Horsefeathers - HOWARD DEAN, DIAGNOSTICIAN: HE KNOWS "ISSUES"

Search

January 15, 2004

HOWARD DEAN, DIAGNOSTICIAN: HE KNOWS "ISSUES"

Psychobabble alert!

Howard Dean may long ago have abandoned the Hippocratic oath, in favor of political ambition, but he hasn't forgotten how to pathologize.

"Dean: Bush obsessed with father's failure
Recommends psychotherapy, suggests Iraq war motivated by revenge."

Horsefeathers singles out, as part of its mission, the cant word that has gained special contemporary prominence: "issues". You've got "issues", we've got "issues", all of God's chillun' got "issues". But Howard Dean will alert you. Howard Dean will help you. He's concerned. He cares. He doesn't have 'issues'. Instead, his medical education, his Hippocratic oath leads him to say of President Bush: "Do I think the president needs psychotherapy? I recommend it; I think it's a great thing for everybody who is struggling with issues..."
Thanks Howard, we needed that!

Email This Entry

Comments

Thanks, Stephen, Americans need to be reminded that when someone calls another person crazy that it's not really a professional opinion (Americans are so gullible); likewise, when someone says "don't quit your day job," it would be a shame if anyone interpreted that as the opinion of a professional employment counselor.

However, when someone like Charles Krauthammer starts to talk about his professional psychiatric qualifications, and then diagnoses someone he's never met, then it's OK — because he has training, and can speak accurately about people he's never met. It's the Howard Deans who might fool America into thinking that therapy is really needed.

Posted by: Frank at January 15, 2004 06:37 PM

And what would you say, Frank, about people like Bate or the various modern biographers--Gilbert, Manchester, et.al.? I would argue that there's a difference between intelligent psychological observation, on the one hand, and cant, psychobabble on the other. It's not a matter of credentials. There are good and bad psychiatrists. I like Krauthammer, but don't think he possesses any special psychological insight. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. I think Bate is wrong to deny the existence of sexual conflicts in Johnson--but he's not a psychobabbler. He makes plausible arguments, uses evidence and logic and wins respect by assuming the reader's intelligence. On the other hand, a Maureen Dowd, like Howard Dean is a shallow psychobabbler, not bothering to muster logic, reason or evidence to make a point. They both assume their readers are dolts who are incapable of questioning their assertions.

Posted by: Stephen at January 15, 2004 07:18 PM

So are you saying you have spent as much time analyzing Maureen Dowd — not just her columns, but her letters, diaries, and memoirs of others' about her — as Bate did Johnson?

Obviously you know I don't approve of Krauthammer's psychobabble, but I'd be a little more comfortable about it if he didn't act like it was a professional opinion when he espoused his long-distance and relatively superficial observations, which is what he has done too often by mentioning his credentials.

(RE Johnson's sexual conflicts, I dont think Bate really denies them nearly as much as Boswell did. IIRC Bate went into a long discussion about the meaning of the letter M in Johnson's diaries, and concluded it meant Johnson had noted that he'd masturbated; Bate also went into Johnson's desires for a second wife. The only one I remember him downplaying was the note about the chains, and whether that suggested an interest in sexual bondage. But we digress...)

Posted by: Frank at January 15, 2004 08:02 PM

Frank,
Surely you don't believe it takes as much time to recognize idiocy, as exemplified by Maureen Dowd---(no diagnosis there), as it does to understand Johnson. What a sad dumbing down, from The Rambler to the NYTimes Op-Ed pages.

Posted by: Stephen at January 15, 2004 08:14 PM

Personally, I wouldn't describe Maureen Dowd as an idiot, even though I think her columns are silly and not worth the time of day. And I wouldn't want to describer her as mad or lacking an "anchor to reality" without having spent adequate clinical time observiing her — even if I did have adequate credentials. I just don't think psychiatry is the kind of field one should practice on people they've never studied, wouldn't you agree?

Posted by: Frank at January 15, 2004 08:26 PM

Describing someone as unanchored to reality is well within the bounds of intelligent psychological observation. I don't know Sheik Rantisi, but can safely say he's deranged. Can't help it if I'm a psychiatrist who has considerable experience with disordered thinking. And no, it's not necessary to know a person intimately to recognize disturbances of thinking. That's not the same thing as a diagnostic formulation. I'm sure you've done it yourself when someone begins muttering to you about radio waves directing him to run for the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: Stephen at January 15, 2004 08:40 PM

Of course I have — but if I had professional credentials, I wouldn't use them to puff up the value of my opinions.

Just what makes you think, by the way, that Maureen Dowd's columns are representative of her overall grip on reality? Do you think, for instance, that Donald Luskin approaches everything in his life with analytical precision?

Posted by: Frank at January 15, 2004 08:53 PM

I don't know Luskin's writing that well---have only read him occasionally so can't say. I know he challenges Krugman regularly. He may be wrong, may be selective with economic evidence but I haven't noticed disordered thinking, loose associations, concrete thinking etc. On the other hand, Dowd has been on a downward, disintegrating path for a while. Her writing has become increasingly bizarre and incoherent. I would be concerned about her and wonder whether a friendly editor might already have intervened. Maybe her 40+ days away from her Op-Ed column were put to good use. I might be wrong--after all I don't know her personally--but I don't think so.

Posted by: Stephen at January 15, 2004 09:08 PM

I honestly don't have the slightest interest in defending the merit of her columns (I don't find any), all I'm saying is that I wouldn't extrapolate from them to infer her mental balance. And if I did call her loopy, I would hope that everyone would take it as an expression, and certainly not as anything close to the kind of opinion a psychiatrist develops after a long period of psycho analysis. And because I expect people would know better than to take me seriously, I expect them to consider Dean's remarks the same way — and not think he was over-reaching. If Dean is over-reaching, then we all do the same everytime we say "Are you crazy?"

Posted by: Frank at January 15, 2004 09:26 PM

The question I have is this: What does it say about Dr. Dean's own psychological makeup that he can't seem to get his mind around any other possible "issue" for the war beyond some harebrained speculation about "revenge"?

Posted by: Bernard at January 15, 2004 11:09 PM

Is there a transcript of the interview available anywhere? I didn't read what he was saying as merely revenge, I also thought Dean was trying to talk about a dimension of going beyond what his father had done...

Posted by: Frank at January 16, 2004 07:36 AM

Not the entire interview, just excerpts.
Here

Posted by: Stephen at January 16, 2004 08:14 AM

Thanks for the link. The excerpts, though, look pretty mild, and the only psychological thing is his speculation about "He's interested in some complicated psychological situation that he has with his father. He is obsessed with being re-elected, and his obsession with re-election is hurting the country." That part doesn't read like revenge so much as wanting to redeem the family name by going beyond one term (to me, anyway). Guess I'll have to buy a copy.

Posted by: Frank at January 16, 2004 08:57 AM

Bought my first copy of Rolling Stone in perhaps 15 years today. I have to tell you, the stuff he says is pretty benign. And he doesn't flout his medical credentials: it's Rolling Stone which refers to him as a doctor (Dean does indicate it once, mentioning that he has a scientific perspective and is unlikely to listen to emotional arguments).

I recommend you read the full interview: he doesn't come off as either raving or unelectable.

Posted by: Frank at January 16, 2004 06:54 PM

It's amusing to watch the mainstream media panic at the prospect of Dean as the (loser) Dem. nominee. Suddenly, they've decided his wife is a dreadful liability (see MoDo's latest) and one of his bodyguards is a wifebeater! It looks to me like they're (briefly) falling in love with Wesley Clark, the anti-war general. Calls to mind George Orwell's definition of a liberal: "A power lover without the power".

Posted by: Stephen at January 16, 2004 07:28 PM

Online casino

Posted by: online casino at August 25, 2004 09:38 AM

Texas Holdem

Posted by: Texas Holdem at August 30, 2004 04:47 AM

Online Degrees

Posted by: Online degrees at August 30, 2004 08:15 AM

mortgage calculator

Posted by: mortgage calculator at August 31, 2004 04:32 AM

Flooring

Posted by: Flooring at August 31, 2004 12:56 PM

Traffic School