By Mary Jones and Tony Bruce | Wednesday, November 6, 2024 | 13 min read
Just nine days before Election Day, Donald Trump gave his final rally at Madison Square Garden—a moment that some compared to a notorious 1939 pro-Nazi gathering held in the same arena. His speech echoed anti-democratic themes: vilifying immigrants and political opponents, calling for authoritarian leadership, threatening violent payback, and condemning the media.
In response to criticism of what many saw as a display of open hostility, Trump framed the rally as a “lovefest.” This wasn’t just a simple lie; it was a calculated manipulation that goes deeper than routine falsehoods. Typically, lying is about misrepresenting facts or events, and Trump does plenty of that. But understanding his rhetoric requires looking beyond the lies themselves to their impact. His pattern is closer to bullsh*ing**—using true or false claims interchangeably to obscure his motives. But in calling the rally a “lovefest,” Trump wasn’t merely spinning the truth; he was gaslighting.
Gaslighting distorts reality, creating doubt in people’s own perceptions. By framing visible hostility as “love,” he implied that any failure to see it that way was a failure of perception in his critics. It’s a tactic used by abusers to rewrite reality, making people question their own judgment. Trump was, in effect, saying: What you saw as hate was love, and if you don’t see it, that’s your problem. In moments like these, when the narrative is challenged, gaslighting becomes the ultimate tool, not just to mislead but to redefine reality entirely.
Trump’s use of gaslighting tactics was widely noted throughout his 2016 campaign. In May, Vox’s Emily Crockett called out his gaslighting after Megyn Kelly questioned him about his history of misogyny in a Fox News debate. Around the same time, Andrea Grimes at the Texas Observer wrote about how Trump’s campaign tried to spin Melania Trump’s plagiarized convention speech, which had lifted lines from Michelle Obama’s speech. Then in September, Brian Beutler at The New Republic highlighted Trump’s attempt to dodge responsibility for promoting the birther conspiracy, even going so far as to blame it on Hillary Clinton or her team.
Included in all of these examples is Trump’s non-apology for the Access Hollywood tape, describing it as a “disturbing imitation of the psychological tactics abusers use after incidents of abuse.” Her breakdown of Trump’s response spanned 15 tweets, beginning with:
When Trump says, “I’m not perfect,” he’s really implying that expecting him to act decently is unreasonable. “I’ve never pretended to be someone I’m not” shifts the blame, suggesting that if people were disappointed, it’s their own fault for misjudging him. Referring to “this more than decade-old video” implies that anyone upset is overreacting. “These words do not reflect who I am” undermines the reality of what was said, as if his past actions should simply be erased. Finally, “I said it … I apologize” comes off as dismissive, as if he’s done enough and anyone still offended is just being dramatic.
These phrases highlight four common manipulative tactics: excusing oneself, blaming others, rewriting reality, and normalizing unacceptable behavior. But there’s more to it—these tactics collectively work to gaslight, leaving people questioning their own perceptions. This is exactly how gaslighting works on a personal level, but with Trump, it plays out on a much larger stage.
At another level, Trump operates like a conman, a role where gaslighting is key. His career has thrived on misleading people, and his shift to politics was no different. The birther conspiracy helped him position himself as a potential candidate in 2012, though he never fully endorsed its specifics. Instead, he posed as “just asking questions,” managing to play to two different audiences: the right-wing base, increasingly disillusioned with establishment Republicans, and the broader public, where he could appear as a curious, truth-seeking outsider.
Like the conman in the classic film Gaslight, Trump crafted elaborate falsehoods, portraying Obama as a shadowy figure with something to hide. He demanded Obama’s college transcripts and claimed to have dispatched investigators to Hawaii—an invented story designed to rally anti-Obama sentiment. This tactic fired up his base while giving a veneer of seriousness to the general public. This kind of gaslighting is Trump’s signature in politics: rather than fully engaging with right-wing conspiracy theories, he casually spins new fictions, creating a reality that feels authentic to his supporters.
Throughout this election, Trump leaned on couples of gaslighting themes, all of which supported a larger narrative: that Democrats were the true threat to American democracy, and only Trump could save it.
While Trump didn’t invent these themes, he amplified them in a way that made gaslighting central. Just as with birtherism, his disregard for facts or policy details helped him create a fantasy world where his followers felt deeply connected to him. For instance, his tales of windmills killing birds—a dodge from the real issues of climate change—built a shared experience with his base. Any criticism of these stories only strengthened their bond, detaching them further from reality.
When the media treats this as routine political posturing or downplays it by saying “both sides” make false claims, it inadvertently supports Trump’s gaslighting. This normalization of his tactics was instrumental in setting the stage for what unfolded on November 5, Presidential election.
The climate crisis is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity, yet Trump’s dismissal of it as “a hoax” has been remarkably successful in keeping it off the political agenda. Despite all of our scientific and technological advancements, we can’t fully grasp the extent of the damage climate change will bring to human civilization. In the short term, though, we’re already seeing its impact: tens of millions have become climate refugees, with hundreds of millions more likely to follow in the coming years.
Climate change is a driving force behind the shift in immigration, as Central Americans fleeing climate-driven hardships have now surpassed Mexicans as the largest group seeking entry into the U.S. since Trump took office. His dismissal of climate change was crucial to sustaining his “immigrant crime” narrative, ignoring the root causes of migration.
Hurricane Helene could have been a pivotal moment for discussing climate action, with damage costs nearly equaling 1% of the U.S. GDP—far more than what the government spends annually to combat climate change. But Trump’s rhetoric kept it off the table, sidestepping a critical conversation that our future depends on.
For decades, the fossil fuel industry has known the truth about climate change and covered it up. Yet Trump pushes the opposite story, claiming that scientists—or even the Chinese—are the ones behind “a hoax.” This is classic gaslighting: denying reality and manipulating people’s understanding to protect those in power.
The “Great Replacement” Theory
The “Great Replacement” theory has many versions, some openly anti-Semitic, others less so, but all are grounded in white supremacy. French conspiracy theorist Renaud Camus, who coined the term, summarized it as: “You have one people, and in the space of a generation you have a different people.” The theory paints immigration as a kind of “genocide,” a view that’s inspired mass violence worldwide. In its narrative, this “replacement” is orchestrated by so-called “cosmopolitan elites,” often portrayed as Jewish, who are either weak or maliciously intent on destroying the traditional order.
For the right, this theory has become a powerful unifying framework. If immigrants are seen as an invading force and declining white birthrates as a crisis, then anti-immigrant and anti-women agendas become tightly linked. The theory also strengthens ties with Christian nationalism, which draws from “Old Testament” parallels between America and ancient Israel, invoking a mandate for cultural “purity” through separation or even conflict.
In essence, this worldview has brought the various strands of American conservatism into closer alignment than ever before. With it comes the “need” to limit the voting power of communities of color, cementing voter suppression as a political strategy.
During his time at Fox News, Tucker Carlson was a major promoter of Great Replacement rhetoric, especially its links to the myth of voter fraud—a cornerstone of gaslighting in the 2024 election. Just as with birtherism, Carlson and his sources crafted detailed conspiracy threads, which Trump simplified into sweeping claims about “criminals” flooding into the U.S. His inflammatory stories—like “Hannibal Lecter” comparisons or false claims about Haitian immigrants—fuel paranoia while ignoring reality.
In truth, immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans and are a net economic benefit. But Trump’s oversimplified, inflammatory narrative distorts this reality, allowing his followers to bond over a shared fear. The media’s failure to seriously challenge this fiction has shifted the political conversation in Trump’s favor.
The Voter Fraud Myth
The voter fraud myth dates back at least to the 1960s, when former Chief Justice William Rehnquist participated in “Operation Eagle Eye,” a Republican initiative targeting minority voters in Arizona. Although decades of data show that voter fraud is exceedingly rare—and organized fraud almost nonexistent, except for an isolated Republican case in North Carolina—repetition has turned this myth into a right-wing “truth.” Figures like Carlson have promoted the idea that Democrats are encouraging undocumented immigrants to vote, justifying a range of voter-suppression tactics and even physical intimidation at the polls.
For Trump, the myth of voter fraud has been key to his image as the “protector” of American democracy. He doesn’t dwell on the details of various discredited conspiracies; he focuses instead on the big picture, painting himself as the one who can defend democracy from supposed fraud. This gaslighting narrative allows Trump to present himself as the true patriot, even as he tries to undermine confidence in democratic systems with one broad-brush claim after another.
Roe v. Wade and the Future of Abortion Rights
Trump’s gaslighting on abortion has been both bold and calculated. His 2016 win hinged largely on support from anti-abortion evangelicals, who backed him because he promised to appoint Supreme Court justices opposed to Roe v. Wade. This promise was crucial in securing their support, even after the fallout from the “Access Hollywood” tape. For decades, the anti-abortion movement has relied on coordinated messaging, but Trump added his own twist: claiming full credit for overturning Roe while deflecting any backlash.
To his anti-abortion base, he boasts, “I got rid of Roe,” but to the rest of the public, he says, “It’s up to the states now,” as if he had no role in the outcome. He insists that “everyone” wanted this shift all along—a glaring distortion of the country’s actual division on the issue—and claims that women have “nothing to worry about.” His line, “I will be your protector,” eerily echoes what women in controlling relationships often hear. His assertion, “You will not be thinking about abortion,” has even more unsettling implications, suggesting that women’s concerns on the matter simply shouldn’t exist.
Despite Trump’s efforts to downplay the real consequences, voters have shown where they stand. In state after state, initiatives protecting abortion rights have passed, with notable support even from Trump voters, revealing the disconnect between Trump’s claims and people’s actual views on reproductive rights.
The Myth of the Great Trump Economy
Trump’s so-called “great economy” is a fabrication built on decades of GOP exaggeration and media complicity. For years, Republicans have been seen as the party that knows how to manage the economy, despite clear evidence showing that the economy generally performs better under Democratic leadership. Take job growth as a prime example—almost all of it since 1989 has happened with Democrats in the White House. But Trump took this distortion to new extremes, and the media’s lackluster coverage of Joe Biden’s impressive economic track record only helped fuel the myth.
In the final days of this year’s campaign, 23 Nobel economists released a letter praising Kamala Harris’ economic agenda as “vastly superior” to Trump’s, which they described as “counterproductive.” Yet this assessment barely made a dent in the news cycle, while Trump’s ridiculous claims about Democrats tanking the economy were amplified across media outlets.
Trump has a long history of gaslighting when it comes to money. His Trump University scam was a textbook example, as were his numerous failed business ventures: a defunct football league, an airline, and casinos in Atlantic City. He mastered the art of manipulating the press, shaping a version of reality that some people were willing to buy into. This skill was perfected on “The Apprentice,” where producers built fake office sets because the real ones were far too unimpressive.
When Trump took office in 2017, he inherited the longest economic recovery in U.S. history. As Barack Obama jokingly put it, “Yeah, it was pretty good because it was my economy!” Trump left office as the first president since Herbert Hoover to lose jobs during his term. Despite his repeated boasts about having the “best economy ever,” growth was sluggish before COVID-19 even hit. Trump’s real talent was constantly bragging, while the media helped create the illusion of a booming economy that didn’t quite exist.
Biden, like Obama and Bill Clinton before him, inherited a broken economy from his Republican predecessor. Despite the challenges, he managed to turn things around. Under Biden, U.S. GDP has grown twice as fast as Canada’s, the next closest G7 country. Inflation, though a problem, was part of a global issue largely driven by supply chain disruptions—something beyond Biden’s control.
Once again, the media played a key role in shaping a distorted narrative, consistently framing Biden’s economic record in a negative light. Mark Copelovitch, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, tracks media coverage alongside real-world economic trends. He found that since Biden took office, there have been more than 10,000 mentions of “inflation,” compared to just 1,226 mentions of “recovery.” Even though inflation is now at normal levels, it continues to dominate the headlines—1,017 mentions since August 1, versus only 16 for “recovery.”
As Copelovitch points out, even in 2024, as the general election approaches, the media continues to focus heavily on inflation and the nonexistent recession, while barely acknowledging the historically low unemployment rates or the swift, complete economic recovery from the pandemic under Biden’s leadership.
Is it any wonder that, despite Kamala Harris making early headway as the Democratic nominee, Trump still held a perceived advantage on the economy? In part, that’s because Trump benefited from decades of media bias favoring Republican economic narratives. But beyond the economy, the media amplified his other gaslighting claims as well. With the press’s help, Trump’s central message—that Democrats are the real threat to American democracy and he is its savior—was made to seem far more credible to many voters than it deserved.
Of course, there are other factors that shaped the outcome of the 2024 election, including a global trend of incumbent losses. But gaslighting is a key tactic in the rise of fascism, and the failure of the media in liberal democracies to recognize it, let alone push back against it, poses a serious threat to the very foundation of democratic society.
Copyright 2024 FN, NewsRoom.
