|
| |
Bush on the Couch
What makes him feel safe doesn’t work for the rest of us
Back a few months ago, a
Doctor Henry Miller
was brought in by the far right to intone that “Al Gore appears to suffer from
Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which is not treatable with medications.
Consider the diagnostic criteria for this malady: ‘A pervasive pattern of
grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy,
beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts,’ as indicated
by the following: ‘a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates
achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without
commensurate achievements).’ Gore demonstrated his grandiosity repeatedly. Who
can forget his notorious claim that he had been responsible for creating the
Internet?”
Just the last claim, based on the right wing fabrication that Gore said he
invented the internet, shows that Miller was an uninformed hack whose “analysis”
was no more legitimate than those of fellow revilers Charles Krauthammer (“Al
Gore is off his lithium”) and Rush Limbaugh.
I was pretty disgusted with the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy for the “Al Gore is
crazy” campaign, and revolted that a licensed physician would lend his name to
such a shoddy undertaking.
It was about that time that “Bush on the Couch” showed up on my radar, and I
pretty much ignored it. After all, I couldn’t exactly castigate the VRWC for
conducting warfare through attack masquerading as psychoanalysis, but then whip
around to embrace a book that, at first glance, seemed to be doing the same
thing.
But I kept hearing things about it that piqued my curiosity. First, there was
the fact that this was a book that was over 200 pages long, based largely on
verifiable evidence from such sources as media coverage, authorized biographies,
and interviews with people who knew Bush. Obviously, that meant more than using
a fraudulent psychodiagnosis fabricated by the right wing in order to smear a
man’s sanity. In fact, given the unblinking nature of the glass eye of the
media, it’s possible that the public record contains more details of Bush’s
life, upbringing, and thoughts than most patients ever share with their
psychotherapists. That made it harder to dismiss as simply a horseback
diagnosis. Then, too, there was Bush’s behavior in and of itself: the
inappropriate smirks, the glib and often ridiculous lies, the brittle refusal to
face any dissent. Something about that boy clearly just isn’t right.
In truth, I had asked myself what my antipathy towards Bush was based upon. I
could rattle off a number of reasons easily enough as to why I didn’t like him;
the method by which he seized office, his smirk, his lying, his utter contempt
for the rule of law and such things as the public good and the environment. But
that didn’t explain why I saw him as an absolute threat to America. After all,
Reagan annoyed me, and I found his policies reprehensible, but I never felt he
was trying to destroy America.
With Bush, I do feel that way. Therefore, I wanted to know how much was based on
a cold reality, and how much was my imagination.
So when a friend, a retired psychoanalyst, brought a copy of the book into my
office for me to read, I was predisposed to do so. My friend and I had discussed
the ethics of using psychological analysis as a political weapon at the time of
Miller’s remarks, and I knew we were of a mind on the issue. My friend isn’t the
sort to abandon an ethical stance for nothing more than political
competitiveness. That, combined with the fact that my friend had an entire
career in psychoanalysis upon which he could base his opinion of the book, and
he clearly thought well of it, convinced me that I wanted to read this book.
Dr. Justin A. Frank, M.D. begins by explaining how Bush’s increasingly alarming
behavior gradually aroused his professional concern to the point where he felt
compelled to write the book. Wasting no time, on page three he writes: “George
W. was six years old at the beginning of the tragic episode that he has said
yielded his first vivid childhood memories—the illness and death of his sister.
In the spring of 1953, young Robin was diagnosed with leukemia, which set into
motion a series of extended East Coast trips by parents and child in the
ultimately fruitless pursuit of treatment. Critically, however, young George W.
was never informed of the reason for the sudden absences; unaware that his
sister was ill, he was simply told not to play with the girl, to whom he had
grown quite close, on her occasional visits home. Robin died in New York in
October 1953; her parents spent the next day golfing in Rye, attending a small
memorial service the following day before flying back to Texas. George learned
of his sister’s illness only after her death, when his parents returned to
Texas, where the family remained while the child’s body was buried in a
Connecticut family plot. There was no funeral.”
Even a layman would recognize what a blow to self-confidence something like that
would have on a kid, and Dr. Frank does a good job of demonstrating how the
resulting alienation, confusion, and guilt echoed down the years to reverberate
in America’s 43rd president.
From there, chapter by chapter, the doctor examines various facets of Bush’s
make-up, including the communication disabilities underlying his tendency to use
clowning and affability to keep people at bay, his alcoholism and mendacity, his
fundamentalist Christian beliefs (which he adopted late in life), his
megalomaniacal tendency to believe himself to be above or outside the law
(something that has become more pertinent in the latest round of stories
regarding the preferential treatment he received in the Guard), his lack of
empathy and his sadism, his competition with daddy (which, in conjunction with
his religious beliefs, is why he fits so well in the GOP, which I’ve previously
half-jokingly called the Party of the Stern Authoritarians – daddy and Jehovah),
and finally, the effect which being placed in an extreme position of authority
has had on all these other elements.
At one point, Frank compares the orientation of the American public in general
and the media in particular to the family of an alcoholic father – “enabling” is
the term. It’s a theme he returns to throughout the course of the book. In
effect, the doctor is saying, “Yes, he’s a monster, but he’s a monster of our
own making, and until we recognize that, he will remain a threat to us.” I don’t
know if Frank is familiar with the Samuel Clemens epigram, “The main trouble
with a democracy is that the people pretty much get the type of government they
deserve”, but it’s clear that his book is an appeal to the American people not
onlyto save themselves from Bush, but to save themselves from themselves, by
acknowledging the danger a man with his psychopathic personality manifests in
such a high office.
I approached Frank’s book with trepidation and concern. I feel strongly that the
use of psychoanalysis as a instrument of attack in a political campaign is an
abuse of a profession already subject to public skepticism, and of course, that
would just add to the list of hurdles our generally lunatic system has put in
the path of presidential aspirants which leads me to conclude that only those
emotionally unfit for office would have the makeup needed to attain it.
I also think that as a political tactic, it’s self-limiting, since the public is
markedly impatient with what they perceive as “psychobabble.” Had Doctor Frank
simply written an attack piece meant to discredit or wound, it would have
backfired, both among Republicans and Democrats.
Although I already held a similar, if less informed opinion, I was prepared to
find fault with the book based on the unpleasant actions of a couple of phoney
psychodiagnosticians (Miller and Charles Krauthammer) in recent months to
discredit dissidents. However, I don’t believe the doctor is playing the role of
partisan attack dog. I believe he sees a clear and present danger presented by
the psychological make-up of the man in the Oval Office, and is sounding a
warning.
If you accept that the book is meant as a warning, rather than as a political
polemic, then you will find it an engrossing and disturbing read. If you believe
that this book must be nothing more than a partisan attack, go back to your Fox
News, and try not to be too surprised when everything comes unraveled. As Doctor
Frank makes unmistakably clear, Bush as President – the only job that could make
him feel safe – makes the rest of us markedly less safe.
|
Join
the Lying Socialist Weasels 