sportinlife
Feb 18 2003, 09:43 AM
Since we will probably never be privy to any objective official psychiatric analysis of the most powerful man in the world, it would be beneficial for all of us to consider what each of us thinks of him.
Commentator Mark Crispin Miller gives his own rather interesting analysis in an interview.
Though I disagree with some of it (e. g. I don't think that it would be at all difficult for an honest democratic candidate to confront George W. Bush in an election) there are some worthwhile - and fairly on-target - comments on President Bush's psychology.
The quote that I find particularly disturbing - and here I would like to see quoted references from the alleged "professionals" he mentions - is this one:
QUOTE
Mark Crispin Miller: I've heard from a number of professionals—shrinks and others who have dealt extensively with addicts—and all of them have told me that, in Bush, they see a man who's barely keeping it together. Two of them have told me that Bush fits the profile of the \"dry drunk\"—the alcoholic who's too macho to go through the 12-step program, and who thinks that he can keep from drinking through sheer willpower. The problem with that approach is that such drinkers have to dedicate their every ounce of energy, and all their waking moments, to not drinking.
[ February 18, 2003, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: sportinlife ]
fantomas
Feb 18 2003, 10:27 PM
Given that Mark Crispin Miller is not a psychologist or psychiatrist (the man is a media scholar), I would initially take his "profile" of Bush with a grain of rice. But I think he's on to something here, and many of the comments are UNCANNY, like his upcoming book about "war propaganda"!!! I mean, is there a subject more timely or salient right now?
The media have never adequately dealt with the fact--fact, since he admitted it--of W.'s behavior, including his alcoholism. He's empty-headed, mangle-tongued, well-connected, attractive, very rich, tough-guy-acting scion who possesses considerable public charm, so he's allowed to lie and do whatever he pleases, and his wild early and middle adulthood has simply been rubbed so hazy by his handlers and the media that no facts about it ever get out. When they do, of course, as in the Harkin situation, there's no real followup or, as Republicans often accused the Whoredog (Clinton), W. finds some other issue to throw reporters off his case. Then comes more of that charm.
But the man is an admitted alcoholic. Having grown up with one, I really am suspicious of everything that comes out of the man's mouth, because I can tell you, alcoholics--like most addicts--will lie and do anything to feed their addiction. W. found Christ and says that helped him cure his alcoholism. Maybe it did, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But he still has had a past that, if what we've learned is only an index of the truth, makes anything Clinton or Reagan or some other folks we've elected look like Boy Scouts by comparison.
Of course we won't find out about it until he's long out of office, if even then. I just hope he doesn't hit the bottle at ANY point during the rest of his pResidency.
[ February 18, 2003, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
sportinlife
Feb 19 2003, 08:48 AM
It is the way he seems to sneer at the viewpoints of others that I do not understand.
When he says of the demonstrations against the war in Iraq "Democracy's a wonderful thing", it makes that simple phrase sound so condescending. I think that more than anything is hurting our relationship with countries that have been our allies in the past.
I get the impression there is a very big chip on his shoulder and I think many overseas do as well.