The Capitol riots on January 6th, 2021, were an unprecedented event that shocked the nation. First, Trump held a rally near the White House to reject President elect Biden’s victory in the 2020 Presidential Election. He famously stated, “We will never give up. We will never concede.” Once protestors stormed the Capitol building, violence ensued, with many damages to the property and unfortunately many deaths and injuries. Later that evening, Trump’s social media accounts were suspended that day and later permanently suspended. The events at the Capitol facilitated many conversations, especially on social media, regarding who should be held responsible for the event and what the consequences should be.
Among these consequences was a call to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office. The text of Section 4 reads “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”
While the procedural portions of the 25th Amendment are straightforward, the standard to be used in deciding when to invoke Section 4 is unclear. While “unable” is known to mean both physical and mental unfitness, the text does define “unable” with much clarity. The use of broad language allows for many contrasting definitions of mental unfitness. First, there is an interpretation that suggests that the distinction between a misguided action and mental illness can be blurry, so it is more important to emphasize the procedural portions of the Amendment. On the other hand, there is an interpretation which this study refers to as “total disability.” A “total disability” refers to the idea that the standards to invoke are different from Impeachment and should not be invoked if the President makes an unpopular or unfavorable decision. Section 4 has also never been invoked, so there is no precedent to refer to when deciding when to invoke.
This study serves to analyze if the lack of a universal definition of mental unfitness, an unclear standard to decide when to invoke, and the lack of precedent surrounding Section 4 leaves room for the stigmatization of mental health to influence the public’s interpretation of mental unfitness. The study also serves to examine how Americans define and talk about these concepts during online discourse, specifically on Twitter.
Link and Phelan are prominent scholars of the mental health stigma. According to their definition, “stigmatization is entirely contingent on access to social, economic, and political power that allows the identification of differentness, the construction of stereotypes, the separation of labeled persons into distinct categories, and the full execution of disapproval, rejection, exclusion, and discrimination. Thus, we apply the term stigma when elements of labeling, stereotyping, separation, status loss, and discrimination co-occur in a power situation that allows these processes to unfold.” Link and Phelan also suggest that the mental health stigma consist of many components. The four components in this study are Behavior, Labeling, Emotional Reactions, and Status Loss- Expectations.
First, Behavior refers to actual behaviors that one may perceive to be indicative of a mental illness. A study by Torrey found that violent behavior was among the most prominent, as this is likely due to the way the media portrays mental ill individuals. Next, Labeling refers to adjectives used to describe people with a mental illness. These are often derogatory, harmful, inaccurate, or reflective of stereotypes. Next, Emotional Reactions refer to one’s affective reactions to an individual with a mental illness. These can be measured as aggressive reactions, prosocial reactions, or feelings of anxiety. Lastly, Status-Loss Expectations refer to Link and Phelan’s idea that one may associate or expect a characteristic to produce a certain status or performance capacity, even when the characteristic has nothing to do with the task at hand.
This study identified the occurrence of four components in tweets discussing the invocation of the 25th Amendment, following the events of January 6. The study then analyzed the relationship between the use of a component of the mental health stigma and the demographics of the Twitter user. The demographics included political affiliation, gender, and sex. For this research, the study used Twitter’s Advanced Search to collect a sample of 40 tweets. With such a small sample size, the study identified patterns within the sample rather than making broad generalizations. The most impactful limitation was the few Republicans included in the sample. This may be a result of the political norm to not speak out against members of one’s party. The study also conducted a thematic analysis on Microsoft Excel using a codebook inspired by Link and Phelan.
The study found that Trump’s opponents were more likely to use Labeling. Labels found in the sample included words such as “crazy,” “unhinged,” “sociopath,” and “lunatic.” The pattern of Democrats and Progressives that used Labeling led the research to believe that this was a political strategy used in attempt to accomplish a shared goal, as the language used by Trump’s opponents appeared consistent with the historical tactic of exploiting mental health as a political weapon. The use of derogatory labels leads the research to suggest that the online discourse within this sample was stigmatizing, which can have harmful implications for the mental health community.
The sample identified a pattern of Democrats citing Trump’s behavior as a justification for his mental unfitness and their call to invoke the 25th Amendment. Often times, violent behavior is associated with mental illness. This phenomenon was reflected in the sample, as many Democrats described Trump’s violent behavior as their justification for calling to invoke the 25th Amendment. Other behaviors, such as the suspension of his social media accounts and his participation in the Capitol Riots were described by Democrats as indicators of former President Trump’s mental unfitness. Thus, the tweets within the sample reveal that the public may interpret mental unfitness to mean misguided actions or behaviors, rather than a “total disability.”
Additionally, females within the sample were found to use negative Emotional Reactions. Emotions such as fear and anger were common within the sample. Additionally, the use of the Status-Loss Expectations component increased with age. Thus, negative expectations about the performance capacities of a mentally ill President were common among older individuals, which may reflect the literature that a higher preference for an agreeable social contract increases with age.
Due to the small sample size of this study, any definitive statements cannot be made. However, patterns identified in the study led this research to believe that individuals may have been influenced by the mental health stigma and the negative attributes associated with mental illness when interpreting a President’s inability to serve. However, defining mental unfitness should not be influenced by stereotypes and prejudice. This may have detrimental effects to the broad mental health community, as well as medical and legal professionals. Society should also push for more constructive discourse, both online and in a political setting.
Emily Glazier is a senior at Indiana University O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs studying Law and Public Policy. She would like to thank her advisor, Beth Cate. If you have any questions or would like a complete copy of this research paper, contact her at ebglazie@iu.edu
Leave a Reply