Psychoanalysing Junior
Comments: 12
Now this is scary. Psychologist Oliver James has written an article for the Guardian on George W. Bush’s psychological motivations.
Bush doesn’t seem like someone I’d want to sit next to on a Greyhound cross-country bus trip, and yet we’re all doing just that and the trip is taking 4 years.
So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?
Guardian UnlimitedBush’s deep hatred, as well as love, for both his parents explains how he became a reckless rebel with a death wish. He hated his father for putting his whole life in the shade and for emotionally blackmailing him. He hated his mother for physically and mentally badgering him to fulfil her wishes. But the hatred also explains his radical transformation into an authoritarian fundamentalist. By totally identifying with an extreme version of their strict, religion-fuelled beliefs, he jailed his rebellious self. From now on, his unconscious hatred for them was channelled into a fanatical moral crusade to rid the world of evil.
•••
Posted to General Rants • 2003.09.02 (Tue) • 21:25
Comments
Posted by Chris Walker 2003.09.02, 23:47
Julie Birchill is a columnist for The Guardian, writing in the weekend magazine. The week before last she attacked Bush’s detractors, saying that he has done more than any President before him to combat AIDS in Africa.
Good to see, then, that she wasn’t simply towing the company line; James’ article is well-written and interesting, but it does little more than confirm many of the fears that we all had before.
Oh, and as for Ms Burchill, she didn’t retract her comment in light of the Bush administration’s decision to cut AIDS funding in Africa in its entirety.
And no, I didn’t know really where to go with this comment, I just wanted the attention, and since I occasionally read The Guardian I thought this would be a good ‘in’.
Yay Antipixel (?)
Posted by Jeremiah 2003.09.03, 06:05
It’s a nice go, but ultimately this “study” offers about as much assurance of its accuracy and truthfulness as Bush can offer for the job market. I wonder how many of James’ own fears, resentments, ideological views, and instances of childhood angst have influenced this “psychiatry from a distance?”
That GWB has ideological goals is not to be despised or maligned; on the contrary, it’s nice to see a President who doesn’t waffle. Even if he is wrong, at least he’s stuck to his guns and kept his head pointed in the direction he feels is best for him. And what’s wrong with that? After all, he is the Head of the Nation, and what’s good for him is good for the nation (or at least in theory).
James’ insistence that Bush’s childhood influences are the driving force behind his actions kind of bothers me, because it implies that he and we (as individuals) are incapable of breaking out of a cycle of violence, rebelliousness, or even just coming out from under the shadow of a domineering parent. That Bush has made mistakes or that his ideology offends some people should not be measured by his childhood; at least, not just his childhood.
If anything, the ultimate lesson from James is that Bush is a creature of passion and moral rigidity who nevertheless exhibits a kind of rebelliousness through his continuing efforts at achieving his own place in the world. Who among us can say they are different? Most people are passionate about at least one thing, and an individual’s morality plays a big part in how they act, what they say, and what they do.
Everyone desires, at some base level, to be someone, to achieve some notice in the world. This is not a bad thing. Just because Bush happens to be the President does not make him not-human. He is subject to the same emotions, the same passions, and the same desires as anyone else. He should be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his “psychoanalytical” profile. Let his policies stand or fall on the merits of their effectiveness in the real world, not on some couch professor’s stringent and narrow world-view.
Okay, I’m done.
Posted by dowingba 2003.09.03, 12:17
My moral views don’t affect my job. Why should Bush’s? In a democracy, the president is supposed to be just some empty, passionless vessel. His own opinions shouldn’t matter. Sure, he can have passions and morals, but leave them at home.
Posted by Jeremiah 2003.09.03, 21:23
But he works at home ;-)
I’d also kindly point out that your job isn’t running a nation. If you think that’s a passionless (or moral-less) job then you have the wrong idea of what nation-running is about.
Governance is the blending of morals and legislation. At least that’s my opinion.
Posted by dowingba 2003.09.03, 22:11
The president is supposed to do what people tell him to do. The power is supposed to be in the hands of the people.
Posted by Caleb 2003.09.04, 03:49
But the difficulty arises when the people of the country have differing opinions. Then which people should have the power in their hands? That is the function of representative government, the leader has to make a judgment call on behalf of the many and varied people in his nation.
It is madness to think that a person could make a judgment call like that without his personal convictions playing a role. No one of us could say that we are capable of handling such a huge job behaving as an emotionless machine without convictions.
Posted by dowingba 2003.09.04, 04:12
But the difficulty arises when the people of the country have differing opinions.
Majority rules. I know politics don’t actually work this way, but I have a very purist view of democracy.
Posted by Alexis Massie 2003.09.04, 06:57
Majority rules. I know politics don’t actually work this way, but I have a very purist view of democracy.
It’s too bad you don’t live in one. I don’t really understand why people run around calling our system of government a democracy or how we must run around ensuring “democracy” for other nations. We may be invited to offer opinions on policy at a state and local level, but last I checked, nobody has asked me for my input on any particular federal legislature, be it education, the environment or foreign affairs. We don’t have a system in place to ascertain what “majority” is on most issues (given the voter turnout), and we certainly don’t on the federal level. The only echo of democracy (and I mean this as an understatement) this country has, as a country, is our use of polls. And, according to that article, half of Americans believe the Bible is literal. So I say, thank heavens we’re not a democracy!
Living in a Republic is not without flaws, which seem particularly rampant when the representative chosen by the “majority” of states votes (not the majority of people, mind you) is the epitome of everything I dislike and fear. But one of the nice things about living in a republic is that it embraces change. So much as I might dislike my current federal representation, I have the comfort of knowing that I can either wait for the current to shift or, at worst, be assured that I have been given the education and economic means to get the hell out. Thanks, America!
And here’s my point, because I actually have one: I’m fine with a leader being idealistic and authoritarian and a Bible-thumper and a uncompromising, two-dimensional extremist. But when his personal beliefs start tinkering with what is the foundation of our government - the Constitution, the Bill of Rights - that’s where I have to draw the line. To take away my freedom in exchange for security in the form of government intrusion (surveillance) is no different than to taking away my freedom in exchange for security by removing my right to own a gun. And yet the former is getting support and the latter is unassailable. That hypocritcal and oh so typical contradiction in policy is nothing new in the world of extremist politics, but when coupled with a pumping force of enforced effect wherein all opponants are demonized and public dialogue is cowed - that’s when a supposed representative becomes not just lamentable but dangerous.
There have been many leaders of nations in history, and some were heroes and some were monsters. The heroes are remembered as such despite the fact that they were flawed human beings, only because the policies they put into place turned out to be a good idea years later when they came to fruition. The monsters are always remembered with the question - “why didn’t anyone see it coming?” And then there are the rest of them: the wafflers, the compromisers, the moderates. No one remembers them, and yet they each changed the world in their small, slow, ways. I don’t see why this is considered a sin; why situational, thoughtful decisions based on collaboration and compromises that satisfy the major needs while alienating as few as possible… why these things aren’t held up as the model of good government, and true representation. But that’s my opinion: I want neither an extremist whose personal beliefs get in the way of his judgement, nor a puppet who will do what the rabid polls tell him (occassionally, her… sigh) to do. I want someone who has an open mind and a temperment for problem solving. Is that so much to ask?
Yikes. Are you still reading this? Damn.
Posted by dowingba 2003.09.04, 12:17
Not to be argumentative, but you should know I live in Canada. That stuff basically still applies though except our current leader isn’t quite as idealistic and authoritarian and a Bible-thumper and a uncompromising, two-dimensional extremist. Actually, he’s been criticized for leaving the constitution alone.
Posted by Kevin F. 2003.09.09, 14:01
Oliver James isn’t a psychologist, he’s a television personality. The drivel he’s spewing is disallowed of professional shrinks in britain by the British Psychological Society (i.e., BPSers can’t publicly diagnose from a distance).
James shouldn’t be taken too seriously—think of Dr. Phil letting us in on his deep insights into the soul of Phil Ruzzuto, or Dr. Laura (also a “psychologist” by the standard the Guardian applies to Oliver James) analyzing Hillary Clinton. All of this kind of crap tells you more about the analyst than any of their long-distance subjects.
Judging from his articles & dust-covers “Dr. Oliver” seems to have a problem with powerful people, who he seems to believe are less worthy of authority and respect than himself. But those are my 2-cents and probably tell you more about me than him…
Posted by Kevin F. 2003.09.09, 14:07
Also, Mr. James’ harps on the parental resentment underlying Bush’s personality & (coincidently?) has a book out on the subject. Now that’s big media synergy for you!
Posted by Pascale Soleil 2003.09.10, 00:32
From your exerpt, the biggest problem with the analysis is the proposition that Bush’s parents were religious extremists. Wrong.
Bush comes by his fundamentalism “honestly.” He had a Christ conversion experience and fell into the hands of radical evangelicals.
His parents are mainstream, not so passionate, Protestants.
Post a comment:
Send This Story to an Enemy
• • •
