A New York City psychotherapist has found himself in the eye of a storm, not for a controversial treatment, but for simply naming a phenomenon he observes in his practice: an all-consuming obsession with a former president.
Jonathan Alpert, author of an upcoming book on the state of mental health, described patients exhibiting symptoms that went far beyond simple political disagreement. He witnessed sleepless nights, vacation-ruining anxiety, and a pervasive sense of trauma triggered by any mention of a single individual.
He termed this intense preoccupation “Trump derangement syndrome,” a pathology where the subject of political obsession eclipses rational thought and emotional well-being. It wasn’t about policy debates, Alpert explained, but about raw, unprocessed rage and dread.
The reaction to Alpert publicly acknowledging this pattern was swift and, disturbingly, validating of his observations. He began receiving a barrage of hateful messages, including explicit death threats, a level of hostility he hadn’t anticipated, particularly from within his own professional field.
One message, laced with vitriol, branded him a “racist fascist” and wished for his demise. Alpert described the experience as “intense,” acknowledging he expected disagreement but not the sheer venom directed his way.
Ironically, the very aggression leveled against him seemed to underscore the core of his diagnosis. Those issuing the threats appeared unable to disengage from the object of their fury, proving, in a twisted way, the depth of their obsession.
The phenomenon isn’t limited to one side of the political spectrum, Alpert noted, but the intensity and nature of the responses he’s received suggest a particularly potent effect on certain demographics. He observed a significant number of highly educated women deeply affected by this consuming preoccupation.
It raises a troubling question: can a political figure, even after leaving office, continue to exert such a powerful and damaging influence on the mental health of a nation? Alpert’s experience suggests the answer may be a chilling yes.
The case highlights a disturbing reality – the line between passionate political engagement and debilitating obsession can become dangerously blurred, leaving individuals trapped in a cycle of anxiety and anger.
