CounterPunch Exclusives

CounterPunch Exclusives

Photo by Alex Wolowiecki

U.S. immigration policy and NATO commitments have a lot in common. “Gonzo governance” describes a style of political rule that delegitimizes social institutions in favor of leadership promoting the politics of fear that is chaotic, personality-driven, spectacle-oriented, and often indifferent to conventional standards of objectivity or institutional restraint. The term draws loosely from Hunter S. Thompson’s immersive, boundary-blurring reporting style that mixed fact, interpretation, and theatricality. In governance, however, this aesthetic becomes consequential when fueled by social media. It can create a climate in which disruption itself is the governing method. When paired with gaslighting—a psychological tactic in which people are made to doubt their own perceptions of reality—the result is a powerful and destabilizing political dynamic.

Gaslighting in politics does not usually take the form of denying small, private events; instead, it involves reframing public facts, dismissing documented evidence, and insisting that contradictory narratives are the “real” truth. Gonzo governance provides the spectacle and velocity; gaslighting provides the epistemic confusion that shields it from accountability.

One arena where this connection becomes visible is in the public debate around enforcement actions by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Immigration enforcement has long been controversial, but under gonzo-style governance it can become theatrical—highly publicized raids, dramatic rhetoric about invasions migrants as existential threats, and constant media churn. The spectacle is central. Enforcement actions are framed as moral dramas, often amplified through social media and press conferences that emphasize shock and urgency.

Gaslighting........

© CounterPunch