Gaslighting and the language of violence

Life can sometimes be both ironic and cruel. I was raised by a narcissist only to “escape” into a toxic marriage with a narcissist. For all the trouble that caused me it did give me a rare insight into the type. I had no word for it back then but I recognise the familiar favourite tactic of the narcissist that has come to be known these days as “gaslighting.”

To be sure, the term has expanded its usage. It started life meaning the tendency to manipulate someone into questioning their own perception of reality. Today it has come to also mean reversal of blame. In other words, any problem you have with the gaslighter is really your fault. I find both definitions useful and I will not be, ahem, “gaslighted” into believing I’m misusing the term when I apply its more popular meaning.

Which brings me to Donald Trump and his use of violent imagery to describe Liz Cheney’s hypothetical confrontation with a “firing squad.” Yes, Trump really did say to Tucker Carlson, “Let’s put [Liz Cheney] with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay?” But Trump goes on to say, “You know, they’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building saying … ‘let’s send ten thousand troops right into the mouth of the enemy.’”

Democrats are outraged at what they perceive to be a violent threat against Liz Cheney. Commentator Keith Olbermann puts it bluntly: “Trump wants Liz Cheney shot by firing squad.” MAGA Republicans say we are “lying” about Trump’s intent, that he was merely describing a scenario in which supposed war hawks are insulated against the true violence of war, and Liz would learn the real meaning of combat if she had to endure it personally.

Who’s right? Keith Olbermann is. I can tell you unequivocally that Trump’s rhetoric was not accidental. I’ve seen it a million times before. The narcissist, in this case Trump, wraps their violence in the language of the hypothetical. Trump used imagery of the traditional firing squad (usually consisting of eight to fourteen people) to convey the idea of combat. But combat doesn’t ordinarily work that way, where one soldier with one rifle stands across from nine soldiers aiming rifles at them. That imagery was part of the story in order to convey Trump’s white hot hate for Cheney. That the rifles were aimed at Cheney’s face was a further example of Trump’s pathological hatred. Firing squads usually aim at the victim’s chest.

But that’s not the whole story. In assessing the narcissist (or any evil person who routinely uses violent rhetoric as a tool to instil fear), one must also take into account their history. Trump has a history of employing violent imagery and actual violence against people he believes to be his enemies. Recall that he had the military use teargas against protestors so he could stage a photo op with a Bible in front of a church. On more than one occasion Trump has instructed his lunatic cultists to handle protestors roughly at his rallies. He called on police to forego protecting the heads of people when putting them in the backs of police cars. And so on.

Trump has shown over and over that violence is a key vicarious outlet for his hate. He uses the language of violence because it brings him pleasure to do so, as is the case with most authoritarian personalities. If his violent intent isn’t always stated explicitly, make no mistake, it’s always lurking beneath the surface, sotto voce.

Many of his cultists also employ the language of violence. They relish the idea of harming or even murdering liberals. “They threaten those who speak against them with death,” Kamala Harris posted on X. “We cannot entrust our country and our freedom to a petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant.”

So when Republicans say we are overreacting to Trump’s violent imagery against Liz Cheney they are gaslighting us. Many of them know it, that’s why no Republicans have come forward to speak out against Trump’s violent language. But the Arizona attorney general isn’t fooled. She has begun an investigation into whether or not Trump violated state law for suggesting a prominent critic should face gunfire in combat.

The message is clear, given the chance, Trump would have Cheney murdered, and anyone else he regards as his enemy. It’s no accident that the person he admires more than anyone else, Vladimir Putin, is himself a violent murderer. We must keep this dangerous man out of the White House. And, as ever, ladies and gentlemen, brothers and sisters, comrades and friends, stay safe.