Gaslighting - I just found out what it is / The example of Venezuela

Here's one instance in which not watching movies slowed down my understanding of a commonly-used term: gaslighting.  Apparently it has little or nothing to do with gas or lighting (except for maybe some tangential element in the movie Gaslight).

As I understand it, it is the systematic psychological attacks on a person's grasp of reality.  The methods have to do with constantly making the person doubt his or her reason, by a constant onslaught of stupendously contradictory disinformation.  The link above will give you a better description of how it is done than I can, since I'm new to the idea.

In an earlier post, I discussed how Donald Trump was the source of a stream of confusing statements (many of them via Twitter) that ultimately had the effect of forcing a large number of voters to look to him exclusively for The Truth, since he (and many on the Alt Right) maintained that the Press was untrustworthy.  This could be considered an extension of the idea of gaslighting, on a massive scale.

Meanwhile, in another post, a Venezuelan writer explains how a dictator can polarize a country in such a way that the minority which can clearly see the harm that is being done can be made out to be The Enemy, and no appeal to reason or science or common sense can save the targeted scapegoats.  The writer does not suggest a plan, but you should read the post anyway.
It been a couple of days since I wrote the above.  One thing is clear: for those of us who expect a simple analysis of the political situation: you're going to be disappointed for a while.  It is important to see the various participants in this complex set of circumstances.

The Liberals.  These are folks who are concerned about the majority of the people: how the poor, the elderly, the homeless, the jobless, refugees, minorities, can have a decent life.  Unfortunately, some of us who are a little lazier have grabbed onto slogans, which are easy to remember, and have lost sight of the problems for whose solution we are fighting.  For instance, many of us have got hung up over things like telling little girls that they are pretty, which is apparently not as important as telling them they are smart.  Well, it is not a priority at this moment; we should be telling ourselves that we have to keep fighting for equal pay for that little girl, and the poor wretch who sincerely thinks the kid is cute is not the enemy.

The Neoliberals.  This term is more current in Britain than in the US, because they have a Labour Party which has been burdened by a lot of young fellows who think that reducing taxes and courting business is the way to solve the economic problems of Britain.  Business has always been brilliant at selling the idea that the Business Engine provides all the wealth anyone needs to solve any financial problem.  But beware: a huge amount of wealth is required to keep the business wheels oiled.  Hillary Clinton is dangerously close to becoming a neoliberal.

The Bernie Socialists.  Hey, I was one.  Full bore Socialism has only worked in a few, low-population countries.  It worked in Britain briefly, but the opposition, with the enthusiastic aid of Big Business, The USA, various multinational corporations, Big Newspapers (Rupert Murdoch), and other running dogs of Capitalism is only too delighted to push back.  In the US, there was push back against the Bernie Socialists even before the Democrat Presidential nominee was selected.  Business in the US is very, very strong, and we do not know whether the Democrat inner circle helped Hillary to win because they were unconsciously courting business interests, or because they felt that Bernie's defeat was inevitable.  But now, it is hard to know in which of several directions these earnest (and disappointed) young Bernie Socialists will go.

The GOP Obstruction Brigade.  Over the past several decades, a set of mules has taken over the leadership of Congressional Republicans.  As I have said before, they have elevated to the status of a religion, the tactic of obstructing Democrats-led progress.  It remains to be seen whether they will become despicable sycophants of Trump, or whether they will pick and choose the issues that they will sabotage.  There are few principles that they hold dear, except for the Nonprinciple of opposing any and all Democratic initiatives.  For instance, they have signed onto infrastructure improvement under Trump, though they opposed it under Obama.  These fellows are difficult to embarrass; they couldn't care less that they are now easily seen to simply oppose an idea because it is put forward by Democrats.  So it's better to let them try to put their own proposals forward, and the chances are that many of them will be the same ones the Democrats wanted anyway.

Now, if the Democrats want to be as irritable and reactionary as the GOP congress has been, then there's nothing we can suggest.  It would be pathetic if Democrats went up in arms against their ideas getting misappropriated by the GOP.

Republican and Democrat Moderates.  There is a certain amount of common ground between these folks.  They would like to scale back wildlife initiatives, moderate responses to climate change, perhaps lower the $15 minimum wage, put forward a compromise approach to immigration control, suggest reasonable controls over lending, and take a moderate stance on balancing the budget.  It is hard to guess how Health Care Reform would go, but moderates of any color are not likely to repeal the ACA wholesale.  The Liberals will lose some of their gains during the Obama Administration, but not all of them.

Arch