In Synthesis

by Alfredo Cuéllar

Power seems to take on a life of its own

and turn into a person

that uses defense mechanisms

to keep living through

whoever wields it. Thus, defense mechanisms,

until now owned by psychology and psychiatry,

become the defense mechanisms of power.

Politicians and micropoliticians use them

every day and end up corrupting

politics itself.

In clinical psychology, defense mechanisms are unconscious reactions of the ego to threatening situations. Denial, projection, repression, or rationalization arise as resources to preserve a person’s internal balance, protect identity, and reduce anxiety. However, in the contemporary political arena these mechanisms have ceased to be mere reflexes of psychic survival and have become deliberate strategies of power.

Leaders such as Donald Trump and Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) have transformed these defenses—originally described by authors like Anna Freud, Erik Erikson, George Vaillant, or John Perry—into conscious political tactics. What in the clinic functions as an unconscious tool to protect the self becomes, in the public arena, a calculated technique to manipulate perceptions, shift blame, construct external enemies, and maintain follower loyalty.

From the couch to the presidential palace

Defense mechanisms are part of psychology’s classic vocabulary. Freud and his disciples described them as inevitable responses to pain and fear. Anna Freud systematized them in 1936; Erikson linked them to developmental crises; Vaillant classified them into immature, neurotic, and mature defenses; and Perry examined their role in moments of crisis.

But the 21st century shows us something more unsettling: political leaders have learned to consciously use those same defenses as communication and manipulation strategies. Where a psychoanalyst would see a symptom of inner conflict, a political strategist recognizes a weapon for narrative control—and far from experiencing any inner conflict, they often seem to revel in how the “little lies” worked.

Trump: denial as a banner

Donald Trump is the clearest example of this phenomenon. His systematic refusal to acknowledge the 2020 electoral defeat was not a mere personal whim: it was a deliberate strategy to keep his political base cohesive. The phrase repeated ad nauseam—“the election was stolen from me”—is a case of clinical denial turned rhetorical weapon.

The same occurs with his multiple court cases: far from accepting them as fact, Trump reframes them as a “witch hunt” against him, projecting responsibility onto judges, prosecutors, and opponents. This tactic allows him to cast himself as a victim, mobilize resources, and strengthen the loyalty of those who follow him blindly. It has been so effective that he raised millions in donations from poor supporters who believed their idol was being persecuted.

Projection is also essential in his arsenal: he accuses rivals of fraud, corruption, or authoritarianism while facing investigations for those very behaviors. In his style, what would amount to psychological immaturity becomes political offense.

Trump is not alone. Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil denied the severity of the pandemic; Viktor Orbán in Hungary has used projection to blame migrants and opponents for his country’s ills; Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines justified the extreme violence of his “war on drugs” with political rationalizations. All are examples of how psychological defenses are transformed into tools of populist survival.

AMLO: projection and the necessary enemy

In Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador frequently uses another defense mechanism turned strategy: projection. His critics are “corrupt,” “hypocrites,” or “conservatives,” while he presents himself as the embodiment of moral purity. Any criticism of his government is reframed as an attack on “the people” themselves—a device that converts a psychological defense into a political narrative. Dark and perverse interests of the “political mafia,” he suggests, donate millions and employ marketing mercenaries to sully the spotless lamb.

Denial, or its variant minimization, has also been recurrent. When faced with questions about violence, insecurity, or the economy, AMLO often rejects the magnitude of the problem or downplays it, blaming previous administrations or “neoliberal” media.

In Argentina, Javier Milei has made insult and denial part of his permanent style; in Russia, Vladimir Putin denies invasions and political repression with a narrative of “national defense.” These cases show that projection and denial are not isolated anomalies but recurrent behaviors in the contemporary populist repertoire.

Political gaslighting: manipulating collective memory

Beyond denial or projection, an even more dangerous strategy is gaining ground: political gaslighting. The term, taken from the play Gas Light (1938) and the film Gaslight (1944), describes a process in which someone manipulates another person until they doubt their memory and perception of reality.

In politics, this means denying verifiable facts and repeating an alternative narrative until part of the population doubts what it saw or heard.

• Trump used it when he said his call with Ukraine was “perfect,” despite transcripts indicating otherwise.
• AMLO uses it when he claims he never promised “no gasoline price hikes,” even though video records exist.
• Putin practices it by denying the invasion of Ukraine and presenting it as a “special operation.”
• In the Philippines, Duterte systematically downplayed the deaths in his war on drugs, rewriting the official narrative.

Gaslighting is more corrosive than a simple lie because it seeks to break citizens’ trust in their own memories. A lie can be refuted with data; gaslighting plants doubt in the mind and destroys certainty about the obvious.

The risk of turning defenses into strategies

In the short term, these tactics are effective: they consolidate bases, strengthen follower identity, and catch unprepared opponents off guard. Denial, projection, and gaslighting generate cohesion and polarization at the same time.

But the cost is enormous. The press, social networks, and political adversaries confront these strategies with evidence, documents, and records. Falsehoods are exposed faster than ever in the digital age. When defense mechanisms become systematic politics without strategic calculation, what is gained in immediate adhesion is lost in historical legitimacy.

When leaders as diverse as Trump, AMLO, Bolsonaro, Orbán, Duterte, Putin, or Milei resort to denial, projection, and gaslighting, what looks like a coincidence is in fact a global pattern of contemporary populism. That pattern erodes institutions, weakens trust in democracy, and turns the public sphere into a terrain saturated with manipulated narratives.

Conclusion

Micropolitics teaches that there are no innocent decisions in the exercise of power. Every gesture, every word, and every omission are tactics that shape perception and the balance of forces. Today, mechanisms that once belonged on the psychoanalyst’s couch form part of the arsenal of major populist leaders.

Trump and AMLO are emblematic examples of how denial and projection can become the art of denying—a calculated political strategy to maintain loyalty and power in times of crisis. But they are not alone: Bolsonaro, Orbán, Duterte, Putin, and Milei, among others, have perfected the same logic in different settings.

The challenge for modern democracies is clear: recognize these tactics, resist their immediate allure, and demand leadership rooted in truth, ethics, and accountability. Because when politics rests on psychological defenses transformed into manipulation, what is at stake is not only collective memory but the very health of our institutions.

Dr. Alfredo Cuéllar is a specialist in Micropolitics, an international consultant, and a retired professor at California State University, Fresno. He has worked at dozens of universities, including Harvard. His articles focus on migrants, politics, sociology, culture, and current affairs. Inquiries and comments: alfredocuellar@me.com