Bush, the narcissist?

I don't know if this should go under philosophy or here or politics, but here you are:

George W. Bush is ill. He has a psycho-spiritual dis-ease of the soul, a sickness that is endemic to our culture and symptomatic of the times we live in. It’s an illness that has been with us since time immemorial. Because it’s an illness that's in the soul of all of humanity, it pervades the field and is in all of us in potential at any moment, which makes it especially hard to diagnose. Bush's malady is quite different from schizophrenia, for example, in which all the different parts of the personality are fragmented and not connected to each other, resulting in a state of internal chaos. As compared to the dis-order of the schizophrenic, Bush can sound quite coherent and can appear like such a "regular," normal guy, which makes the syndrome he is suffering from very hard to recognize. This is because the healthy parts of his personality have been co-opted by the pathological aspect, which drafts them into its service. Because of the way the personality self-organizes an outer display of coherence around a pathogenic core, I would like to name Bush's illness "malignant egophrenic (as compared to schizophrenic) disorder," or "ME disorder," for short. If ME disorder goes unrecognized and is not contained, it can be very destructive, particularly if the person is in a position of power.

So is Bush a sociopath or a narcissist or a good old boy who is just doing the best a feller can?

Doing the best a feller can. He's actually trying to win a war you don't want won (Shame on you! Don't whore after dictators! Crush them.). His values and mine are very similar in the areas that really matter, and I can live with the parts that aren't congruent. He is not an eloquent man; he stammers a bit -- his father has the same sort of convoluted, halting speech. People I do not trust attempt to paint him as a tyrant since trying to persuade people he was an incompetent fell flat, in view of his rivals' manifest inability to do as well as he does.

He takes the Bill of Rights as a guide to his behavior in office, rather than as a stumbling block to his ambition as his regrettable predecessor did. Those who believe he must be a tyrant simply because of a parenthetical R after his name don't know what tyranny is. That they are not letting their ignorance stop them serves to expose them in all their purblind, gormless silliness.

Friends don't let friends contribute money to the Democrats until and unless that Party wises up. That will take years, probably dynamite, and a night of the long knives. The socialist wing of the Democratic Party stupidly believe they are in the right, and they will claw and bite to retain their vampiric station.

Maybe it's time to join the Party of Adult Thinking. This would be the Libertarians.

I spend a lot of time in the land of the New Age whackos.

It is not uncommon amongst this tribal group to play stupid games with language.

When they start hyphenating non-compound words, I usually stop listening/reading right there, because I know that it's just going to go downhill from that moment on.

Oh, and that's possibly the second grossest misunderstanding of schizophrenia that I have ever seen.

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

Friends don't let friends contribute money to the Democrats until and unless that Party wises up. That will take years, probably dynamite, and a night of the long knives. The socialist wing of the Democratic Party stupidly believe they are in the right, and they will claw and bite to retain their vampiric station.

That's right, this discussion was about paranoid schizophrenics. Thanks for reminding us.

Personally, anyone who actually floats the idea of a marriage amendment to federalize marriage just because his base supporters find homosexuality offensive is no friend of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness).

Whether Bush is an activist true believer or a politician cynically playing to his base, I find his attempts to turn one of the greatest documents ever written into intellectual comfort food repugnant.

Whatever Clinton's sins, he didn't advocate enshrining stupidity into the very foundation of our Republic where it might sit for decades or centuries.

The brain-damaged should not do sarcastic mental evaluation. It's too ironic.

Friends don't let friends contribute money to the Democrats until and unless that Party wises up.

So it isn't just foreigners to wish to dictate too, but everyone. :eyebrow:

Undertoad wrote:

The brain-damaged should not do sarcastic mental evaluation. It's too ironic.

Was that directed to Mari, Urbane, Wolf, or me? Or 'all of the above?'

Marichiko: So is Bush a sociopath or a narcissist or a good old boy who is just doing the best a feller can?
Wolf: I spend a lot of time in the land of the New Age whackos.
Urbane:That they are not letting their ignorance stop them serves to expose them in all their purblind, gormless silliness.
Me:That's right, this discussion was about paranoid schizophrenics. Thanks for reminding us.

Undertoad wrote:

The brain-damaged should not do sarcastic mental evaluation. It's too ironic.

If that was directed at me, all I did was cut and paste someone else's article and ask what other people thought about it. Are you saying the author of the article is brain damaged?

Wolf wrote:

Oh, and that's possibly the second grossest misunderstanding of schizophrenia that I have ever seen.

Bush's malady is quite different from schizophrenia, for example, in which all the different parts of the personality are fragmented and not connected to each other, resulting in a state of internal chaos.

That's as good a one sentence summary of schizophrenia as any other I've come across. What's wrong with it? The rest of the article talks about Bush's pathology which may be real or not, and which the author does NOT call schizophrenia. The author seems to believe that Bush has a personality disorder more akin to pathological narcissism. Whether this is true or not, it would be an interesting explanation for many of George Jr's acts.

Actually, I was watching a summary of the movie 'Grizzly Man'. The profile of Tim Treadwell was that of a man who saved himself from alcoholism and self-destruction by believing in bears. He romanticised them and appeared to overlook their dangerous nature.

IMO, Bush saved himself from a similar situation. He appears to be a 'true believer'. Some of his actions appear to blur the lines between church and state. His belief may have impaired his judgement in failing to recognize the danger of even the slightest move towards a theocratic government in the United States, as long as the theocracy involved is one with which he agrees.

His use of the word 'crusade' was not an accident, or a nod to his base. It was a reflection of his thinking.

Bush's malady is quite different from schizophrenia, for example, in which all the different parts of the personality are fragmented and not connected to each other, resulting in a state of internal chaos.

That's as good a one sentence summary of schizophrenia as any other I've come across. What's wrong with it?

Internal chaos or not, the "split mind" of schizophrenia refers to a disconnect between one's internal thought processes and reality.

It has nothin' to do with a disordered personality.

Utilizing pseudo-psychological terms when all the author is really trying to say is "I hate GWB" is silly and unnecessary.

richlevy wrote:

Was that directed to Mari, Urbane, Wolf, or me? Or 'all of the above?'

Yeah, because if "all of the above," we have to squabble over who gets how much, and whether it's any fair signing over your portion to another. :biggrin:

He romanticised them and appeared to overlook their dangerous nature.

And in the end, brown bears killed him and his camping partner.

wolf wrote:

Internal chaos or not, the "split mind" of schizophrenia refers to a disconnect between one's internal thought processes and reality.

It has nothin' to do with a disordered personality.

Utilizing pseudo-psychological terms when all the author is really trying to say is "I hate GWB" is silly and unnecessary.

Well, Wolf, I'm just a layperson.. But wouldn't one who "experiences a disconnect between his internal thought processes and reality" be considered a "disordered personality," among other things? Wouldn't such a person experience internal chaos? I know a few diagnosed schizophrenics, and they definately seem to be experiencing internal chaos and fragmentation of their personalities. Of course, you have met many more schizo's than I and work in the field, but aren't you splitting hairs, just a bit? :unsure:

Urbane Guerrilla wrote:

And in the end, brown bears killed him and his camping partner.

Jeez, where do you guys find such wierd movies? Do they air them all the time at 3:00am in Cali? That's the wierdest plot line I ever heard of! :eek:

Nope. No hairs to split.

Personality disorders are something else entirely. Your axe-murderer, scam artist paramour? THAT'S a personality disorder.

Most schizophrenics have perfectly fine personalities, believe it or not. It's just hard for most people to tell because of their inability to express or sometimes understand emotion.

(it's kind of like dealing with hardcore computer geeks, only without the pocket protectors.)

marichiko wrote:

Jeez, where do you guys find such wierd movies? Do they air them all the time at 3:00am in Cali? That's the wierdest plot line I ever heard of! :eek:

Actually, it has a national release this week. It's not a plot line, it's a documentary. Actually, it's a real life "Blair Witch" in which the camera was recovered after the two people were eaten by one or more grizzly bears.

It starts as a nature film, but the film is really about a man whose solved his personal crisis by fixating on bears.

wolf wrote:

Nope. No hairs to split.

Personality disorders are something else entirely. Your axe-murderer, scam artist paramour? THAT'S a personality disorder.

Most schizophrenics have perfectly fine personalities, believe it or not. It's just hard for most people to tell because of their inability to express or sometimes understand emotion.

(it's kind of like dealing with hardcore computer geeks, only without the pocket protectors.)

Well, that's interesting. So a schizphrenic wouldn't know the difference between what's real and not, but someone with a personality disorder would KNOW, and perhaps pretend that he didn't? Is that it?

Pretend that he didn't or not actually care.

Query: Is that it?

Kind of. It's rather a lot more complex than that, of course.

WOW! So like the ax murderer would have possibly understood that his version of reality was false, but he would have felt a sort of sublime indifference to this fact?

richlevy wrote:

Actually, it has a national release this week. It's not a plot line, it's a documentary. Actually, it's a real life "Blair Witch" in which the camera was recovered after the two people were eaten by one or more grizzly bears.

It starts as a nature film, but the film is really about a man whose solved his personal crisis by fixating on bears.

Well, if he got eaten or killed or whatever, it doesn't sound like much of a solution to me. He'd have been better off joining AA! :headshake

I'm going with richlevy on this one...I liked your point


then again..all I want to say... otherwise is look at Kansan favorite the BTK killer.. uh... church leader and then again someone who took his name from blind torture kill.. uh... bush is a whackjob.

and crap! are we going to get into a psychological abyss!?!?!? oh wait.. analitical arguement of something we have absolutley no access to? uh... okay I'm game. bush is a whack job... unrepaired alcoholc.. megalomaniac.. I dunno never met the guy.. but.. there is something wrong with him.. give the nancy sheehan case.. uh.. what's so wrong (with being of the 'leader' of the free world and having a word with the woman?) I don't know but I tell ya it really un-nerves me even more about the guy.. your're scared of a citizen? uh.. Abraham Lincoln would (and did) talk with the masses... these are not my old republican party... ah! and what a party it was.. mmmm tailhook et al.

When Clinton was in office, righties accused him of having a psychological problem too.

My theory is that the people who accuse Presidents of having psychological problems, have psychological problems. They kind of know they are being stupid and delusional, but they are sublimely indifferent to it.

Undertoad wrote:

When Clinton was in office, righties accused him of having a psychological problem too.

My theory is that the people who accuse Presidents of having psychological problems, have psychological problems. They kind of know they are being stupid and delusional, but they are sublimely indifferent to it.

Well, being human, they probably do. The question is whether a person's emotional and psychological baggage interferes with their job.

If Bush had simply been ethical, but recognized that there are other religions and viewpoints, there wouldn't be a problem. Looking at his positions on stem cells, abstinence-only education, intelligent design, etc, it seems that he cannot separate his personal beliefs with his policy beliefs.

It's obiously wonderful that he saved himself. What isn't is that he believes the exact same process and beliefs are right for 250 million other people. No other president seems to have had this problem.

No other president seems to have had this problem.

Can't be sure of that. With a press that kept a "respectful distance/silence" and a Congress that wasn't filled with sheep, it would be hard to tell. :eyebrow:

That's a load of hooey Rich, and I disagree with Bush on each of those issues. Every President pushes things their way. They get to do that because they are elected. If you can't see it, it's because you believe that Clinton's issues, such as gays in the military and federally socialized medicine, are the necessary course of action, not just a personal belief imposed on an unwilling country in the name of leadership.

Undertoad wrote:

That's a load of hooey Rich, and I disagree with Bush on each of those issues. Every President pushes things their way. They get to do that because they are elected. If you can't see it, it's because you believe that Clinton's issues, such as gays in the military and federally socialized medicine, are the necessary course of action, not just a personal belief imposed on an unwilling country in the name of leadership.

Except that Clinton was expanding freedoms rather than restricting them, while maintaining a separation of church and state.

That's a load of hooey and you can't see it because you believe that gun restrictions, expansion of the federal death penalty, increased taxes, the DMCA, and attacking Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Waco, TX were necessary courses of action and not at all restricting freedom.

As long as they separate church and state, I guess. Well except for Waco, I guess.

Undertoad wrote:

That's a load of hooey and you can't see it because you believe that gun restrictions, expansion of the federal death penalty, increased taxes, the DMCA, and attacking Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Waco, TX were necessary courses of action and not at all restricting freedom.

As long as they separate church and state, I guess. Well except for Waco, I guess.

You seem to be on "hooey" overload today, UT. Clinton attacks "Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq" and he was wrong? Bush attacks Iraq and he was right? You've lost me.

As far as Clinton being a champion for the cause of a national medical care program versus Bush's stance on stem cell research, abstinence-only education, and intelligent design, among others: The last I heard, there is no religous group that pushes national health care as part of their agenda. Although the thought of national health care makes you break out in "hooey" fits, UT, a rational, scientific argument can be made in its favor. Not so with the Bush issues, which are backed largely by fundamentalist Christian nut case groups. :eyebrow:

wolf wrote:

Utilizing pseudo-psychological terms when all the author is really trying to say is "I hate GWB" is silly and unnecessary.

Hear, hear.

At this point in the game, any more justification for hating Bush is just redundant and asinine. Instead of boorishly coming up with more factoids to support your dislike for the guy, why not just say it and shut up?!

Mr.Anon.E.Mouse wrote:

--snip--

why not just say it and shut up?!

This will never happen.

BigV wrote:

This will never happen.

Why not? What more is there to be said?

Mr.Anon.E.Mouse wrote:

Why not? What more is there to be said?

Generally one is expected to give a reason or reasons for making such a strong utterance as "I HATE George Jr.!" There is always somebody ready to take up the cudgel in poor Junior's defense and yet another incendiary thread with 500 posts is born. You haven't been around here that long? This IS The Cellar, after all! :eyebrow:

it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's like you and others are participating in a pissing match, trying to out-do the others with your reasoning and your ability to substantiate our point of view. Seems like, after a while, you'd find it a waste of time. unless, of course, it's just another way to toot your own horns and demonstrate your typing skills....

Best Lileks moment ever

Each side is guilty of this - in the 90s a substantial contingent of the right was convinced that Gov. Bill Clinton ran coke out of Mena. It's almost as if you have two options:

1. I disagree with my opponent's position on taxation, and therefore I shall oppose it.

2. I disagree with my opponent's position on taxation, and therefore I believe he has sex with goats.

Mr.Anon.E.Mouse wrote:

it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It's like you and others are participating in a pissing match, trying to out-do the others with your reasoning and your ability to substantiate our point of view. Seems like, after a while, you'd find it a waste of time. unless, of course, it's just another way to toot your own horns and demonstrate your typing skills....

Well, I'm pretty worthless at pissing matches. I leave those to the ones with the equipment to piss high and far. I always dissolve into puddles, myself. As for my typing skills, well Wolf keeps my ego pretty in line about those. My reasoning? I bet UT has a pithy comment about THAT!

Nah, to tell the truth, the debates around here are pretty clever for the most part, and keep me amused. They also keep me off the streets for which my neighbors are deeply grateful. ;)

Mari--I always done knoe'd you was a hore.

Now--endevor to be a GOOD 'hore.

Brianna wrote:

Mari--I always done knoe'd you was a hore.

Now--endevor to be a GOOD 'hore.

Yassm'm. I sho be tryin'! :lol:

I disagree with my opponent's position on taxation, and therefore I believe he has sex with goats.

While in that position, lest we forget. :blush:

As for Mena, Arkansas, well, that Clinton pair are famed for incontinently moneygrubbing 24-7-366 on leap years and for doing the wrong thing whenever possible at any time. Such evidence as there is in the matter suggests the smoke has a fire under it, rather than that there's nothing there.

marichiko wrote:

As for my typing skills, well Wolf keeps my ego pretty in line about those.

Actually, if ZippyT ever makes mention of your ability to type, THEN you have truly been schooled.

Undertoad wrote:

That's a load of hooey and you can't see it because you believe that gun restrictions, expansion of the federal death penalty, increased taxes, the DMCA, and attacking Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Waco, TX were necessary courses of action and not at all restricting freedom.

As long as they separate church and state, I guess. Well except for Waco, I guess.

It looks like we're in trouble, then. :eek:

Charming satire.

Post something real next time.

wolf wrote:

Charming satire.

Post something real next time.

What? You don't believe the esteemed Mr. Watley? :eyebrow: