Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Our President; A Psychiatrist's Perspective


E-Dog Night

Recommended Posts

A friend of mine emailed this to me today, basically a blog entry. It's one psychiatrist's opinion about the mind of George Bush. Before even going further, I understand that this is but one opinion of a man who has never actually met the president (as far as I know), and who also is a self-admitted Bush hater. So that's all some on here will need to know and will probably click off the thread at this point. However, it is an opinion of a professional psychiatrist. Nonetheless, I recommend that it should be taken with the appropriate credibility - or lack thereof - regardless of your political leanings.

Hoping this disclaimer will quash some of the likely backlash from the righties.

I simply found it to be an interesting read. It explains quite a bit, and mirrors many things I've felt for years but wasn't able to articulate quite so succinctly. I googled it and found several links; here's one if you like: http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/1310/1/Bushs-quotdelusionquot-a-psychiatrists-perspective/Page1.html

Anyway, the pertinent excerpt:

Our President

A Psychiatrist's Perspective

by Paul L. Minot, MD, PhD

Bush's irrational consideration of a "surge" in the wake of the ISG report--which apparently defies all credible counsel--has begun to generate speculation regarding his sanity. References to Bush's "delusions" have appeared in the MSM (notable on "Scarborough Country") and throughout the blogosphere. As a psychiatrist, I understandably get concerned when I see clinical terminology bandied about in political discourse, and thought it might be of interest to share my own perspective on this question.

First of all, let me state up front that I probably hate Bush as much (or nearly so) as anybody here. I think he has done more damage to our country than Osama Bin Laden ever did, and probably is the manifestation of OBL's most wicked fantasies following 9/11. Frogmarching him to the Hague (along with Cheney, natch) is too good for him. I think the guy is both stupid and evil, and I have no intention of cutting him any slack here. But in the political/clinical tradition of Dr. Bill Frist's school of diagnostics, I have a distinct clinical impression that I think explains most of his visible pathology.

First and foremost, George W. Bush has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. What this means, mostly, is that he has rather desperate insecurities about himself, and compensates by constructing a grandiose self-image. Most of his relationships are either mirroring relationships--people who flatter him and reinforce his grandiosity –or idealized self-objjects--people that he himself thinks a lot of, and hence feels flattered by his association. Some likely perform both functions. Hence his weakness for sycophants like Harriet Miers, and powerful personalities like Dick Cheney.

Even as a narcissist, Bush knows he isn't a great intellect, and compensates by dismissing the value of intellect altogether. Hence his disses of Gore's bookishness, and any other intellectual that isn't kissing his ass. Bush knows that his greatest personal strength is projecting personal affability, and tries to utilize it even in the most inappropriate settings. That's why he gives impromptu backrubs to the German Chancellor in a diplomatic meeting--he's insecure intellectually, and tries to make everyone into a "buddy" so he can feel more secure. (Pathetic, isn't it?)

The most disturbing aspect about narcissists, however, is their pathological inability to empathize with others, with the exception of those who either mirror them, or whom they idealize. Hence Bush's horrifying insensitivity to the Katrina victims, his callous jokes when visiting grievously injured soldiers, and numerous other instances.

The guy simply has no capacity to feel for others in that way. When LBJ was losing Vietnam , he developed a haunted expression that anybody could recognize as indicative of underlying anguish. For all his faults, you just knew he was losing sleep over it. By the same token, we know just as well that Bush isn't losing any sleep over dead American soldiers, to say nothing of dead Iraqis. He didn't exhibit any sign of significant concern until his own political popularity was sliding--because THAT'S something he can definitely feel.

Which brings us to his recent "delusion". To be blunt, I don't see any indication that Bush has any sort of psychotic disorder whatsoever. The lapses in reality-testing that he exhibits are the sort that can be readily explained by his characterological insensitivity to the feelings and perceptions of others, due to his persistently self-centered frame of reference. By applying Occam's Razor to the question of what is psychologically driving Bush to endorse this "surge", I think it can be readily explained by his narcissism as follows. (Warning: Rampant speculation to follow!)

Bush knows that things aren't going his way in Iraq , and he knows that it is damaging him politically. He also sees that it is likely to get worse no matter what he does, and in fact it may be a lost cause. However, he recognizes that if he follows the recommendations of the ISG, that Iraq will almost certainly evolve into a puppet state of Iran, and given his treatment of Iran he will completely lose control of the situation--and he will be politically discredited for this outcome.

The ONLY chance that he has to avoid this political disaster, and save his political skin, is to hope against hope for "victory" in Iraq. Advancing the "surge" idea offers Bush two political advantages over following the ISG recommendations. One is that if it is implemented, maybe, just maybe, he can pull out some sort of nominal "victory" out of the situation. The chances are exceedingly slim, granted, but slim is better to him than the alternative (none). Alternately, if the "surge" is politically rejected, he gains some political cover, so when things inevitably go to s***, he can say "I told you so" and blame the "surrender monkeys" for the outcome. Most people probably won't buy it, but some (his core base) will.

Now, I know what many of you are thinking--is George Bush willing to risk the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands more American soldiers, on an outside chance to save his political skin, in a half-baked plan that even he knows probably won't work at all? Damn straight he is. Because George Bush is that narcissistic, that desperate, and yes, that sociopathic as well.

Anyway, that's MY two bits.

Some more thoughts on this: Narcissistic Personality Disorder is requently associated with alcoholism. The insufferable "holier than thou" attitude associated with "Dry Drunk Syndrome" is indicative of underlying narcissism.

Also, the way that Bush embraces Christianity is characteristically narcissistic. Rather than incorporating the lessons of humility and empathy modeled by Jesus, Bush uses his Christian faith to reinforce his grandiosity. Jesus is his powerful ally, his idealized "buddy" who gives a rubber stamp to any ****amamie invasion he thinks up.

Finally--and this will sound VERY familiar--NPDs are notoriously unable to say they're sorry. Admitting error is fundamentally incompatible with their precarious efforts to maintain their sense of "okayness".

Any friend, partner, or family member that has this character flaw almost certainly has NPD.

Paul L. Minot, MD

Inpatient and outpatient general and adolescent psychiatry.

Maine General Medical Center , Seton Campus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seconded. I'd like to believe that Bush is like that, but I still think that would be giving him too much credit.

I think, for me, this was the point that jumped off the page:

"Bush knows he isn't a great intellect, and compensates by dismissing the value of intellect altogether. Hence his disses of Gore's bookishness, and any other intellectual that isn't kissing his ass. Bush knows that his greatest personal strength is projecting personal affability, and tries to utilize it even in the most inappropriate settings. That's why he gives impromptu backrubs to the German Chancellor in a diplomatic meeting--he's insecure intellectually, and tries to make everyone into a "buddy" so he can feel more secure."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the LBJ comparison very interesting as well--I've never had the sense that GBII really cared about the deaths of soldiers--at least not in a way that he has ever shown publicly. And I'm not a major Bush-hater...he's just never seemed to me to be a particularly empathetic person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the LBJ comparison very interesting as well--I've never had the sense that GBII really cared about the deaths of soldiers--at least not in a way that he has ever shown publicly. And I'm not a major Bush-hater...he's just never seemed to me to be a particularly empathetic person.

I agree. This is a something I'm very familiar with as my father has NPD and has been in treatment for it for 3 or so years now. I think this guy's more on the money than most, even the Dubya haters, will admit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the LBJ comparison very interesting as well--I've never had the sense that GBII really cared about the deaths of soldiers--at least not in a way that he has ever shown publicly. And I'm not a major Bush-hater...he's just never seemed to me to be a particularly empathetic person.

I have it from someone that would know, you are mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who wants to be President has to have some serious psychological issues.

Im taking a class on political psychology right now. About half of our presidents qualify in the DSM for some sort of psychiatric disorder. In fact, the presidents who made the most for our country had some major personal issues, the most well known being lincon. He had major depression and possible bi polar.

Anyway, I tend to have liberal views but saying that he has harmed our country more than Bin Laden...C'mon...Get the F outta here. By the way, pdocs all differ. One persons diagnosis is often, but not all the time, different from anothers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Bush knows he isn't a great intellect, and compensates by dismissing the value of intellect altogether. Hence his disses of Gore's bookishness, and any other intellectual that isn't kissing his ass. Bush knows that his greatest personal strength is projecting personal affability, and tries to utilize it even in the most inappropriate settings. That's why he gives impromptu backrubs to the German Chancellor in a diplomatic meeting--he's insecure intellectually, and tries to make everyone into a "buddy" so he can feel more secure."

Well if the author thinks of Al Gore as an intellect, I think we've read enough. :doh:

That said, I think we've had very few U.S. Presidents who were great intellects. Thomas Jefferson of course... maybe Woodrow Wilson... but by and large, the public overwhelmingly votes for the guy that can best relate to the American public. Not necessarily the guy who is the intellectual. If that were the case, most of our presidents would get their doctorates. But they don't ,because they know by and large it doesn't matter.

So a couple of points here:

1. That is a serious cheap-shot by the author.

2. The fact that this country doesn't vote for the egg-head is one of the things that makes this country great, imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im taking a class on political psychology right now. About half of our presidents qualify in the DSM for some sort of psychiatric disorder. In fact, the presidents who made the most for our country had some major personal issues, the most well known being lincon. He had major depression and possible bi polar.

Anyway, I tend to have liberal views but saying that he has harmed our country more than Bin Laden...C'mon...Get the F outta here. By the way, pdocs all differ. One persons diagnosis is often, but not all the time, different from anothers.

About half the people on earth would qualify for something in the DSM. Heck, half might be conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He just doesn't come across as a smart guy. I don't think he's a MENSA member, but I also don't think he's the country bumpkin hick that a lot of you like to believe that he is.

My old college had a Dean who was the Bush type. You'd see him walking around campus and he was just this goofy guy. Not the most polished guy around, and you wouldn't think that he was all that smart.

However, I heard countless stories about meetings he was in with faculty, members of the town hall, etc where he could "turn it on" when he wanted to. When it would come to raising money for the school he was a fierce negotiator, when he was speaking to the faculty he was eloquent and inspiring, etc.

Bush just doesn't carry and present himself well. However, I have a family member who works in the Secret Service who has spent a lot of time on Bush's detail and has told me a lot of things about Bush's smarts that are contrary to popular belief.

Again...he's not a MENSA member...but he's not a dumbass because he's clumsy, doesn't speak extremely well, makes goofy faces or runs a country the way you might want him to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again...he's not a MENSA member...but he's not a dumbass because he's clumsy, doesn't speak extremely well, makes goofy faces or runs a country the way you might want him to.

Bush is dumb like a fox, imho.

..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've read this guy before. I have this thing about psychiatrists . . . I just don't like them or trust or care about what they have to say. I don't really know why. I don't have any good reason. Maybe it's the whole therapy culture thing, I don't know. I understand they serve a purpose and do help people suffering from mental illnesses. I know this, but still . . .

Trying to use your status as a medical professional to make a political point. It just doesn't sit well with me.

And I don't think he's saying anything that isn't obvious. Yes, he's narcissistic. Yes, he's insecure about certain things. Perhaps overly so. But find me a US President that isn't a narcissist or an insecure attention-seeker. I think Leesburg said that anyone who wants to be president has problems and I think that's dead on. If you actually desire that kind of power and control then there's probably something wrong with you. There's a Modest Mouse song that asks, "Who would want to be such a control freak?"

I just don't need a psychiatrist to tell me about Bush what I can learn from staring into his vacant lifeless eyes for just a few seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The analysis seems consistent to me. When asked about the Iraq war Bush once responded "I sleep well at night." He is not an intellectual, and it seems he and his followers have indeed lowered their respect for intellectual institutions and Universities altogether for various reasons. From science vs. Religion, to global warming, to economic policy, the current Republican platform simply does not agree with the facts so it's only natural to attempt to discredit those who do the research.

A few posters have made the point that if you want to attain office there is something wrong with you. I can be cynical but damn, you guys are cynical. There are genuine people out there who think they can make a positive impact, who have faith in their own common sense and leadership. They might be few and far between, but they do exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...