Tuesday, July 06, 2004

Bush nuts?

(Forgive the light posting this week. Real life tends to get in the way.)

A rash of articles have asked the semi-obscene question: Is Bush nuts? For examples of the genre, consider Katherine Wormer's take here, Bob Fritakis' musings here or William Thomas' assessment here. You may also recall the largely unsourced -- but undeniably delicious -- descriptions of erratic Bush behavior that appeared in Capitol Hill Blue. And who could forget Maureen Dowd's speculations that the prez was doing Xanax?

One wag has even published an online poll on this issue. Cast your vote to determine which DSM category best applies to our Fearless Leader!

Is this line of attack legit?

First, the obvious point (which I've made before in this column): Putting questions of legitimacy aside momentarily, I can't suppress a giggle at the sight of the shoe slipping so easily onto the other foot. After the G.O.Pundits made so many outrageous claims about Al Gore, after they subjected Bill Clinton to plentiful analyses-from-afar, the conservs damn well had it coming. For years now, the rightists have made amateur shrinkery a tool of their slimeball trade. Remember Limbaugh claiming that Wesley Clarke was a General-gone-psycho, a la Sterling Hayden in Dr. Strangelove? Remember the inane observations about Howard Dean?

Still, many liberals feel uncomfortable with the psychoanalytical approach to the Bush presidency. Just because the reactionaries use this tactic doesn't mean we should do likewise.

Is it ever proper for someone untrained in the head-shrinker's art to offer an assessment of another man's mental state? Many would say no. That judgment should be left to the pros.

Ah. But there's the rub. What if a professional psychologist were to offer his or her assessment?

The aforementioned Katherine Wormer once wrote a well-regarded book on the treatment of addictions, so one should not easily dismiss her claim that Bush exhibits classic "dry drunk" symptoms. Other commentators, such as Dr. Carol Wolman and psychologist Oliver James, have come to similar conclusions. Dr. James offers an analysis based on family history, with particular focus on W's relationship with the cold and patrician Barbara Bush. The impeccably-credentialed Dr. Justin Frank, director of psychiatry at George Washington University, has come out with a book-length Bush "psychohistory" titled Bush on the Couch.

Yes, but...

Frank's approach angered Nick Confessore of Tapped, who wrote: "Frank has never met nor treated the president, but sees fit to diagnose him as mentally unfit to be president." Confessore continued in this vein:
It's one thing to speculate on the motives or thought processes of people in politics, although it is very easy to go too far in doing so. But it is the cheapest of cheap shots to assert that someone is clinically nuts because they don't agree with you or because they are liberal or conservative. It's even worse if, like Krauthammer and Frank, the person asserting it is a trained psychologist.
Yes, but...

If a mental health professional did interview the president, said professional would be required to keep mum about his findings, at least in public. So here's the situation: Assertions about Bush's mental health are out of bounds if they come from laymen. They're out of bounds if they come from experts who have not interviewed the man directly. And they're out of bounds even if they were to come from a pro who has literally interviewed Bush on the couch. Such claims are, in short, out of bounds altogether.

Okay, but...what if the guy really is nuts? Is everyone on the planet forbidden from giving voice to his or her concerns?

After all, Bush does have his finger on the proverbial nuclear trigger. We have a stake in that man's mental health. Some of the points raised by Frank, Wormer and company strike me as genuine concerns, as opposed to partisan shots.

Moreover, I remain unconvinced that one needs to be a psychiatrist to offer an opinion on this score. When you overhear a homeless person arguing with the Invisible Man, you don't need be an expert to understand that this unfortunate person is one patty short of a Big Mac.

Nobody thinks that W displays such obvious symptoms, of course. The writers cited above describe the president in terms that fall far short of full-blown psychopathology.

Still, after reading some of the afore-linked articles, one must wonder: Just what sort of symptoms must W display to justify our wondering whether the pressures of office have taken their toll?

No comments: