|
May 27, 2003PSYCHOBABBLE ALERT: LEFT COAST MORON WATCHA New Diagnosis of George W. Bush: Dry Drunk Last October Horsefeathers reported the diagnosis at a distance of George W. Bush by Carol Wolman, M.D.: Antisocial Personality Disorder. According to the psycho-pundits, such a man posed great dangers to the world. Empathy was reserved for Saddam Hussein whose troubled childhood required tactful understanding on our part. Certainly, we were told, the use of force to deal with him was contraindicated. Calamity would follow as such a "narcissistic personality" would ignite the Arab street's rage. Clearly, they told us, it was the 'psychopath' George Bush who required forceful containment. Now that the Iraqi dictator has been defeated and the tales of horror during his reign emerge, our psychotherapists are still seeking to 'analyze' the President and his supposed love of war. "Why the war?", asks Katherine van Wormer, an 'expert' in addictions. Geopolitical reasons are quickly dismissed in favor of "expert" psychobabble. In her article BRAIN CHEMISTRY: The Serotonin Factor, she asserts "Protesters the world over chanted "No blood for oil," but some political analysts and commentators are probing deeper, searching Bush's psyche for the true explanation...." "Deeper", in the language of psychobabble means truer, more authentic, and more open to 'expert' explanation. It flatters the expert who, by seeing deeper, is clearly more intelligent and perceptive than the subject of her profound scrutiny. Van Wormer's 'deeper' explanation: the serotonin levels in Bush's brain, altered by his youthful drinking, have rendered him rigid, obsessive and irrational. Of course, underlying van Wormer's "diagnosis" of someone she has never met, is the assumption that no rational explanation could account for President Bush's policies. Terms like "grandiosity" and "obsessiveness" are bandied about, as Van Wormer tells us that Pres. Bush reminds her of addicted patients she has known. Well, Professor van Wormer reminds me of some psychotics I have known who propose delusional explanations for things they fail to understand. How does she arrive at her clinical impression of W.'s grandiosity? She writes: "Consider Bush's readiness to inflict "regime change" on another nation without any consideration that other nations might dare to do the same. His sense is of a divine mission to see that evil is punished.". Isn't it remarkable how unaware of her own irrational animus is the learned Professor van Wormer? How fortunate we are to live in a therapeutic age! van Wormer is reminded of patients she has known, and that reminder is enough for her to make expert assertions about the President's personality. If only van Wormer had been around to diagnose the grandiose, narcissistic, obsessive, depressive--- genius, Winston Churchill, we might have all been spared World War II and been living happily--except for the Jews-- under Nazism. Posted at 06:23 PM by
 
|
Dr. Carol Wolman is a board certified ...
Just to think that for this nonsense one is paid good money. Disgusting.
Posted by: marek on May 27, 2003 09:51 PMHere's the theme I see in all the Liberal bashing of President Bush: they can't argue directly with his policies and actions so they attack him.
His economic proposals are full of lies about the real effects on "working people". He takes us to war because he wants to finish the action his father started. He rejects Kyoto, the UN, et al because of the overabundance of serotonin in his system.
How would the psychobabblists describe their own behavior? They can't argue the merits so they attack the man and impune his motives.
Posted by: Steve on May 27, 2003 10:06 PMhttp://www.crescentlife.com/disorders/narcissitic_personality_disorder.htm
Clinton was narcissitic personality. HE always had to be the center of things, loved people to pay attention to him, lied to get people to approve and admire him, and thought nothing of betraying those around him if it benefitted himself.
Bush is slightly rigid in his thinking, but is not self centered. He does not hog the spotlight like clinton. He doesnot have delusions of grandeur (he knows he is president, but doesnot act like a king).And he allows others (Guliani, Rumsfeld, among others) to take the spotlight. And that loyalty is returned.
He is not subtle, but sticks to the goals once a decision is made.
Those who know him notes his rigid self control, and ability to act blandly and friendly. For example, he ran for governor against Ann Richards who ridiculed his father at the Democratic national convention. She also ridiculed W. HE called her "governor Richards" and treated her politely, making her ridicule seem nasty...This is the sign of a good politician, but psychologically is a healthy way to handle difficulties...
I was under the impression his drinking etc. was a part of being a good old boy, not to treat a depression. His alcohol abuse stopped quite easily, suggesting it was not a deepseated addiction but a logical decision to change his life.
This is a sign of maturity, not narcissism.
This lady needs to go back to medical school....
Posted by: nancy reyes on May 27, 2003 10:07 PMDr. van Wormer seems to be unable to understand that there are those who wish to inflict a far more sweeping 'regime change' on those of us in the West. The Islamists have gone on record that we, to survive, must convert to Islam and live under Sharia.
Posted by: Peter on May 27, 2003 10:51 PMOne might reasonably debate wether Iraq was the logical next step, I'm not sure that Iran might not have been. That's a matter of strategy and tactics.
The complete discounting of the simple fact that war has been declared on us, years ago, by a large portion of the Islamic world shows this woman to be living in a dream world.
The willingness to diagnose someone she has never met shows she is a charleton.
There is a standing joke with enough truth to be very uncomfortable, that people go into psycholgy and psychiatry to investigate what's wrong with them.
"The willingness to diagnose someone she has never met shows she is a charleton."
I agree entirely. This whole matter is a cheap palour joke and one in poor taste for Egg head Tertulias. We needn't worry however the Clinton jokes are far funnier....and truer. Hillary may never be president (unless she already was a surrogate president) but she will go down in history as a butt of jokes. How ironic that Monica L is remembered and recalled more often than Mrs. Clinton! but then who remembers Florinde Calhoun?
Posted by: Ricardo Munro on May 27, 2003 11:16 PMVery good: this commentary has raised some valuable questions, which are worth discussing independently of the specific applications. As I see them, the questions are these:
These are incredibly valuable questions to pursue, because they entail articles written not only here (does Al Gore know who he is?), but also in the broader press. I, for one, would love to see political discussion revolve around promises and results.
Any takers?
Posted by: Frank on May 27, 2003 11:48 PMNeedless to say, this isn't the first time this gambit has been tried. Sigmund Freud himself did an analysis-at-a-distance of Woodrow Wilson, based on Wilson's correspondence.
At best, it's of dubious accuracy and less value. At worst, it's an attempt to dress a particularly devastating kind of condemnation of a political adversary in the trappings of science, but without any of the usual rigors of scientific investigation, such as objectively verifiable data and peer review of procedures and analytical approach.
I yearn for the return of the ethic that holds opinions such as those Wolman and van Wormer have bestowed upon us to be inappropriate for public expression -- a matter of confidence between an analyst and his client, and no one else.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto on May 28, 2003 07:03 AMFrancis,
Posted by: Stephen on May 28, 2003 07:36 AMYou're right; Freud was the first to deploy psychology in that fashion. What a blunder! What an awful precedent he set. But at least it was the blunder of a genius. These people are fools.
In today's New York Times, a front page report details dementia as a side effect of hormone replacement.
Posted by: RUTH KING on May 28, 2003 09:59 AMI am not a physician or a psychologist, but here is my diagnosis: The ladies in question, Wolman and van Wormer may be suffering from an overdose of hormone replacement.
However, how can one believe anything in that newspaper?
So no one wants to take up my question re whether or not its proper, ever, to psychoanalyze a public figure and speculate on motivations, and what the principles should be?
Posted by: Frank on May 29, 2003 09:06 AMTo answer your question, Frank, there is nothing wrong with speculating about a politician's motives. I draw the line, however, at the following:
1. Laymen making claims about psychological characteristics of the politician. They have no training to do so, and no knowledge about the field. It's no different from a politician telling a physicist that the laws of thermodynamics are subject to repeal.
2. Psychologists and psychiatrists making the same claims. They are using their professions to lend credence to their opinions, when they couldn't possibly know enough about the politician's mind without examination.
3. The same professionals making diagnoses. This is simply outrageous. No psychiatrist would diagnose an ordinary person without thoroughly examining him; to do so to someone he's never examined is a violation of the spirit of his profession. And if he really has examined the politician, to divulge the diagnosis would be a breach of confidentiality.
Posted by: Steve on May 29, 2003 02:26 PMFrank, there's a line, somewhere. I'm not a head doc, my chosen profession has enough psychology involved that I can see some of the traits of the classic disorders in one's public behavior to be able to say, those are the traits of , say, narciscistic behavior. Many people have noted that both Clintons exhibit such behavior, not exactly uncommon in politicians.
Posted by: Peter on May 29, 2003 10:15 PMI'm not up on the ethical rules of psychiatrists, if they have any left. I think the line is crossed when someone makes a flat statement. It's the difference between saying that the way Bill Clinton appears to treat women shows some of the traits of a narciisitic sociopath and flat saying that the man is a sociopath.
It's difficult not to see and say, when we look at Al Gore painfully giving a speech, there is a man not comfortable inside his own skin.He might as well be wearing a sign, who am I supposed to be, here?
There is one diagnosis that's been thrown at George W. that I flat out KNOW is a load of sh, um fertilyzer, that of the 'dry drunk'. I happen to be an alcoholic, coming up on 18 years of sobriety and I know those symptoms, I can tell them across the room. I also had the privilege of spending about an hour talking in a group of four or five others, folks came and went, with Mr. Bush when he made his first run for Governor of Texas. Mr. Bush may not be a speechmaker, he's not glib. Those who misunderestimate him (my favorite Bushism) do so at their peril. The man is the opposite of all talk and no action.
I also think it's legitimate to speculate on someone's motives, but when doing so distracts from a fair evaluation of the politician's message, it goes overboard. It is fair to say that it sounds like Al Gore is tuning up for a Presidential run, but to do so, and then use that conclusion as a basis for denegrating the message amounts to an ad hominem attack. As Bob Somerby (at the Daily Howler) repeatedly shows, this complacency over our own views allows us to slide into sloppy thinking. There's very little opportunity for progress in this country if we all rely on our speculations of motive.
Posted by: Frank on May 30, 2003 07:55 AMWhen Bush refuses to dialog courteously with even members of his own political party who oppose him, the he exhibits evidence that he rules like a dictator. When he tries to silence critics he practices abominable rule. When he labels those who disagree with him as unpatriotic, he becomes a most dangerous demigod.
Posted by: George on May 30, 2003 12:37 PMI read Carol Wolman's pseudo-analysis also, last year, and I asked her where she was when Clinton was President. She then told me how she admired Clinton and why. We exchanged a number of emails over a period of several months and I got a really good picture of how her mind works. Really scary to think such people get medical degrees and make a living caring for other humans.
Posted by: consuelo on December 4, 2003 08:35 PM