I’m just curious how everyone would weigh modern media scrutiny vs a president who can hide alcoholism. If the alcoholism was discovered, since it is high-function, would it even be a story? Or would it be laughed off as an SNL cold open with a slurred impersonation?
Does it come out, and if so, how IYHO?
You have to specify what you mean. A high functioning alcholic could be someone who drinks a lot but the drinking causes no problems in his life. If you mean someone who drinks until he passes out, or displays other obvious signs of intoxication it can’t be covered up for long. If he’s done nothing publicly and keeps it under control he might get by with a few jokes. But it’s near impossible to keep anything covered up anymore.
An awful lot of people suspected Bush the younger of being a “dry alcoholic.” How can anyone know for sure?
I think it was well known among White House people that Nixon was a drunk. And the press probably knew too. The press doesn’t do things that will limit their access, like tell about alcoholism, sexcapades of Kennedy, or things like that.
Example, Speaker of the House John Boehner frequently appears to me to be shitfaced slurring drunk and weepy. The weepy part gets a mention, but the plainly drunk? Not in the mainstream press. Silence.
Washington is a drinking town. But the only people I heard get regularly excoriated for it was Tip O’Neill (due to the big red nose and that might have been a disease, or not) and Christopher Hitchens who was fairly open about being “drink soaked”.
Runs with the dogs at night, but soars with the eagles in the morning. He wouldn’t appear drunk in public and would do an impressive job at managing hangovers, but he’s secretly nipping all day culminating in tying one on and passing out to sleep most nights.
Also, in reply to the references to JFK and Nixon upthread, their presidencies can’t really have been said to have been exposed to modern media. No 24 news cycle let alone internet and clips going viral. Look how much one private speech went viral and was a the final nail in Romney’s coffin.
I’d think the word would get out that he was a drinker, nothing more. A few jokes, but unless some particular incident was exposed nothing much would come of it. If he made some particular political blunder it might be attributed to drinking, but there would be a lot of partisan bickering about the propriety about such stories and a large portion of the populace would consider it to exagerration and lies.
However, puking on a visiting dignitary or passing out on the White House lawn would pretty easily cement the image of a drunk in people’s minds.
I love AA-speak. To them, absolutely everything is about alcohol, even in its absence. A “dry drunk” is an asshole, whether or not he has ethanol in his system. Insisting that the behavior is alcohol-centric is nonsense.
As to the OP, I don’t think a person who is as endlessly visible as the President could hide alcoholism very long, even with the heavy insulation of the Secret Service. One or two incidents where his addiction crosses with necessary public visibility, and the secret is toast.
I think you may have a misunderstanding about how folks in AA generally use the term “dry drunk”. In my experience, which spans many years and several states, the term is used to describe someone who has successfully stopped drinking alcohol, but who has not addressed the emotional issues that AA believes underlie the addiction. I have most often heard it used when people were describing themselves during a period of abstinence that did not include any attempt to work the 12 steps. The term, in my view, is the opposite of alcohol-centric. It stems from the belief that some people have profound issues with their personalities and approach to life that need to be addressed. Removing alcohol from the equation, or never adding it to begin with, doesn’t change the problems with the person.
After the Klinton years, nothing seems to be off the table.
We’d just pass it off as a result of the ‘job’ and jokingly that brothers need their 40s.
Then again, Reagan was probably the last non heavy drinking President? Maybe Bush senior?
Perhaps. I have had a series of AA family members and acquaintances, and all of them used the term as a dismissive generality for someone who was several kinds of jerk. In their view, it was alcohol - even absent - that was causing the behavior; in the cases where I knew the person, I think they’d be the same obnoxious asswipe drunk, dry or loaded on thorazine.
In any case, you’re confirming my perception by saying that “drunk” or “alcoholic” applies to someone who is not drinking. Yes, I understand the AA stance that one is always and forevermore an alcoholic, various ameliorative adjectives aside. I still find the viewpoint that a person’s behavior is “drunk” or “alcoholic” when they are sober to be a peculiar and limited notion.
I’ve heard the term ‘dry drunk’ applied to people who don’t drink at all. I think it’s a synonym for ‘asshole’.
Was Clinton a heavy drinker? He certainly fits the description and look.