Monday, September 22, 2003
Daddy's Not Feeling Well
Josh Marshall accurately identifies a near-pathological state of denial in the Bushies' stated approach to Dear Leader's upcoming UN speech, where he apparently plans to repair the damage he did last time, by replacing taunts and threats with threats and taunts. As Marshall drily notes, "That should go over well."
But I wonder if we aren't all--out to and including the Kucinich Left--suffering from our own form of denial. Is it just possible that the Bushies aren't just crooked (they are), incompetent (they are), vindictive (they are), but actually and truly mentally unstable?
Consider once again the indicia of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which I posted yesterday in connection with Dear Leader's rather eccentric idea of what's funny. (That noted crackpot Peggy Noonan laughed along with him, one must say, should have been sufficient indictment all by itself.) I don't like turning differences of opinion into a psychiatric diagnosis, but the criteria, when held up against Bush's approach to world opinion and just about everything else, are damn near a perfect fit. The implications are a little disturbing.
For example, it would indeed be imprudent to cut and run in Iraq, as Edward Lempinen tediously accuses virtually everyone left of Paul Wolfowitz of wanting to do, but only if there's a reasonable chance of the people in charge not making the situation even worse, which would in turn presuppose some capability for objective self-assessment and self-criticism. Yet right now we're looking at Daddy once again storming about the house, threatening Mommy, and wrecking more furniture--$87B of it at least. And for what? To prove that Daddy was, is, and always will be the infallible Head of the House, apparently. And this is only the latest instance, further examples of which are familiar to most of our readers.
At some point in a dysfunctional relationship, it becomes necessary to step back and ask which is more important--saving the relationship, or saving oneself. Given that this "relationship" was itself forced upon us by a corrupt Supreme Court, walking away from it should not be as traumatic as it might otherwise be; indeed, it might properly be seen as having been ordained from the start, and certainly not our, the voters', fault.
But a first step would be to start asking ourselves not, are "Bush haters" too harsh, but whether we are asking the right question in the first place. President Codpiece is one thing. President Queeg is another.
But I wonder if we aren't all--out to and including the Kucinich Left--suffering from our own form of denial. Is it just possible that the Bushies aren't just crooked (they are), incompetent (they are), vindictive (they are), but actually and truly mentally unstable?
Consider once again the indicia of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which I posted yesterday in connection with Dear Leader's rather eccentric idea of what's funny. (That noted crackpot Peggy Noonan laughed along with him, one must say, should have been sufficient indictment all by itself.) I don't like turning differences of opinion into a psychiatric diagnosis, but the criteria, when held up against Bush's approach to world opinion and just about everything else, are damn near a perfect fit. The implications are a little disturbing.
For example, it would indeed be imprudent to cut and run in Iraq, as Edward Lempinen tediously accuses virtually everyone left of Paul Wolfowitz of wanting to do, but only if there's a reasonable chance of the people in charge not making the situation even worse, which would in turn presuppose some capability for objective self-assessment and self-criticism. Yet right now we're looking at Daddy once again storming about the house, threatening Mommy, and wrecking more furniture--$87B of it at least. And for what? To prove that Daddy was, is, and always will be the infallible Head of the House, apparently. And this is only the latest instance, further examples of which are familiar to most of our readers.
At some point in a dysfunctional relationship, it becomes necessary to step back and ask which is more important--saving the relationship, or saving oneself. Given that this "relationship" was itself forced upon us by a corrupt Supreme Court, walking away from it should not be as traumatic as it might otherwise be; indeed, it might properly be seen as having been ordained from the start, and certainly not our, the voters', fault.
But a first step would be to start asking ourselves not, are "Bush haters" too harsh, but whether we are asking the right question in the first place. President Codpiece is one thing. President Queeg is another.
