Clinton Derangement Syndrome Is Driving the GOP to Embrace the Daddy of Big Spenders

The anti-pork party seems to have no problem with Trump's infrastructure nationalism


Building big monuments is the kind of thing potentates have been doing since the Pharaohs constructed the pyramids — except that more often than not these days, they produce not wonders of

Trump Joker
swanskalot via Foter

the world but eyesores of the world such as the Romanian dictator Nicolai Ceausescu's "Palace of the People" in Bucharest — the world's "greatest monument to totalitarian kitsch." Here's a list of top 10 dictator architecture gone wrong.

But, apparently, when the potentate represents your own party, his profligate plans deserve a pass — no matter how much they go against what you've allegedly stood for. That is pretty much what the Republicans have been doing when it comes to Trump's infrastructure nationalism that I describe in my morning column at The Week. Indeed, Trump has picked up the liberal baton of Keynesian infrastructure spending, grown it by a factor of four, wrapped some gaudy jingoistic nationalism around it and what do the anti-pork, anti-spending, limited government conservatives do?

About 125 of them sign a letter throwing their undying support behind him! Among those endorsing Trump are fiscal conservatives such as Hearland Institute's Peter Ferrara and Larry Kudlow — never mind that in addition to a trillion dollars in infrastructure spending, Trump wants to out-left the left and expand child credits and mandate three months of employer-paid maternity leave. And there are social conservatives and self-appointed guardians of high civilization and culture such as Bill Bennett and Roger Kimball — nevermind that Trump is to these things what the Joker was to Gotham.

No doubt there is a good dose of raw, partisan tribalism driving them. But what's also to blame is the Clinton derangement syndrome. It has scrambled the conservative brain to the point that it can't see that Trump is making a mockery of everything it has fought for over the last eight years.

In my column, I describe just how baseless Trump's claims that America's infrastructure is crumbling are and how misguided his plans to fix it in the name of keeping up with China are. If Hillary had proposed this, the GOP would have gone bonkers. Yet here we are.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: California Enacts Asset Forfeiture Reform, Mostly Closing Lucrative Fed Loophole

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And here…we…go!

    1. Oh goody

    2. Shikha’s just chapped because Trump wants to control immigration, but she’s already flogged that dead horse a couple hundred times, so we get this now.

      1. I may petition President Trump to have her deported back to India.

    3. No. I refuse to play.

  2. I would like to make an observation that the incidence of “Derangement Syndrome” has risen in direct correlation with the amount of power we as a society have allowed to accumulate in the executive.

    1. And Shikka’s Trump derangement syndrome is just as tiresome as any other flavor of it.

      1. Sup, Trumpalo.

      2. More or less tiresome than SIV’s Johnson Derangement Syndrome?

        1. It’s tiresome derangement all the way down.

    2. I have heard in casual conversation the idea that in these hectic modern times, we can’t rely on the creaking old system that requires months of debate to hash things out. This person was actively advocating that we should really be electing a king every four years, in order to “get things done”.

      1. You were listening to John Yoo?

        1. Or Thomas Freidman

      2. Great idea. Elect a king for four years, and then at the end of the term the king, aka dictator, voluntarily steps aside to allow his or her successor to take power. I can’t see a single flaw in that plan.

        1. I seem to remember a mythical city that would elect a king for four years, then sacrifice them to the gods? Or was that something else?

          1. I could get behind that idea with one caveat – anybody so mad for power that they would run for office knowing they would be executed afterwards would instead be executed the minute they filed the papers to run. And I’d bet the death penalty for being President wouldn’t cut down on the number of applicants a damn bit.

            I’m reminded of a sci-fi short story where a kid goes in to get his driver’s license with his parents and part of the driver’s test is explaining to him in graphic detail exactly how horribly dangerous driving is. After asking him if he’s sure he still wants a driver’s license and him saying yes, they lead him away as his parents burst into tears – anybody who still wants a license after that is obviously a psychopath.

        2. Elect a king for four years, and at the end of that term feed his (her) majesty into a huge paper shredder.

          It has possibilities…..

        3. Great idea. Elect a king for four years, and then at the end of the term the king, aka dictator, voluntarily steps aside to allow his or her successor to take power. I can’t see a single flaw in that plan.

          At the end of the four years, the dictator is put to a firing squad. Essentially, each dictator agrees that being dictator is a suicide mission.

    3. Let me put it to you that we are in fact in the grip of a derangement derangement syndrome.

      1. It’s derangement all the way down!

    4. I’m thoroughly tired of the bullshit argument that the only possible reason one could have for opposing a given politician is either mental illness or some socially unacceptable prejudice, e.g. “terrorist symp”, “racist”, “misogynist”, etc. Whenever I hear that crap I immediately tune out whoever is saying it, because they’re plainly not debating in any serious or logical way.

  3. Shikha is the ‘Ramanujan’ of politics.


  5. Dat pic is lulz

  6. Shikha, please. When has the GOP actually cut spending? Not in this century, or even the second half of the last century.

    1. Eisenhower did

    2. Though ultimately defeated by the Rockefeller Republicans, the Taft Republicans of the Eisenhower era did manage to hold the line so that spending went down. There was even, briefly, a surplus.

      Then JFK was elected and once again we had a glamorous muad’dib president to grow the state.

      1. Yes, 1954 I believe was the last year when GOP cut spending. I rounded down to “the second half of the century.”

      1. Incorrect. There was no cutting of spending in the 90s.

        1. Ok, I was just being a dick and referencing the “big military cuts” that led Clinton to “balancing the budget” for the first time in eleventy years.

  7. “It has scrambled the conservative brain to the point that it can’t see that Trump is making a mockery of everything it has fought for over the last eight years.”

    Constant losing might do that to you.

    1. Remind me again what the GOP has fought for the last eight years? Or the last 20, 30, 40 years for that matter. I know what they saythey’re fighting for, but when you lose as regularly and as hilariously as the Washington Generals some people might suspect the game is fixed.

      1. They aren’t losing. Like the Washington Generals, they are getting exactly what they want, which is why they stick around.

        Power. The voters elect them to fight the battles they lose. In fact, the more they lose those battles, the more willing voters are to vote for them. The more they lose, the more power they have.

  8. since the Pharaohs constructed the pyramids

    Somebody is clearly in the pocket of Big Academia.

    1. Ah, yes. Slave labor and Jews, for when you positively must get something done!

  9. It is absolutely certain that four years of a Hillary presidency will have both immediate and lasting negative consequences on my life.

    With Donald, it seems pretty clear the consequences will be less negative and possibly even positive in some limited ways compared to Hillary.

    This is not derangement, it is just playing the odds.

    So go fuck yourself, dear Shikha.

    1. It is absolutely certain that four years of a Hillary presidency will have both immediate and lasting negative consequences on my life.

      You don’t think you’ll get any lulz out of a 3rd Clinton presidency?

      1. no

        The only possible bright spot is she might die before being sworn in

    2. With Donald, it seems pretty clear the consequences will be less negative and possibly even positive in some limited ways compared to Hillary.

      It is not clear. She is known, so we know she is awful. Trump could very well be just as bad, if not worse, than her.

      1. So, “already known to be awful” vs. “may or may not be awful”. I know which chance I would rather take.

        1. Oh sure. I was responding to Kinnath’s “it’s clear” because nothing is clear with Donald Trump.

      2. On the contrary, I expect Trump to be business-friendly and anti-tax.

        The business arena I work in has never fully recovered from the recession and direct government meddling in the market is the primary reason why.

        I expect Trump nominees to the Supreme Court to be randomly nuts, but not as bad as Clinton’s nominees.

        There is always the chance that Donald will start world war 3, but I expect his profit-driven ego will dampen any enthusiasm he might have for fucking around with Russia.

        1. I want the GOP to die and go away so we can try to get some actual small-government fiscal conservatives elected. Trump is the guy who can save the GOP by showing them how Democrats get elected. Instead of promising the same old tired shit year after year after year, ya gotta offer the rubes brand-new shit every so often if you expect to be able to keep fleecing them! Short-term, Trump is better than Hillary but short-term thinking is what got us into this mess. If Trump gets elected in 2016, what do we have to look forward to in 2020, 2024, 2028?

          When Trump started out he was running as the anti-establishment, burn-it-all-down, throw-all-the-bums-out outsider and everybody applauded – even if he wasn’t any better than the usual shitweasels at least he was clearing the decks and making it so a real reformer had a chance to move in. Not so much any more. The establishment is behind him, he’s reading scripted boiler-plate bromides and platitudes, he’s pandering and promising free shit just like the rest of them – and still everybody’s applauding this brash outsider who’s shaking things up and bringing a real change to Washington. Fuck no he isn’t, he’s a fraud and a huckster and a con man and he’s selling you the same old shit in a shiny new package and you’re buying it.

  10. Let’s change the subject:

    Lawyer: Jury Should Hear About Cop’s ‘Auditory Exclusion’

    A lawyer for a white Oklahoma police officer charged in an unarmed black man’s death says she was so hyper-focused on the situation that she didn’t hear other officers arrive or the deadly gunshot she fired.

    Tulsa officer Betty Shelby experienced what is commonly called “auditory exclusion,” a condition in which people in high-stress situations often don’t hear sounds around them, attorney Scott Wood said. A not guilty plea to a first-degree manslaughter charge was entered on Shelby’s behalf Friday and her next court date was set for Nov. 29.

    “She didn’t hear the gunshot, didn’t hear the sirens coming up behind her just prior to the shot,” Wood said Thursday. “And it’s not only a common phenomenon described in literature, but it’s the No. 1 perceptual distortion by people I have represented who have been involved in shootings ? diminished sound or complete auditory exclusion.”

    So, basically, everything ever was a good shoot. Got it.

    1. What? I can’t hear you over all that stress.

      1. Just wait until “occular exclusion” becomes a thing, too. Coming soon to a theater near you: “See No Evil, Hear No Evil 2: Dave and Wally Join the Force.”

        1. The officer suffered an ocular malfunction.

    2. This should be cited when so no knock raid cop gets shot. The home owner had auditory exclusion and didn’t hear “police”.

      1. LOL, that kind of shit only goes one way. Homeowners awakened by black-masked home invaders at 3:00 am are supposed to be able to assess that they are actually cops before shooting, but those same cops are perfectly justified in shooting that homeowner if he comes around the corner carrying a flashlight.

    3. Wait, she didn’t hear her own gunshot?

    4. She didn’t hear the gunshot

      Which has fuck-all to do with how the guy died.

    5. Thing is, auditory exclusion is real, I’ve experienced it. But who gives a fuck. That’s what ‘training is for’, to be able to operate in those circs.

      1. Unfortunately, the training cops get is “everyone is out to kill you, so you better shoot first”.

      2. The number one cause of auditory exclusion is spousal nagging.

        1. This right here

    6. I’m guessing the “auditory exclusion” bullshit is the invention of that shitweasel “Doctor of Criminalogical Sciences Professor-type Genuine Science-person” Bill Lewinski? Never seen a bad shoot yet – because you gotta see things from the cop’s perspective and whatever the cop says he perceived is what the reality was. Cop says he had to shoot the guy trying to run him down in his car and the tape shows the cop chasing after the car and shooting the guy in the back? Well, the cop’s reality is that he perceived the guy driving toward him instead of away from him so the cop did the right thing.

      1. Yes, his application is bullshit. Simple auditory exclusion is real, and I suspect every teenage male has experienced it at some point.

        But there’s no proof that there was “auditory exclusion” in this case– and I’m not sure how you’d ‘prove’ it. And if you allow it to be applied to all these police shootings, then yes, any shoot can be justified which misses the point of accountability.


    The Claremont Colleges’ “On the Loose” outdoors club has canceled its annual Mt. Baldy Speedo Hike, in which male students typically don Speedos and female students bikinis as they trek up the mountain, citing concerns that the activity is not inclusive enough to all body shapes and fitness levels, and that it also sends an overly masculine message.

    1. “not inclusive enough to all… fitness levels”

      I don’t even know how to go about deconstructing that.

      1. Simple, outdoor club cancels outdoor activity because it others people who don’t go outdoors.

        1. It’s the “fitness levels” bit I’m struggling with.

          Like, it’s not inclusive because people who can’t do it…can’t do it?


          1. It’s not inclusive because there are things that some people can’t do, and they shouldn’t have to be reminded of that.

            1. Right right.

              That’s…pretty much everything then. Peak…whatever the fuck this is?

              1. Peak perk.

      2. It gives fatties and couch potatoes a sad.

    2. yep, bikinis are oh so masculine

    3. Do they not have sports there?

    4. “”The name ‘Speedo’ itself inherently implies bro-iness.”


      1. Everyone knows it implies gayness. Jesus…

        1. No, it implies Europeanness.

    5. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: girls can’t do stuff.

    6. Sounds like a lot of thigh chafing to me.

      1. Ugh. Just get some Body Glide.

        1. Got a thigh chaffing problem, Crusty?

          1. Not since I started using Body Glide. Pay attention .

    7. I’m a little curious about how chicks in bikinis send an overly masculine message, myself.

    8. That hike ain’t easy for a fit person, sorry Fatties
      *been there, done that, beautiful hike

    9. Sorry, I didn’t hear anything after “overly masculine message”.

  12. That’s some really awful alt-text. Alt-text usually falls into two categories: 1) A joke or metacomment about the image or 2) the half-assed literal description of the image. In this case, we have a poor attempt at a joke that just ends up being a half-assed literal description of the image. I think Shikha just dropped below Richman for me.

    1. So Shikha wins the commentariat troll wars then? Sorry Shelden.

    2. Do you think she’s this awful in person, or just a bad writer?

      1. Writer??

        Oh, right, the article.

  13. Dalmia on Republican small-government, deploying a Joker!Trump.

    This is magic.

    1. Can a Joker be a Trump? I really don’t know shit about bridge, but it sounds sketchy.

  14. I wish Dipshit Scumbagetta was dying of whatever Hildog is.

    1. I’d eat a Dipshit Scumbagetta.

      1. You deserve to be fairly warned: it tastes like spicy chicken curry, mixed with a heavy dose of rotting fish.



          1. Yes. It also sounds delicious.

            1. Well, the Romans loved two things: garum and res paedicanda.

          2. Some of them do. Slightly higher proportion than non dot.

    2. Oh, Mikey. That your inimitable flair for coming up with insanely retarded nicknames exists is evidence that God is real, and He’s a drunk.

  15. Compared to Obama, Donald’s a rank amateur at spending.

  16. There is no Clinton Derangement Syndrome. The woman has a proven track record of being anti-freedom on most every issue, utterly corrupt, incompetent, and has no moral character whatsoever.

    1. Good point.

      How much of a piece of shit am I allowed to think Hillary is before I’m “deranged”?

    2. Yeah, but her cankles don’t deserve so much scorn…what did they ever do to us?

      That’s all I got.

    3. Derangement implies a fixation, like global warmers eg, to explain every evil in the world as a consequence of someone or something in particular. It gets overused as a substitute for “really really despises”.

      This election is nearly 100% “vote to keep that other asshole out” from both parties. Not much new in the article

  17. Go here to read the whole [whiny] thing.

    Yeah… no.

  18. I’ve proved my point. I’ve demonstrated there’s no difference between me and everyone else! All it takes is one bad day to reduce the sanest man alive to lunacy. That’s how far the world is from where I am. Just one bad day. You had a bad day once, am I right? I know I am. I can tell. You had a bad day and everything changed. Why else would you dress up as a flying rat? You had a bad day, and it drove you as crazy as everybody else… Only you won’t admit it! You have to keep pretending that life makes sense, that there’s some point to all this struggling! God you make me want to puke. I mean, what is it with you? What made you what you are? Girlfriend killed by the mob, maybe? Brother carved up by some mugger? Something like that, I bet. Something like that… Something like that happened to me, you know. I… I’m not exactly sure what it was. Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another… If I’m going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice! Ha ha ha!

    1. But my point is… My point is, I went crazy. When I saw what a black, awful joke the world was, I went crazy as a coot! I admit it! Why can’t you? I mean, you’re not unintelligent! You must see the reality of the situation. Do you know how many times we’ve come close to world war three over a flock of geese on a computer screen? Do you know what triggered the last world war? An argument over how many telegraph poles Germany owed its war debt creditors! Telegraph poles! Ha ha ha ha HA! It’s all a joke! Everything anybody ever valued or struggled for… it’s all a monstrous, demented gag! So why can’t you see the funny side? Why aren’t you laughing?

      1. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos? It’s fair.

  19. This column should have been titled “How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love Communism”. But, in Shakiha’s case it could have also been titled: “How I learned to Stop Hiding Behind the ‘libertarian’ Guise and Admit that I’m a Communist”.

  20. Why aren’t you laughing?

    I’m laughing on the inside.

  21. There is a case to Ms. Dalmia’s argument. She puts it rather poorly. But the case does exist.

    1. Trump has shown little, if any, interest in fiscal restraint.
    2. Clinton even less so, but that’s not really particularly important to the argument.
    3. A Trump victory in November would validate his policy mix within the GOP. – Nothing succeeds like success.
    4. Of the two major political parties, the GOP is the only one with even elements within the party interested in fiscal restraint.
    5. Given the shift in Republican politics to Trumpism that would result from his success, it is reasonable to believe that the elements within the GOP interested in fiscal restraint would be weakened by a Trump victory.

    1. Sure, if you forget that Shika and reason spent the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration losing their minds over how Bush and the then Republican Congress were the biggest spender ever. So her “help me GOP, you are our only hope” routine seems a bit disingenuous in light of that.

      1. Disingenuous meaning like Republican promises to be fiscally conservative?

        1. They did double the debt during the Bush Presidency, right? Oh no that was Obama. Those racist Republicans must have made him do that.

          1. That was hardly a balanced budget Obama inherited from Bush, who cut taxes and waged unfunded war to the tune of trillions of dollars. You do realize that when we look at the relevant figure, the cost of policies, Bush’s were five times as expensive as Obama’s. The debt you’re attributing to Obama was largely a result of Bush’s spending.

            But that’s beside the point since Democrats don’t hold the philosophy that the budget must always be balanced. They’re just the only ones who ever do it.

            1. That was hardly a balanced budget Obama inherited from Bush,

              Well, there’s one of the seven years you can lay on Bush, arguably.

              What about the other six, Tony?

              1. Well, you know what they say, RC: you gotta spend money to spend money.

              2. Did all of Bush’s spending get repealed after the first year?

                1. Nope. The Dems demanded and got continuing resolutions that guaranteed it wouldn’t be.

            2. So Bush is responsible for taking us from $5TT to $10TT during his presidency AND for taking us from $10TT to $20TT during Obama’s presidency?

              He must be a fucking wizard on par with Voldemort to have pulled that off.

              1. Just a terrible president.

                1. You’re going to have to be a little more specific.

                  Or not. Works either way.

                2. Well I can’t argue with you on that point.

                  Too bad you’ll never admit the same about Obama

    2. it is reasonable to believe that the elements within the GOP interested in fiscal restraint would be weakened by a Trump victory.

      Those elements are already completely marginalized, you know.

      1. W killed them with compassion.

    3. Agreed with Bill. There’s a very credible argument here.

      Agreed with John too though, that Shikha’s probably not the one to make it.

  22. You have to give Shika credit here, a big spending Republican is something we have really never seen before. The Republicans really sold their soul on this one.

  23. “Clinton Derangement Syndrome”

    So am I deranged for thinking that she needs to be nuked from orbit to be sure…as opposed to simply going to prison? Maybe some of us powerless, insignificant commenters are a bit over the top with what we’d like to see happen to her, but I haven’t really noticed any examples in the public sphere of people exaggerating her awfulness.

    1. Shika has long been a comedy act. It is one thing to dislike Trump. It is quite another thing to claim that people dislike of Hillary is somehow without justification or evidence of derangement.

      The worst part about this article is how dishonest it is. She doesn’t believe a word of it. Shika doesn’t care if Trump is a big spender. She cares about one issue, immigration. She hates Trump because of his views on immigration. That is fine except that rather than just admit she is a single issue immigration voter, she constructs this line of BS so she can pretend there is more to it than that.

      1. What’s even better is I fully expect Hillary to be as bad as Obama has been on immigration (if I remember correctly, by the end of his first term he had deported more immigrants than Bush did in 8 years). AND I expect her economic policies to fuck us so hard a good chunk decide to self-deport.

  24. Not touching this with a 10 foot pole.

  25. Did reason just call Trump daddy? That’s it, I’m canceling my subscription.

  26. Honestly, a “____________ Derangement Syndrome” requires symptoms of gross exaggeration of negative traits, application of double standards, willingness to believe crazy stupid shit, etc.

    Given that Hillary really does have a pretty solid track record this is bad in so many ways, what would count as a gross exaggeration, etc?

    Sure, some of the Arkansas body count stuff is over the top, but aside from the real fringy stuff (which would mean only the real fringe could have CDS), what is out there in general circulation that is actually worse than the reality of Herself?

    1. Despite what reading most Internet commentary would lead one to believe, one can criticize Clinton’s awful positions, shady dealings, and above-the-law status without using crude sexual insults, irrelevant remarks about her physical appearance, and indulging fantastical conspiracy theories.

      I think the whining in this thread in particular is especially hilarious given how many commenters (not necessarily you, Dean) have been so unbelievably quick to accuse anyone caught criticizing Trump of their own derangement syndrome.

      (For the record, I think “____ Derangement Syndrome” is nothing but a lazy tactic for brushing off opposing viewpoints without actually engaging them, regardless of who is leveling the charge).

      1. Yeah, but DS makes sense in the context of people losing their shit cause he says mean/stupid/horrible things. It (DS) doesn’t really work on a candidate that has actually done mean/stupid/horrible things.

        Just my $0.02.

  27. As far as I’m concerned the Derangement Syndrome doesn’t come from the crazy shit said about them, it comes from looking at the shit they get away with and tearing your hair out shieiking “How the fuck do they keep getting away with this shit!?!?” It drives you nuts thinking about the fact that they’re doing this shit right in plain sight and nobody else seems to be able to see it.

  28. Another moron who takes Trump literally. He’s pandering!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.