Constitutional Gaslighting

Constitutional Gaslighting

Cass R. Sunstein

This is good, from Orwell: “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

Gaslight is a 1944 film starring Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer. Bergman plays Paula, an opera singer who marries her accompaniest, Gregory, who is played by Boyer. As the movie unfolds, Gregory tries to convince Paula that she is crazy.

He hides a brooch he gave to her that she had kept in her handbag, making her think that she is forgetful. He convinces her that she stole and hid a painting. She is frightened by mysterious noises in the attic (Gregory’s own footsteps, when he is supposedly out), and by the dimming of the gaslights in the house (a result of Gregory’s own actions in turning on the attic lights). Eventually Paula doubts her grasp on reality.

The idea of “gaslighting” has become widespread in the last fifteen years, to the point where it has a standard definition, From Psychology Today:

“Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth.”

The idea has been applied in many contexts, including discrimination on the basis of race and sex. With caution and trepidation, I suggest that it can be instructively applied to the domain of constitutional law.

Constitutional gaslighting occurs when false information is spread with confidence and conviction about some proposition that is relevant to constitutional law, in a way that makes it difficult for people, including informed people, to see the truth. Here are some arguable examples of constitutional gaslighting: