This link posits a theory which I believe is serious but may be wrong. Katherine van Wormer is a Professor of Social Work at the University of Northern Iowa Co-author of Addiction Treatment: A Strengths Perspective (2002). She has a Ph.D. in sociology, but not in psychology.
Any recovering alcoholics, or caregivers, family or supporters of recovering alcoholics out there
who can verify this?
Van Wormer links this term to President Bush thus:
Even I remembered Reagan’s “evil empire,” and as much as I disliked him I never thought he was warped by anything but wrong-headedness. I don’t know that it’s been established that GWB invented “axis of evil” or that “evil doers,” “infinite justice,” or even “crusade” in the context of the war on terror were not written for him by others. I’d like some input from Dopers on that.
I agree with some of these, but are they more than opinions?
Katherine van Wormer is an expert on sociology, but is she right abaout this? Nothing in the article indicates her politics. Is she objective, or does she have an axe to grind?
Some of you know I am not a fan George W. Bush, but I realize that he is advised by a flock of hawks, many of whom worked for his father. What say you?
So… she describes a pathology and then attributes it to someone without actually interviewing them?
Well, I’M convinced.
Just kidding. I don’t know if van Wormer is anti-Bush or not, but nothing in the article suggests she ever spoke to him, and I’d treat with suspicion any such remote-diagnosis. I think she suffers from what I call “Tiger Potter” syndrome. The symptoms of this syndrome include:
[ul][li]Writing articles of dubious value, but making sure to include references to Tiger Woods, Harry Potter or a similarly famous name.[/li][li]Attempting to gain fame by proxy, though the sufferer may never have actually met Woods, or read Potter, or had any interaction with the famous-name subject of the article.[/li][li]When the short-term gain of including a famous name fades, syndrome sufferers typically descend back into obscurity.[/li][/ul]
I only hope van Wormer isn’t a terminal case.
You could probably attribute all of those things to lots of people. Especially those that have an outlook different to your own.
I could probably find instances where the Prime Minister of my country displayed behaviour consistent with them. And the Leader of the Opposition. Heck, I could probably get the Pope with that list.
That’s a long way short of proving that they have brains damaged by alcohol, or anything else.
Well, despite the infamous Drunk Driving incident 20+ years ago(That seems to be the basis of so many of the “Bush is a Drunk” comments), when did he give up drinking? I’d like to know that before I make any judgements on it.
I don’t put much creedence into rhetoric whose major support is simply that its a matter of AA doctrine. AA philosophy is impassioned, but it doesn’t always bear a strong relation to the results of research on addiction. A lot of its rhetoric, particularly “dry drunk” is far too all-encompassing and unfalsifiable in my book.
And being an expert on sociology is not a great sign for someone attempting to diagnose psychological conditions related to addiction. Not to mention when it is applied from afar to a public figure: a practice that is remarkably sloppy and prone all sorts of distortion.
So, in summary, I don’t care if it’s an attack on Bush or not: it’s not the sort of methodology I think anyone should be happy with.
According to the linked article, he gave up drinking when he was 40, which would have been in 1986 or 1987.
I’m no Bush fan, but this article sounds too much like armchair psychology for me – and as others have said, who among us doesn’t display impatience, childish behavior, overreaction, etc. on occasion?
It isn’t just 1 DWI (and Cheney has 2, let us not forget). Bush has admitted in interviews that he was a heavy drinker until the age of 40, when Laura gave him an ultimatum - alcohol or his marriage. That isn’t quite an admission of true alcoholism, but it’s close enough.
It’s my experience, and YMMV, that it’s common for recovering alcoholics or drug addicts to adopt religion instead, perhaps as a simple change of addiction by an addictive personality. The loudest Bible-thumpers I know of talk about how they were going down the tubes with an addiction before being saved, and no doubt that’s how they sincerely feel.
Dubya stops a little short of that in his (scripted) public statements, but he has made no real secret of his feeling that God is personally guiding him and that contrary opinions need not be considered.
But the dry-drunk stuff is too much extrapolation for me.
I think the theory, if anything, gives too much credit to GWB. The implication is that he is solely responsible for his policies and speeches. From his occasional stabs at impromptu remarks, I think it’s pretty clear that GWB doesn’t write his own speeches (how many Presidents have, particularly since the middle of the 20th century?), and I’d say it’s a fair bet that his policies are heavily influenced by the people with whom he’s surrounded himself.
Maybe Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Card are the “dry drunks!”
I’m definitely no fan of Dubya, but I’ll tell ya…AA and their “dry drunk” load of crap are dangerous as well. They consider anyone who hasn’t been saved in the religious sense to be a Dry Drunk. It’s bullshit. If you’re not drinking, you’re not a drunk. Period. That said, Bush strikes me as having a bit of a Messiah Complex. I’m offended that someone in his band said something like, “What do these protestors think they’re doing? Public opinion has nothing to do with going to war!” Fuck that dry drunk crap. AA won’t be happy until everyone is carrying a bible.
Actually, I’ve encountered an atheist AA member. His version of the “higher power” is that the dynamic ability of a cooperating group is greater than what a single individual can muster. So he replaced God with “The Collective”.
Brrr…
Just checking in to say one of my best and wisest friends is also an atheist AA member. His Higher Power could best be described as “the flow of the Universe.”
Aren’t A.A. members forbidden to take anything mood-altering whatsoever? If that is the case, and if Bush really was on tranquilizers as was rumored after his recent press-conference, he is no longer “dry” (or “clean” or whatever you want to call it). He is already off the wagon. So this is really a non-issue.
