Diagnosing Bush

Posted on November 11, 2005 in Folly Watch Stigma

I wondered if Bush was on Paxil or Lexapro, drugs that several of my friends are taking and that seem to have turned them into strangely muted versions of themselves.
Nora Ephron

Last week, there was a flurry of discussion of the state of George W. Bush’s mind after Nora Ephron posted a piece in the Huffington Post. In the years before, I have seen many other attempts to describe what is wrong with Bush’s brain (along with the chimp jokes, etc.). Someone, somewhere in the blogoverse is making a comment about Bush’s mind as I write this. And next week, there will be new articles that attempt to diagnose Bush. I’ve done it myself.

But this is not a lay diagnosis — if there can be such a thing — of Bush but a critique of the folly of attempting to do so. I voted against the man twice. I stood up against his war before it was fashionable to do so. I have opposed his choices for the Supreme Court, written letters to preserve the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, call for investigations of the 2000 and 2004 elections. This is coming from a card-carrying progressive who supports the right to choice and civil rights. I think the Patriot Act stinks. So hear me out as one of the community of Bush critics.

First, who are we to be making a diagnosis? I suffer from bipolar disorder. Does that make me such an expert on the disease that I can smell it in the air? I believe I can detect a sufferer at times when I am in a public place. Then, however, I am close to the person and, even so, there are nuances that prevent me from making an accurate assessment of another’s behavior. It took psychiatrists eleven years to make a correct diagnosis of my disease and I am told that this is not uncommon. It’s not incompetence that yielded this result: it’s difficult to assess a client whose symptoms could be due to a personality disorder (which is technically not mental illness), a mood disorder, an addiction, or schizophrenia. In many ways they look alike. Without the clinical education, who are we to even attempt that?

A few may step forward and say that they do have such an education. These forget that diagnosis is founded on direct observation. None of them have interviewed Bush directly. And even if they have, it violates professional ethics and the rules of many state medical boards to reveal the substance of their therapy sessions unless subpoenaed by a court of law.

Second, where some may argue that attempting diagnosis helps us defeat Bush, I must point out that it has done little so far to upset his political engine. Just like the chimp ears remarks, I think the allegations of mental instability only strengthen the resolve of his followers. They gather around their man as if he were a martyr.

Third, even if the practice can be shown to do political harm, what about the other costs? When you use a disease you think Bush might have, you drop a cluster bomb that also affects innocent civilians who suffer from mental disorder. You show (willful?) ignorance about survivors of mood disoders and similar conditions. You suggest that we who have brain dysfunctions cannot contribute to society (you would have thrown Lincoln on his bootie because he suffered from bouts of depression) and make it hard for us to obtain meaningful work. You cause those who do suffer to hide their illness for fear of losing their jobs. You make people afraid of us even though studies show that we are twelve times more likely to be the victims of violent crime than you are. Twelve times.

I’d say that the sane are the ones to watch. They can harbor some strange, absurd and dangerous illusions.

Fourth, if Bush does turn out to be so lost in disease that the other members of his administration carry out the provisions of section 4 of the 25th Amendment we will still have the problem of having the rest of his administration (including Cheney, Rice, Rove, and Rumsfeld) running the country. Dick Cheney will not alter the course of the Bush presidency if he suddenly rises to the Oval Office. There will still be war in Iraq, lousy Supreme Court justices, faith-based iniatives, stinkball elections, and hunger strikers at Gitmo. Once stabilized, Bush will be back on the job.

Which leads me to a fifth point: these policies aren’t necessarily due to mental illness. If we were to systematically interview and diagnose the White House staff and Bush’s appointees, we’d find many more “sane” people than insane ones. Leave out the secretaries and file clerks: the rate will climb a bit, perhaps to five percent, but that’s still not significant. These people have been educated and employed for the purpose of upholding an ideology, a slant based on domination of the working class by the rich. You can call it mean-spirited, selfish, cruel but do not call it crazy. The mean-spirited, the selfish, and the cruel don’t have nearly as much to lose as the mentally unfirm by such talk.

The endless attempts to perform character assassination on Bush catch too many innocent parties towards whom progressives and liberals have traditionally shown compassion and inclusiveness. The attacks won’t change the policies of his administration even if he is removed. They stigmatize competent people under competent psychiatric care. They prevent acknowledgement the contributions of the mentally ill. They contribute to denying people opportunity. By speaking entirely and unsympathetically about alledged symptoms, they deny the hope of recovery.

I am bipolar as regular readers of this blog know. I can be firey and passionate or sullen and listless. Through the use of meds, I have gripped the horns of the demon and tamed it as much as any man or woman can. This is a disease and I am not ashamed of it. I know I have to manage it. If Bush were ever shown to be mentally ill, I would treat and speak of him as a brother in the illness. But I would continue to oppose his policies. Bolstered by a legion of sane advisors and syncophants, they will continue to affect our lives as long as we let them.

Don’t use my disease to disgrace the reptile in the Oval Office.

Found through David Markham.

* * * * *

A note on “conservative” response to the Ephron article. Unimpressive. As you might expect, they made no stand for the mentally ill, just mocked Ephron.

* * * * *

A few other riders on the Bush insanity float:

• Steve Gilliard
• Blog Reader’s Digest
• George Bush News
• Leisureguy
• Michael Vocino
• Jay Sullivan
• Partners Solipsism
• Newsbusters
• SJ
• Cephas

Internet Mental Health is a good site for understanding mood disorders and other organic brain dysfunctions. Use it compassionately not vindictively.