost certainly cost the Democratic Party at the voting booth. What’s more, if Trump becomes the fascistic problem many believe he will be, censorship only emboldens him and the movement.
My Body, My Choice
While examples of true and verifiable misinformation abound surrounding COVID-19 and the response, forced vaccination with an experimental medical treatment violated the “my body, my choice,” trope the Democratic Party historically championed.[27] And this authoritarian measure led to the loss of 34,000 healthcare workers in the state of New York alone.[28] These were the same people heralded in the beginning of the pandemic for being willing to risk their lives for the benefit to others now being shown the door for not being willing to take an unproven medical intervention that did not work the way they said it would. From job loss to serious adverse reactions that could not be openly discussed or talked about, many people who were directly harmed (or knew someone who was) did not forget this when it came time to vote in 2024.[29]
Obstruction of the Democratic Process
Beyond the COVID-19 response, there was one other damning example of authoritarianism that was the final straw for many voters: the election interference and obstruction of the democratic process by the Democratic Party in the 2024 election cycle. Along with the Democratic Party’s aggressive censorship campaign, the recycled narrative that Donald Trump was an “existential threat to democracy” surfaced once more. This time, instead of staging the primary process like they had in 2016, this narrative was now used to justify abandoning the primary process altogether, and Kamala Harris was selected (not elected) without earning a single vote, while candidates who would have likely fared better against Donald Trump were stifled at every turn.
The Democratic Party would stop at nothing to prevent a challenge to their pre-selected Biden/Harris administrations, including the use lawfare and other measures to prevent ballot access and media exposure.[30] In a CNN story during this time, where RFKJ is described as winning all previous court cases where such legal efforts were deployed to prevent ballot access, now, they were no longer even attempting to deny their motivation or behaviors: “We view Robert F. Kennedy on the ballot as a threat to stopping President Biden winning reelection,” the article reported.”[31]
In a speech following the 2024 election, Marrianne Wiliamson stated beautifully, “Responsibility for Trump’s victory lies squarely at the feet of those who took it upon themselves to cancel the democratic presidential primary. They’ll be working overtime over the next few days and weeks to promulgate convenient narratives that displace the blame onto anyone and anything other than themselves, but that is nothing but a coverup and no one should buy it. It was they who decided that Donald Trump posed such a threat to democracy that democracy needed to be canceled this year. For the last year and a half, we should have been having a robust conversation among ourselves regarding what it would take to defeat Donald Trump this year. That is what a primary is for. In a democracy, it’s the voters, not party leaders and media elite who are meant to choose the nominee. The appropriate role of a Democratic Party is to facilitate democracy, not engineer it. . . in this years’ campaign, and in an absurd perversion of the democratic process, the Democratic National Committee took it upon themselves to simply decide.”[32]
Breaking Abuse Cycles
Spotting abuse dynamics and/or locating the probability of genuine change on part of perpetrators can be done by remembering the acronym REP’s.
“R” stands for responsibility. Denial is a powerful psychological defense for both perpetrator and victim alike. It helps people avoid unpleasant emotional states such as guilt, shame, embarrassment, and fear, to name a few; however, the costs are significant. In exchange for immediate and short-term comfort, change or psychological growth is not possible. Therefore, if a person or an institution knowingly lies, or is unable or unwilling to take responsibility for their mistakes without shifting blame, then this person or institution is not trustworthy and should be avoided.
“E” stands for empathy, which may be viewed as an extension of responsibility. While the above-referenced feelings of guilt, shame, fear, etc. are terribly unpleasant, they are necessary components in the change process. All change—even positive change—produces fear and discomfort, and when we do something that hurts someone, whether intentional or not, it is appropriate, natural, and healthy to feel bad, and these feelings are necessary to motivate change. As I have said many times throughout my career: people do not change until not changing is more painful. Therefore, if empathy is missing, the abuse dynamic is likely to continue. With the foundation of responsibility and empathy in place, the next ingredient in the change process becomes available.
“P” stands for a plan. Effective change requires identifying and developing a plan for the bringing about the necessary behavioral changes. Change does not happen because we wish it; instead, it comes through difficult interpersonal work. In my work with DV offenders, those who demonstrated sufficient ability to “do their REP’s,” as I referred to it, were then open to doing the deeper interpersonal work surrounding the core wounds that led to their abusive behaviors, and thus less likely to reoffend or continue the abuse dynamic.
On the victim’s side, leaving an abusive relationship is no small feat, and it can be incredibly dangerous. “Risk of lethality is severely increased if the abuser feels they are losing any of the control they have over the victim. 75% of homicide victims and 85% of women who experienced severe but nonfatal violence had left or tried to leave their abuser in the past year.”[33] And many abusers will not only target victims directly; they will also target anything important to the victim, including, pets, children, or other important relationships.[34] I have had abusers confide that they believed this was the most effective way to maintain control over their victims and/or punish them when that control began to slip, more so that hurting or even killing the victim directly. This dynamic, I suspect, may be implicated in the multiple recent assassination attempts on Donald Trump.
On average, it takes seven attempts before a victim leaves for good.[35] But once they are approaching their abuse threshold (the proverbial rock-bottom, when they can tolerate no more, and they believe that they have nothing left to lose), which exists at some level for most people, they may finally become candidates for taking on the danger present and finally leave the relationship. Additionally, if they have gained sufficient access to information the perpetrator has been able to prevent access to in the past, the probability of leaving increases further. Again, this is why social isolation and restricting access to information are primary strategies for abusers, and why I believe we should oppose all governmental censorship efforts and strongly uphold the First Amendment as it stands today. [36]
When it comes to the relationship dynamic between our government and its citizens, this abuse dynamic should be easier to see now. It is also important to note that without appropriate intervention within intimate partner relationships (typically an arrest followed by mandated treatment with a competent provider), the abuse cycle is not likely to end; instead, it speeds up in frequency and intensity. Hereto I find a similarly concerning trend regarding our political institutions. Referring to the REP’s model, so far there is a complete absence of responsibility coming from the Democratic Party, and I am seeing the common increase in frequency and intensity in the tactics they are deploying. And while we saw initial similarities from Trump and the Republican Party following the 2020 election, we also now see actions that indicate some responsibility regarding past failures, including a different approach and considerations regarding a few of his cabinet picks so far.
Only time will tell if these changes are sufficient in bringing about any of the changes we desperately need, and while I believe the odds are very low, evidence suggests that improvements remain more likely under the coming administration than they would have under a Harris one. And while there are certainly many other factors that led to the outcome of the 2024 election than I discussed here, such as the open border, the devastating economic conditions many people are currently being crushed under, and much more, I wanted to focus instead on the dynamics I am most familiar with, which have yet to be considered, as far as I am aware.
What Changes Should We Make?
In a world where we cannot know everything, I highly recommend weighing evidence as described earlier, and to be cautious around those people or institutions who never admit to being wrong or making mistakes. In addition to looking for reliable and trustworthy information sources, avoiding sources who use the strategies identified in The Power and Control Wheel is strongly encouraged. There used to be a phrase I would hear at times when I was growing up: “You are what you eat.” I find that the same is true with regards to information consumption. Just as our physical health is largely determined by our food choices, our mental health is similarly impacted by our information choices.
And there is one universal trait I have found with regard to every distraught democratic voter who remains terrified, dismayed, and angered by the reelection of Donald Trump in 2024: They are all getting their information from mainstream media outlets, and in every case that I am aware of, that “news” has been misleading or outright dishonest when compared with source information. Yes, it is a little more work, especially now with all the censorship efforts that remain underway, but it is certainly much easier in the digital age to access original and/or trustworthy information sources. Again, listening to someone directly is far superior to listening to what someone else says about them, especially when the source is a corporate-owned mainstream media outlet that has proven to be pathologically dishonest and untrustworthy.
Next, I strongly recommend developing a practice of deliberate and honest self-reflection. Among the most concerning trends I have observed over the last two decades is the increase in narcissistic character traits. At the core, these traits serve to defend against those difficult emotional states I referenced earlier when I spoke of denial; in this way, the two are similar, and narcissism is a functional form of denial. “I don’t know,” and/or “I was wrong,” are necessary ingredients for psychological maturation and they are becoming increasingly rare. Please know that it will always feel bad to be wrong about any issue we deem highly important. In fact, it is not hyperbolic to say it can be downright terrifying, as being wrong about something we previously believed wholeheartedly exposes our vulnerability.
An excellent example of the above-mentioned recommendations in action can be found within the first five minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience episode with RFKJ. While I encourage you click here to listen for yourself, here is what Rogan said in those opening minutes which model these capacities beautifully: “When I had heard of you in the past, before I had read your book and before I’d met you, I had no information on you, but there was this narrative, and this narrative was you were antivax, and you believed in pseudo-science, and you were kind of looney. I didn’t investigate it at all, I just took it at face value because that’s what everybody had said, and in my mind, vaccines have been one of the most important medical advancements in human history, saved countless lives, protected children, and I thought very strongly that they were important. I didn’t have any information on that either; this is also just a narrative that I adopted from cursory reading of news articles, and you know not really getting into the subject at all.”[37]
Sadly, what Joe admits to here is also true for most people today. And I have further observed that the strongest held opinions have not been investigated sufficiently, which, of course, is not surprising given the aggressive, multi-year campaign against looking into anything for yourself. “You Must Not ‘Do Your Own Research’ When It Comes to Science,” read the title from this Forbes article in July, 2020.[38] Here they point to potential challenges and dangers with regard to understanding scientific literature, which is a valid point—not everyone is equipped to decipher such data—however, I will argue that it is far more dangerous to blindly trust “experts” who have proven untrustworthy and dishonest, and who argue for the censorship of other experts and scientists as described earlier. As an individual, you must decide which is more likely the truth: 1) the government and the establishment media are aggressively advocating for censorship because they are sincere in their worry and care for you regarding the impact of “dangerous misinformation,” or 2) this is evidence of an abusive regime not wanting to lose their power and control over you? Unfortunately, I find no current evidence to support the former possibility, and ample to support the latter.
It Is Okay to Make Mistakes: Growth and Maturation Require It!
It is a sad and scary reality that we are all capable of being manipulated and falling for deception, especially if our fear centers can be effectively hijacked. Most abuse victims are not “stupid,” as they are often portrayed, or have been made to believe about themselves; instead, most have considerable unresolved trauma that impacts their judgement and lowers their overall tolerance for these uncomfortable emotional states, leading to greater challenges in decision making, especially in relationships. One of the many reasons victims often side with their abusers has to do with these strong emotions and the vulnerability referenced earlier. For many, it is psychologically more palatable to maintain a false belief through denial than it is to admit to oneself that they were manipulated.
In the earliest days of my therapeutic work, I was wrong in my assessment and predictions more than I was in later years. And I remember well what it felt like when I learned that a DV client of mine had successfully manipulated me. I would be terribly embarrassed, but I used that discomfort to search for how and why it happened. On the positive side of the equation, trading away the short-term comfort afforded through denial, in exchange for the long-term benefit of growth, also meant that my predictive abilities greatly improved over time, especially in the therapy room.
Of course I would still make other costly predictive errors. Like many people, I was wrong about many of my initial predictions surrounding COVID-19 and the response taken, and I deeply regret taking the first two-shot series of the “vaccine,” especially after the second dose brought on an adverse reaction only rivaled by a near-death-experience with spinal meningitis at age ten. I was further embarrassed because I had known about many of the deceptive practices pharma had deployed prior in the field of psychiatry, particularly surrounding the safety and efficacy of psychotropic medications (as were well documented in the award-winning book for best investigative journalism, Anatomy of an Epidemic…), but I ignored such a likely possibility when it came to the pandemic response.[39]
Here again, however, when it came to facing facts as the evidence continued to mount over time, and it started looking more and more like many of my early predictions were wrong, I was able to quickly locate what initially blinded me. As is often the case, I found those blind spots within my early-life history, which included two separate hospitalizations for asthmatic difficulties as a young teenager, making me a ripe candidate for an elevated fear response related to a respiratory virus that was projected to be 10x deadlier than the flu. Again, fear can significantly blind us and compromise our decision-making process, but knowing our unresolved wounds can direct us in our own therapeutic work, as well as help prevent us from making similar errors in the future.
Without substantially more people further developing this important capacity for psychological maturation and growth, we will continue down a perilous path. In fact, regarding mental health in general, at the root of all mental illness, one will find a lie or set of lies that have been mistaken for truth (often relating to how a person views themselves or others, and the circumstances that led to the creation of these beliefs). It is not cliché: the truth really is what sets us free. And learning to tolerate those difficult emotive states which may accompany reconciliation with the truth is mandatory.
Conversation Over Cancelation
As I wrote this, I found myself reflecting on an exercise from my undergrad. I was in an upper division business management course, and we were presented with a hypothetical survival situation (a plane crash, I believe it was). We were asked to select several random items from a larger list that we believed would improve our chances of survival and rescue. After we did this exercise individually, we were then put into groups and were to collectively come up with a new list based on the group discussion. Once that was completed, we scored both our original individual lists against the group lists, based on what survival experts had previously determined were the best choices. The results: the best individual score did not outperform the lowest group score.
As I reflect on the session that prompted this writing, I was reminded that we should be worried about the growing hatred that divides us, and reflexive calls for alienation from, or harm to, those whom we may disagree with, more than we should be about Donald Trump. Between increased hate or increased understanding, the latter is the only healthy way forward. And, as much as I do not wish to admit it, I too have failed in this effort in the past, even recently when I aggressively shouted back in an on-line exchange: “Get informed!” If we slip up like that, we need to find the courage to apologize, not necessarily for our positions, but for our delivery, and I hope more people will join in that effort.
It is also true that we cannot change anyone but ourselves, nor can we force healthy discourse, kindness, and understanding. We can only make ourselves open and willing for such engagement. While I have argued against governmental censorship throughout, that does not mean I advocate for boundarilessness. Personally, I remain open to opposing, good-faith arguments with those who have demonstrated the capacity for respectful dialogue and an openness for growth, as I know that is a prerequisite for the psychological evolution desperately needed in such troubled times. And I will continue to avoid those who routinely resort to ad hominem attacks or other abusive tactics, while encouraging similar boundaries for everyone. But I maintain that we, the citizens, should be the ones to decide who we engage with, and the content we should engage with, not the government. And I caution everyone against participating in granting the government any such power, as I find zero evidence to justify such forfeiture of authority to an institution that has been such a destructive force in the world, and one that has failed to demonstrate competency in most areas.
[1] Power and control. The Hotline. (2023a, July 4). https://www.thehotline.org/identify-abuse/power-and-control/
[2] Cochran, L. L. (2024, November 17). Student protesters face potential Trump crackdown. The Hill. https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4993239-student-protesters-palestinians-israel-gaza-trump-crackdown/
[3] Jones, J. M. (2024, October 16). Support for third U.S. political party up to 63%. Gallup.com. https://news.gallup.com/poll/512135/support-third-political-party.aspx
[4] Evans, M. C. (2024, November 7). Support for a third political party in the U.S. dips to 58%. Gallup.com. https://news.gallup.com/poll/651278/support-third-political-party-dips.aspx
[5] Google. (n.d.). Google search. https://www.google.com/search?q=2024%2Bpopular%2Bvote%2Bresults%2Bfor%2Ball%2Bcandidates&sca_esv=8569cf8a79d87c05&sxsrf=ADLYWII384tK9Nvb09OHU87Mnwd10W0juQ%3A1731261789672&source=hp&ei=XfUwZ7SFJta80PEP9oyn4Qs&iflsig=AL9hbdgAAAAAZzEDbRtwK1TsBWc0h0j6kwoG9D2oVRLG&oq=2024%2B&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6IgUyMDI0ICoCCAAyBBAjGCcyChAjGIAEGCcYigUyEBAAGIAEGLEDGEMYgwEYigUyEBAAGIAEGLEDGEMYgwEYigUyEBAAGIAEGLEDGEMYgwEYigUyERAAGIAEGJECGLEDGIMBGIoFMhEQABiABBiRAhixAxiDARiKBTIQEAAYgAQYsQMYQxiDARiKBTIKEAAYgAQYFBiHAjILEAAYgAQYsQMYgwFI5BtQAFj6BXAAeACQAQCYAXigAY4EqgEDMy4yuAEDyAEA-AEBmAIFoAKmBMICChAAGIAEGEMYigXCAgsQABiABBiRAhiKBcICEBAAGIAEGLEDGIMBGBQYhwKYAwCSBwMwLjWgB_Ar&sclient=gws-wiz
[6] YouTube. (n.d.-a). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDj2dUIQcA&t=1046s
[7] YouTube. (n.d.). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gzoArXEqTcg
[8] Bruce E. Levine, Sheffield, M., Team, T. D. T., Harris, M. T., Cohn, M., Walker, C., Spade, D., Mader, J., Hlavinka, E., Goodman, A., Hayes, K., Johnson, J., & Zhang, S. (2018, October 24). Moore’s “fahrenheit 11/9” shows Democrats’ complicity in electing Trump. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/moores-fahrenheit-11-9-shows-democrats-complicity-in-electing-trump/
[9] YouTube. (n.d.-a). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGeyhgp2N8A&t=2s
[10] Goldberg, J. (2024, October 25). Trump: “I need the kind of generals that Hitler had.” The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/trump-military-generals-hitler/680327/
[11] YouTube. (n.d.-a). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cz4kCewkwRE
[12] YouTube. (n.d.-a). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNj_asppG98
[13] X.com. X (formerly Twitter). (n.d.). https://x.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1828201780544504064
[14] Day, C. (2023, November 29). No collusion: Key takeaways from Mueller’s Russia findings. AP News. https://apnews.com/united-states-government-3053d226815e4c8d905322ea1d8cd1a1
[15] Ten richest men double their fortunes in pandemic while incomes of 99 percent of humanity fall. Oxfam International. (2022a, January 17). https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/ten-richest-men-double-their-fortunes-pandemic-while-incomes-99-percent-humanity
[16] Jayanta Bhattacharya. Jayanta Bhattacharya’s Profile | Stanford Profiles. (n.d.). https://profiles.stanford.edu/jay-bhattacharya
[17] Lu, L., Profile, V. F., Publications, V. 53 C., Yu, H., Publications, V. 10 C., Dubrow, R., Publications, V. 7 C., Jain, D., Publications, V. 4 C., Zhou, Y., Publications, V. 3 C., Stolzenberg-Solomon, R., & Publications, V. 2 C. (2020, May 29). Harvey Risch, MD, Phd. Yale School of Public Health. https://ysph.yale.edu/profile/harvey-risch/
[18] Great Barrington Declaration and Petition. Great Barrington Declaration. (2024, April 26). https://gbdeclaration.org/
[19] Prepared statement by dr. Jay Bhattacharya. (n.d.-a). https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115561/witnesses/HHRG-118-IF16-Wstate-BhattacharyaJ-20230328.pdf
[20] Signature count. Great Barrington Declaration. (2024b, October 6). https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/
[21] YouTube. (n.d.-a). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tj6EkqfCRbA
[22] Ellefson, L. (2021, August 25). Rachel Maddow Nets $30 million annually in new MSNBC deal (report). TheWrap. https://www.thewrap.com/maddow-deal-30-million-2024/
[23] Do physical measures such as hand-washing or wearing masks stop or slow down the spread of respiratory viruses? (n.d.). https://www.cochrane.org/CD006207/ARI_do-physical-measures-such-hand-washing-or-wearing-masks-stop-or-slow-down-spread-respiratory-viruses
[24] YouTube. (n.d.-a). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Xn7SeaUVI
[25] Misinformation fears mount over second Trump term – Digital Journal. (n.d.-a). https://www.digitaljournal.com/social-media/misinformation-fears-mount-over-second-trump-term/article
[26] YouTube. (n.d.-a). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/zN_IbVhZt4c
[27] The United States Government. (2021, November 4). Fact sheet: Biden Administration announces details of two major vaccination policies. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/04/fact-sheet-biden-administration-announces-details-of-two-major-vaccination-policies/
[28] Robinson, D. (2021, October 14). NY COVID-19 vaccine mandate reduced health care workforce by 3%. here’s the biggest impact. The Journal News. https://www.lohud.com/story/news/coronavirus/2021/10/14/how-many-health-workers-lost-jobs-due-ny-vaccine-mandate/8449413002/
[29] Bridle, B., Risch, H., Bain, M., Hatfill, S., Rose, J., Stirling, J., Thorpe, J., Victory, K., Wiseman, D., & Wucher, M. (June 28, 2024). Toxic Shot: Facing the Dangers of the COVID “Vaccines.” Independent.
[30] YouTube. (n.d.-a). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xWTeQW3-3A
[31] Pellish, A., & McKend, E. (2024, June 26). Democrats ramp up efforts to block RFK Jr. from appearing on ballots across the nation | CNN politics. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/22/politics/democrats-legal-challenges-rfk-jr-ballot/index.html
[32] YouTube. (n.d.-a). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9t3rK9KZM8
[33] Dvsn. (2022, July 29). July 2022: Why it’s not always safe/right to leave an abuser – domestic violence services network, inc. (DVSN). Domestic Violence Services Network, Inc. (DVSN) – A Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence. https://www.dvsn.org/july-2022-why-its-not-always-safe-right-to-leave-an-abuser/
[34] The Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness & Action. Center for Relationship Abuse Awareness & Action. (n.d.). https://stoprelationshipabuse.org/educated/barriers-to-leaving-an-abusive-relationship/
[35] Why won’t victims of abuse just leave? understanding the shame and complexity of domestic violence. JBWS. (n.d.). https://jbws.org/news/why-wont-victims-of-abuse-just-leave-understanding-the-shame-and-complexity-of-domestic-violence/#:~:text=On%20average%2C%20it%20takes%20a,make%20a%20choice%2C%20it%27s%20overwhelming.
[36] Sussex Publishers. (n.d.). The mind control tactics of domestic abusers. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/invisible-chains/202105/the-mind-control-tactics-of-domestic-abusers
[37] YouTube. (n.d.-a). YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6LJXPOv4SM&t=396s
[38] Siegel, E. (2022, October 12). You must not “do your own research” when it comes to science. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/30/you-must-not-do-your-own-research-when-it-comes-to-science/
[39] Whitaker, R. (2015). Anatomy of an epidemic: Magic Bullets, psychiatric drugs, and the astonishing rise of Mental Illness in America. Broadway Books.