or
Join Now!
|
|
Home/Government/Politics
|
| Forum |
Ask A Question |
Question Board |
FAQs |
Search |
Return to Question Board
| Question Details |
Asked By |
Asked On |
| Bush's erratic behaviour explained? GOP said to be "very worried!" |
Erewhon |
05/13/06 |
All the presidents' minds
By ALEX MASSIE IN WASHINGTON
IT IS as demanding and stressful a job as any, making extraordinary demands upon the 42 men who have held the post.
Lyndon Johnson complained that being president of the United States was an "unrelenting business" in which work was "always there to be done", to the point where "it became a question of how much the physical constitution could take".
Now, researchers writing in the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease have concluded that half the presidents in US history suffered from mental illness.
Three professors of psychiatry at the prestigious Duke University in North Carolina analysed presidential biographies and other historical records before concluding that
18 of the 37 presidents who served between 1776 and 1974 suffered from psychiatric disorders.
Of those 18, at least ten suffered psychiatric problems while in office which, more often than not, may have affected their performance in the job. The sole exception cited by the Duke psychiatrists was Teddy Roosevelt, whose bipolar disorder seems not to have hampered his muscular approach to the presidency.
The pattern of poor mental health runs from the founding fathers to Richard Nixon. John Adams, the second president, suffered from depression while his successor, Thomas Jefferson, was hampered by social phobia.
Depression was the most common diagnosis, occurring in 24 per cent of cases, followed by anxiety (8 per cent), bipolar disorder (8 per cent) and alcoholism (8 per cent). Other depressives included Dwight Eisenhower, Rutherford Hayes, James Madison, James Garfield and John Quincy Adams.
Of Woodrow Wilson, the researchers noted: "The development of paranoia and other mental changes, which could have amplified his rigidity of character, perhaps prevented him from taking advantage of his opportunities as president of the world's most powerful country after the First World War."
Wilson's predecessor, William Taft, was accused by one biographer of losing interest in the presidency. His administration was characterised as one of "drift, drift, drift - little attempted, nothing done". The professors say Taft "coped with the stress of the presidency by overeating to the point of massive obesity, and obstructive sleep apnoea meant that he probably could not give full attention to the job".
However they note that "no national calamities appear to have occurred due to presidential mental illness".
Although the research further dents the already tarnished notion of presidential omnipotence, the researchers argue that publicising the psychiatric problems suffered by presidents is beneficial. "Presidents are seen to be human, and if so many of them have a major psychiatric disorder, it could at least lessen the long-standing stigma toward mental illness," they argue.
Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University in Washington, said: "There are certain aspects of any powerful politician's career which make it quite rational for a president to be mentally troubled."
===
Should sitting presidents be subject to monthly psychiatric evaluation to ensure that they are sane and not behaving strangely, as the present incumbent is doing?
|
Clarification/Follow-up by quixotic_Choux on 05/13/06 7:13 pm:
After the first paragraph, I was speaking generally, not about the Bush Administration.
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/15/06 3:35 pm:
No, Ronnie, I just think that he's not in the 37 Presidents that served between 1776 and 1974, nor is he one of the 18 that showed signs of psychological illness during that period. The article makes no reference to Bush, and it doesn't try to equate the mental health of any of the prior presidents to Bush. The only one doing that is YOU, and based on no evidence. I'm just wondering why? Do you hate Bush so much that you have to intimate that he's mentally unbalanced in order to make yourself feel better?
Elliot Clarification/Follow-up by Erewhon on 05/15/06 5:00 pm:
I can see a man as a disaster without hating him. Bush is obviously not level headed. Just follow him closely and discover this simple fact for yourself.
You don't have to be a genius to see he is unbalanced.
Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 05/15/06 6:57 pm:
Actually, what I see, Ronnie, is a guy who is very balanced.
Here is a guy who, after his country was attacked, said that he was going to go after the terrorists and any regime that supports them. He did so in Afghanistan, and then turned his attention to Iraq. He warned Saddam Hussein that if he didn't confirm his WMDs had been disarmed to the UN, he would take action. Saddam refused to comply for a full year and a half. During that year and a half Bush did everything he could to convince the UN to take action. The UN and its members refused, despite having similar information that pointed to the continued existance of WMDs in Iraq. So the USA formed a coalition of over 100 countries and took the action that the UN refused to take. It took Bush 18 months to build up to the war, during which Saddam could have stopped the entire buildup by simply complying with the agreements that he signed in 1991.
(Subsequently, we found out two important pieces of information: 1) That France, Germany and Russia were involved in the Oil-for Food scam, and refused to take action in Iraq because they were too busy getting rich from Iraq, and 2) Saddam DID have WMDs and was trying to hide them, and DOCUMENTED these efforts for his own records.)
An 18-month buildup is NOT a rash decision by a person with mental problems.
Since then, Bush has been pushing for the coalition to stay the course in Iraq. The results have been encouraging (though you wouldn't know it to hear the mainstream media). 25 million Iraqis are now free of Saddam's rule, and are ruling themselves, and though the terrorists have killed some people, they are not able to derail that freedom and democracy. The Iraqi people are optimistic about their future, and the majority want the US and coalition troops to stay the course as well.
Insanity would be pulling out of Iraq precipitously and hoping that the Iraqis can handle security for themselves without any preparation. Pulling out and backing down has never worked for us. That is what we did in Vietnam, and that is what we did in Mogadishu, and neither of those ended up working out fo us. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. Pulling out again, which has never worked out, and hoping that this time it would work out would be insanity.
Bush has chosen a different course, one that has a much better chance of success. That makes him remarkably sane.
Bush has not simply engaged Iran in combat, though he has certainly had the provocation to do so, including threats from and statements by Iran regarding the use of nukes against the USA, Europe and Israel, and sale of nuclear technology to the enemies of the USA. Bush has not only held back from attacking precipitously, he has held Israel back from doing so either. He is allowing diplomacy to have a chance. At the same time, he is having his military experts plan for the possibility that we WILL end up at war with Iran.
This too is a remarkably sane course of action: hoping for the best and preparing for the worst, and allowing events to take their course before acting precipitously.
In fact, on every policy decision he has made, domestic and foreign, he has acted with incredible calm and composure. He has outwitted his political opponents time and again, and done so without losing control. I may not agree with every policy decision, but I admire the thoughtfulness and composure with which he approaches even policy decisions that I disagree with.
I have no idea why the MSM continues to try to paint Bush as a dumb hick, a Machiavellian schemer, and a lunatic, all at once, especially when he so consistantly proves each of those accusations wrong.
That's not to say that Bush hasn't made mistakes. But even the mistakes are well-thought-out. Poorly communicated to the public? Absolutely. But still, well-thought-out and deliberate.
Bush is PROACTIVE not REACTIVE, and proactivity takes thoughtfulness.
Elliot
|
| |
|
Your Options |
Additional Options are only visible when you login! !
|
|
|
|
