Has President Bush Relapsed?
The U.S. has survived a number of Presidents who were alcoholics. Could this time be different?
The United States has had several obvious alcoholic Presidents. In The Secret History of Alcoholism, James Graham identifies Andrew Johnson and Franklin Pierce as having been active alcoholics while in office. Ulysses S. Grant was in recovery by the time he was elected President. As Graham points out, all held office in the nineteenth century and none had much of an opportunity to abuse others while in office. Although their ego-fueled need to wield power capriciously may drive them to abuse that power, alcoholic Presidents are stymied from taking full advantage of such privilege in an open society that has a system of checks and balances. Thank God.
Graham, in my opinion, fails to identify as likely alcoholics several more recent U.S. Presidents. In my early research, Graham warned me to be careful when identifying alcoholism due to the risk of lawsuits over defamation of character. Yet, his work confirmed my idea that misbehaviors, particularly the abuse of others and flouting of rules, were usually symptoms of alcoholism. I began to grasp the idea that alcoholism causes power-seeking behaviors and there was, therefore, a higher-than-normal likelihood that those rising to positions of power have this disease. It dawned on me that Graham may have been too conservative due to a concern over lawsuits (and, perhaps, for running the risk of being viewed as one who sees an “alcoholic under every bedâ€) in his estimate of the number of alcoholic Presidents.
I realized the big issue was worth the risk: someone needs to argue that the benefit of the doubt is given when assuming alcoholism as the cause of misbehaviors. A 1964 Supreme Court decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, which protects those who say something about public figures or public officials in good faith and unaware of its falsity that turns out to be untrue, was icing on the cake. Suggesting alcoholism as the root of abusive, horrific or unnecessarily reckless behaviors implies that the person is NOT fundamentally rotten or stupid. Assuming otherwise is, in my opinion, defamation.
One possible alcoholic President was FDR. Among other behavioral symptoms was his attempt at packing the Supreme Court, a blatant power-seeking misbehavior that flouted everyone’s idea of the rules, something for which alcoholics are known. JFK was a polydrug addict from a long line of alcoholics. While his reckless abandon in dealing with the Cuban missile crisis may have worked, it appears to have been rooted in addiction. LBJ wielded power ruthlessly and was a known heavy drinker. I’m skeptical about Nixon. What I know about his actual drinking is from Oliver Stone’s film portrayal, which may be inaccurate because Stone is an addict and, therefore, cannot be trusted. In addition, Nixon had zero alcoholic charm. Clinton, on the other hand, had not only charm but also engaged in adolescent-like misbehaviors in the Oval Office, was a superb liar and, for a time, had a classic alcoholic look to his face. Yet, the Republic survived all of these and will likely survive more.
This doesn’t make the fact of alcoholism irrelevant, even in a democracy. Alcoholism breeds corruption and worse, it causes judgment to become impaired. Due to self-favoring perceptions, the alcoholic thinks he can do no wrong. This shows up in a sense of invincibility that can have tragic results. This is particularly true in international affairs in an age of advanced weaponry, even if I am far more concerned over North Korea’s Kim Jong Il and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who has access to all-too-much oil money. (It’s irksome that while many complain about oil companies’ profits, they ignore the far larger state oil monopolies in Venezuela and the Middle East, which are potentially lethal to our well being.)
George W. Bush is a known alcoholic. He stopped drinking after alcohol caused him to act badly on a number of occasions, as evidenced by the fact that his wife Laura gave him an ultimatum, “Jim Beam or me.”He appears to have stopped cold turkey without attending AA, which has led many commentators to describe his political behaviors as those of a “dry drunk.”However, it is all-too-easy for such an analysis to be clouded by political beliefs. As I point out in Alcoholism Myths and Realities, “Most people balk at calling someone of like politics or personality ‘an alcoholic,’ even if some of their behaviors are bizarre or destructive. Yet, many wouldn’t hesitate to suggest that a person with whom they differ who drinks the equivalent of a bottle of wine every day ‘must be an alcoholic,'”which could be restated as, “many wouldn’t hesitate to suggest that a person with whom they differ politically has convoluted thinking and must, therefore, be a dry drunk.”As my friend and author Bob Prechter observes, it can be a challenge to separate political behaviors from alcoholic ones. Those holding strong opinions that differ from the person under scrutiny must be diligent in preventing their views from attributing political behaviors to alcoholism or its dry drunk equivalent. Unfortunately, many who have strongly disagreed with President Bush have not been diligent, which could hamper our ability to detect an actual relapse.
Some critics, for example, would have us believe that the deterioration in President Bush’s speaking abilities is an indicator of a relapse or “dry drunk syndrome.”Instead, comparing videos of speeches in 1994 with his 2004 debate skills suggest some sort of thinking impairment consistent with what one observer suggests may be pre-senile dementia. (A truly amazing comparison is made at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1019.htm.)
The assertion that Bush is “single-minded,”which is considered by some to be symptomatic of either alcoholism or dry-drunk syndrome, flies in the face of observable reality. Since we can’t read minds and determine if he really is single-minded, we’re left with observing the products of his mind. These include public policy proposals on an amazing array of topics, from a now-aborted attempt to partially privatize Social Security (I would have been far more single-minded in such an attempt) to a revolutionary expansion of Health Savings Accounts (for a detailed explanation of these accounts and why they are revolutionary, check out my online client newsletter dated Jan-April 2005 at http://www.DougThorburn.com). And what is wrong with what appears to be single-mindedness anyway? Few would suggest that Thomas Edison’s experimentation with 10,000 filaments to create the world’s first practical light bulb meant that he was a dry drunk.
The suggestion that Bush has displayed indications of paranoia in his call to stop rogue states and terrorists before they use Weapons of Mass Destruction against us is another false indicator. Terrorists have already used what some consider WMD (planes filled with jet fuel) and Saddam poisoned, gassed and tortured his own people. The likelihood that, sooner or later, others will sell or slip WMD to terrorists is, in the opinion of some (particularly those who understand alcoholism), a high probability. A few of us may even agree with then Governor Bush’s espousal of the idea presented in a November 1999 speech that mutual democracy blocks mutual belligerency. I, for one, support the democratization of the planet as the only way to prevent an atomic holocaust, only I’d argue that privatization of resources”particularly oil”may also be essential.
Critics have also suggested that Bush is grandiose because of the words he uses. Even a clearly non-alcoholic President Ford used grandiose phrases and political buzzwords in an attempt to accomplish the goals of a nation, wrong-headed though they may have been (recall his “Whip Inflation Now”buttons). Leadership should not be confused with alcoholic behaviors, however much we may disagree with the stated goals. If anything, returning power to the individual, as Bush’s “Ownership Society”would clearly do, is an abrogation of government power, an unlikely policy prescription for the ultimate control freak”an alcoholic lawmaker or law enforcer.
The idea that there is a political agenda on the part of many who have commented on a dry-drunk syndrome and Bush should be obvious. This is particularly true considering Clinton’s irresponsible behavior while President, along with his amazing rationalizations for his misbehaviors”including parsing the meaning of the word “is—is never mentioned by these commentators, or any others.
Yet, I have concerns. While stress cannot cause alcoholism, it does contribute to relapse. Recovering alcoholics tell us that there can be a slip despite what may have been excellent, long-term recovery, sometimes after decades of sobriety. I doubt many of us can imagine the degree of stress a President experiences.
My concern isn’t over public behaviors that are easily confused with political ones. Unless blatant in politicians (such as the Huey Longs of the world), private behaviors are essential to a diagnosis of possible alcoholism or a relapse. While terms such as “crusade,””infinite justice”and “evil doers”are more likely political terms than ones rooted in alcoholism, the inappropriate use of foul language is far more likely alcoholism-driven. Bush has reportedly used such language, “casting blame all about,”lashing out at aides, unleashing “obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him,”and exploding into tirades. He has, according to online journalist Doug Thompson (himself a recovering alcoholic with, as of August 15, 2005, 11 years, 2 months and 9 days of sobriety), flipped others the bird and been prescribed anti-depressants (alcoholism is frequently misdiagnosed as Depressive Personality Disorder). The regular use of foul language, blaming others for one’s problems, inappropriate anger and volatile mood swings are all indications of an impending relapse or an actual one. I would hypothesize that he went into relapse mode six to twelve months ago and may have hit the bottle, as reports have suggested, somewhere around August or September. One Washington source was reported to have said, “He has been sneaking drinks for weeks now. Laura may have only just caught him…”Family sources told reporters that when she saw him recently downing a shot, she yelled, “Stop, George.â€
If such reports are true, President Bush is in the throes of the process of relapse. It is important to understand the process. He may have one drink in a sitting, or 16. The ability to have only one will make him believe he can control how much he drinks. Distortions of perception will make him think he is in control over his behaviors. The distortions themselves will prevent him from realizing he is the cause of his problems, not his staff or the American people. Because the distortions will make him believe he can do no wrong, he will be incapable of identifying alcohol as the problem. Our best hope is that Laura will do now what she did when Bush hit 40: offer a choice and let him know she will act on that decision, role as First Lady be damned…..
Runners-up for top story of the month:
Many of these are from September (October was a slow month for such news), but they’re really good.
Supermodel Kate Moss, 31, who has a two-year-old daughter, in rehab after being photographed allegedly snorting cocaine with her drug-addicted lover Pete Doherty looking on; according to reports, she combined the drug with champagne and vodka cocktails. Insisting she didn’t touch drugs, she went into a tirade of four letter words when reporters questioned her. Regularly using foul language is clue number 2 under “Supreme Being complex”in How to Spot Hidden Alcoholics.
O.J. Simpson, celebrating the ten year anniversary of his acquittal. When asked by a friend how he would celebrate, O.J. reportedly responded, “I’m going to light up a joint, have a drink and toast those wonderful people who found me not guilty.”In the meantime, the criminal investigation arm of the IRS has reportedly nailed O.J.’s former business manager Mike Gilbert for fraud. The probe is now reportedly centering on O.J. for failing to report almost $1 million in income from public appearances and autograph sessions that Gilbert arranged. Gilbert is cooperating with authorities (he received funds for O.J., out of which he says he kept a 20% commission) and says, “I’ve ended up as just another life he’s destroyed.”I wonder how many more relationships O.J. will ruin and lives he will destroy before he gets clean and sober.
Samuel Israel III, who pleaded guilty to criminal fraud charges stemming from the collapse of the hedge fund he helped found, Bayou Management, reported in the September issue of the Thorburn Addiction Report in the “under watch”section as “suspected of defrauding investors of hundreds of millions of dollars.”In a Wall Street Journal piece from September 30, the 21st paragraph discussed signs that went unheeded by financial advisers and investors: “Less obvious were aspects of the duo’s [he and co-defendant Daniel Marino, who also pleaded guilty] personal behavior. Police arrested Mr. Israel on the evening of May 11, 1996, for operating a vehicle [while] under the influence of alcohol…The police also”found crack cocaine in his wallet and charged him with criminal possession. Knowing the personal behavior of those entrusted with your funds is, indeed, essential to your financial health. And by the way, this information should have been at the top of the story”followed by, “and his alcoholism took form in wielding power over others by conning them.”
Parker Ray Elliott, sentenced to life in prison for the murders of his ex-wife and daughter near Columbia, TN in June, 2004. The 11th paragraph of an article on the sentencing in the Tennessean of September 25 mentioned that it was revealed during three days of testimony that “Elliott was an alcoholic who blamed his wife for many problems of his own making.”That information should have been in the first paragraph, followed by, “and his alcoholism took form in wielding power over others by murdering them.”
GA State Representative David Graves (R-Macon), chairman of the House committee overseeing laws governing the alcohol industry, cited for DUI twice in twelve months, arguing for immunity from prosecution because he was “leaving a gathering that was tantamount to a committee meeting”when he was apprehended. A centuries-old provision in Georgia law protects a lawmaker from arrest during sessions of the General Assembly, legislative committee meetings or while in transit to a session or meeting. He had been at a dinner meeting with other lawmakers. Gary Jones, the assistant solicitor assigned to prosecute Graves, pointed out, “Just because you’re having dinner with other politicians doesn’t make it a committee meeting. They could be at a casino doing the same thing, and he could allege it was a committee meeting, even though they’re gambling. Only in this case, they were drinking”which to me is another indication it was not a committee meeting.”Graves admitted to the arresting officer in the latest DUI that he’d consumed two to four drinks, but he didn’t define “drink.”If Graves is 200 pounds and he consumed his drinks over four hours, each “drink”would have been 3.5 to 7 ounces of 80-proof liquor, 28 to 56 ounces of beer, or 12 to 24 ounces of wine, depending on whether it was two drinks or four, just to get his BAL to .08 per cent. The legislative immunity provision is one of many across the country, perhaps accounting for a far higher rate of active alcoholism among lawmakers than in the general population. I suspect the same is true for diplomats, who are protected by “diplomatic immunity.”Graves has since instructed his lawyer to drop the immunity plea, noting in a statement, “I have personal problems that need to be addressed.”
Under watch:
Kalispell, Montana’s most prominent businessman-philanthropist, Dick Dasen, sentenced to 20 years in prison after a conviction on prostitution-related charges. Locals were furious at cops for wrecking a “good man’s reputation”when arrested at a cheap motel in 2004, but police chief Frank Garner helped prove Dasen spent more than $3 million on women and the methamphetamine he supplied them with over several years. Dasen, reportedly a staunch conservative, built a convention center, owned two banks and helped down-and-outs through his own charity, Christian Financial Counseling, which introduced him to many young single mothers struggling with debt and drug addiction.
Jesse Jackson, complaining that Bush “has not appointed a single black to head up the Katrina relief…”Note to Jesse: the mayors of New Orleans and Baton Rouge are black, as are their police chiefs, the head of the Louisiana State Police, the head of the Army’s ground operation in New Orleans and the Congressman from New Orleans.
New York Attorney General Elliott Spitzer, who continues to devote multiple lawyers to his case against the New York Stock Exchange over former Exchange President Dick Grasso’s compensation package, while claiming his office is too low on funds to pursue Medicaid fraud (Medicaid consumes $40 billion yearly in New York). One of the directors of the Exchange compensation committee, Ken Langone, explains that if his office prevails (which it likely won’t), the damages would be handed back to the owners of the Stock Exchange, “millionaires one and all”myself included.”Langone, who was smeared by Spitzer as “unsavory”and “deceptive,”and whose heart Spitzer pledged to “put a stake through,”points out that Spitzer has a “troubling method of making loud legal threats, strong-arming witnesses, and intimidating boards and companies into destructive concessions.”The use of hyperbole, intimidating others and the need to destroy worthy people are superb behavioral indications of alcoholism.
And finally, the negotiators claiming a “breakthrough”in six-party talks in Beijing with North Korea, ratifying its “peaceful right to the uses of nuclear energy”and a goal of “verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.”As Nicholas Eberstadt points out in the Wall Street Journal, “Pyongyang’s ‘peaceful nuclear energy program’ is…an entirely imaginary animal”akin to the unicorn.”I’ve long suspected that many diplomats may be alcoholics. In this case, a likely combination of alcoholics and codependents could spell catastrophe. We need to be cognizant of the likelihood that North Korea’s ruler, Kim Jong Il, may potentially be the most dangerous alcoholic since Stalin and that while Stalin didn’t have the means to deliver nukes, Kim does.
There is a wonderful exchange of ideas on my blog (http://www.preventragedy.com/worldpress/, which by the way has a great search feature) between me and Harry A. Van Twistern, who knew the very unconventional pastor, Dr. Gene Scott. Because of a dearth of information on misbehaviors, I knew that including Scott in the “Under Watch”section of the March newsletter was a stretch. However, I was curious whether someone would notice and confirm or disconfirm my weak hypothesis. Van Twistern has clearly disconfirmed addiction in Scott. However, anecdotes strongly suggest alcoholism in his grandfather, which may explain much of his father’s behaviors and beliefs, which in turn affected Scott.
Note to family, friends and fans of the above: the benefit of the doubt is given by assuming alcoholism (they are either idiots and fundamentally rotten, or they are alcoholic/other drug addicts”which would explain the misbehaviors). If alcoholic, there is zero chance that behaviors, in the long run, will improve without sobriety. An essential prerequisite to sobriety is the cessation of enabling, allowing pain and crises to build. Thus far, many have done everything they can to protect the addict from the requisite pain, making these news events possible. The cure for alcoholism, consequential bad behaviors and, ultimately, tragedy, is simple: stop protecting the addict from the logical consequences of the misbehaviors and proactively intervene.
