Gaslighting

gaslighting (v)

To manipulate (a person) by psychological means into questioning his or her own sanity.

Etymology: The title of George Cukor’s 1944 film Gaslight (a remake of Thorold Dickinson’s 1940 version, in turn based on a play by Patrick Hamilton, first performed in 1938), in which a man psychologically manipulates his wife into believing that she is going insane. The title refers to the husband’s adjustment of their home’s gaslights to flicker and dim at unexpected times.

Oxford English Dictionary, Third Edition

In Hamilton’s play “Gaslight,” the evil husband tries to trick his spouse into thinking she is going mad by, among other things, randomly adjusting the level of the gas lights in their home, and then accusing her of doing it. Psychological manipulation of an individual.

In 2017, the American Dialect Society chose “gaslighting” as word or phrase “Most Useful/Likely to Succeed.” They were widely criticized at the time. On the Society’s email list, John Baker asked, “What is the rationale for naming ‘gaslight’…? The word has been around for decades. Did it come to some special prominence in 2016?” Arnold Zwicky chimed in: “Over seven decades, in fact. The movie that’s the source of the expression came out in 1944.” It’s pretty clear, isn’t it, that the Society was just a couple of years ahead of themselves. Today, Donald Trump and his Republican Party are attempting to gaslight the entire nation.

It was Pulitzer Prize-winning Maureen Dowd who probably applied the word to politics first, back in 1995, describing psychological manipulation of voters. Use of the term was spotty until Donald Trump was elected President, when his practice of saying or doing something, and then denying it, brought the term its current prominence. The word has become an everyday experience for Americans now, even mocked in cartoons.

But it’s the Republican Party that has made the word a household term, brought it into everyday usage and provided fine examples of the technique. We’ve all seen the January 6 television shots of the insurrection, the Trump supporters fighting their way into the Capitol, assaulting outmanned police, stealing property, trespassing in Speaker Pelosi’s office, screaming “Hang Mike Pence,” and erecting gallows. We all know five people died in their attempted insurrection.

The Republicans are trying to persuade us that didn’t happen.

Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., said federal law enforcement was “harassing peaceful patriots” as it searched through photographic evidence of those who might have committed crimes on that day.

Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., added: “It was Trump supporters who lost their lives that day, not Trump supporters who were taking the lives of others.”

Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., who compared those who entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 to a “normal tourist visit.”

There was an undisciplined mob. There were some rioters, and some who committed acts of vandalism. But let me be clear, there was no insurrection and to call it an insurrection in my opinion, is a bold-faced [sic] lie. Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol, and walk through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes taking videos and pictures, you know. If you didn’t know that TV footage was a video from January the sixth, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.

The likes of Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) blamed the supposedly fearsome anti-fascist group known as “antifa” for the attack. Never mind that we watched Trump and his lackeys pump the mob up, send them from the White House to the Capitol.

It may seem ridiculous, but a significant number of Republican voters believe the Capitol attack was an antifa operation, according to several polls. A majority of Republicans said in a January survey they believed it was antifa, as did 58% of Trump voters in a February survey. Although, in the interests of accuracy, the ridiculous antics claim is an example of bogeyman politics in service to the goal of gaslighting. Bogeyman politics in the argument that an imaginary bad guy will get you (or your children, or your property) if you don’t vote the way the Republicans want. Another lie, but with the same goal: inspiring F.U.D. in the electorate.

Gaslighting would seem to be a harder stunt to pull off in the digital era.¹ There is strong proof easily available of what really happened, found on-line to any one who troubles to fact check the Republican claims. Or reads a summary of the second impeachment proceeding against Trump. It speaks to the arrogance of Trump’s Congressional supporters and their contempt for voters that they are making the attempt.

Hard to pull off or not, the Congressional Republicans are certainly trying. Republican voters, crouched in their foxholes with their horse blinkers firmly in place, seem to be good with it.

¹ Not be be confused with “Lampshading,” which is a writers’ trick for dealing with any element of the story that threatens the audience’s Willing Suspension of Disbelief, whether a very implausible plot development or a particularly blatant use of a trope, by calling attention to it and simply moving on.
Although WC supposes that the blatant use of gaslighting by folks like Rep. Clyde could be an attempt at lampshading as well. If lampshading your gaslighting becomes a thing, WC will just swear off the use of metaphors entirely.