A few weeks ago, The National Enquirer printed a story which claimed that President Bush had begun drinking again. I declined to report on that story at the time, only partly because I was concerned about its source.
While most of the blogs that helped publicize the story were careful to point out that it was only rumor (and that the NE has a history of picking up on true stories before the MSM would touch them), there was something about it that bothered me.
I realized what it was when I got the following message from a friend, who was responding to this article. He has given me permission to post it here:
In the interest of full disclosure, I admit this issue strikes close to home. I went through alcoholism treatment back in 1979. After more than 20 years of abstinence I relapsed, at what turned out to be a most inconvenient time. For an alcoholic, there are no reasons or excuses for a relapse, just precipitating circumstances. As Roseanne Roseannadanna would say, “If it isn’t one thing, it’s another.”
Mine coincided with events that were outside my control, but I made a number of bad decisions while I was drinking that both contributed to bringing about those events and made my response to them less effective than it otherwise would have been. Eighteen months after finally pulling myself together, I’m still sorting through the ruins of what used to be my life.
I’m lucky, though, because I still have a life to rebuild — including the health, energy, and positive outlook to do so. My partner, who went through all of this with me, hasn’t been so lucky: one consequence of his relapse was to inflict further damage to a heart that was already damaged; he’s still in the hospital as I write (a charity case). Another is a depression that he can’t seem to pull out of.
It may turn out to be true that Bush has relapsed, but I for one won’t go to the mat on the basis of anonymous sources published in the National Inquirer (let alone a psychiatrist who likes to diagnose from afar). If he has, I hope he’s able to stop drinking on his own, because he sure as hell won’t get the real treatment he needs (he’s never had treatment of any kind) — that wouldn’t be politically expedient.
I hope he stops not only for himself, but for all of us. Contrary to what this writer thinks, a drinking Bush is a lot more dangerous to the country than Nixon ever was. Between Cheney’s heart problems and Rove’s legal problems, there’s no one in the West Wing with enough influence over Bush to control him. The last thing we need is a drunk Bush wanting to go “mano a mano” with the world, like he famously did with his father when he was young.
Most of all, I would never wish on anyone the experience of going down the tubes the way a drinking alcoholic does. That’s something I can’t bring myself to even attempt to describe.
I’ve wished, many times, that President Bush could feel a tenth of the suffering that his political choices have inflicted on soldiers injured in this misguided war of choice; on the parents and families of soldiers killed in action; on the men, women, and children left stranded at the New Orleans Convention Center after Hurricane Katrina; or on countless others, at home and abroad.
But I think that the message above makes an important point: while it’s fine to wish political destruction on President Bush, personal destruction is an entirely different story — especially while he’s still behind the figurative wheel of the nation.
My question for you is this: should there be limits on the ills we wish on our political enemies? Can a political leader do so much damage to other lives that wishing the same on them can be justified? Has political dialogue in this country deteriorated to the point that the answers to those questions no longer matter?
I would ask these questions of both liberals and conservatives — as Bush himself or his Swift-Boat friends could testify, this type of mud-slinging is not at all limited to the left side of the aisle.
Update: Something tells me that Hunter would not agree with this post.
19 Comments on "The Politics of Personal Destruction"
mac:
I have this discussion from time to time with various people. I like to believe that Democrats can successfully compete without resorting to the time-honored tactics of lies and personal attacks that Republicans seem to have perfected [keeping in mind I’m completely aware that this kind of crap goes on in every major political party]. I like the idea that Democrats can somehow be above it and win elections simply by caring more about the citizens of this country and being better, more ethical people.
And then the person I’m having a conversation with stops laughing and tells me to get a grip.
Politics has advanced to such a state that it’s rare to find middle ground. Everyone feels the need to fight fire with fire — so if you’re of the opinion that Republicans took a certain delight in slinging mudball after mudball at President Clinton to see what would stick [and I am of that opinion], you don’t necessarily feel badly about taking delight in the downfall of Republican debacles. With each side feeling justified for feeling the way they do [and politicians doing nothing to bring both sides together], I can’t ever see a time when the bitterness and schadenfreude will stop.
somegirl:
fuck that. fuck bush. i don’t care how he goes down as long as he does.
he long ago gave up the right to pull the victim card. no hell i great enough for him.
Frank:
I’m with somegirl…screw him…he ruined thousands - if not millions - of lives…I hope he pukes up his gall bladder one day…
Mark (the long cut):
I might be a little more sympathetic to the guy if he had ever ever admitted that he has made mistakes. But he can’t, because the Right believes that showing any chink in your armor, personal or political, is to open yourself up to attack. They believe this because they have made this type of attack their number one campaign tactic. Christ, they impeached a President for a personal matter. So forgive us if we experience a little schadenfreude.
Rod:
I think Matt’s right. We’ve been hearing doublespeak out of this administration for a long time now, to the point where many words no longer have any meaning. So when Bush says things like, “I’m a man of peace,” or “I’m a man of faith,” or that he’s “compassionate,” it makes most sane people’s heads spin. So I think it behooves those of us who want those words to continue to mean something real to demonstrate by example that we continue to understand what “compassion” really means. Alcoholism isn’t a joke, either in the personal sense of what it does to an individual’s life, or in the wider sense of how it affects those around him or her. In this particular case, the ramifications are obviously far wider than they might be for a “regular” person who might screw up at work and make their families miserable because of their disease. In this case, the power that the person in question has to change our lives in what have usually been quite terrible ways. It’s hard to imagine how our lives could become much worse by this man’s hand, but the idea of him relapsing into alcoholism doesn’t bear thinking about in terms of his continued ability to govern, not that he was capable of governing in the first damn place. I think of those commercials that say, “Has your life been affected by someone else’s drinking?” and now they have a slightly different connotation, which would almost be amusing if it weren’t so scary. But that shouldn’t change the fact that this person, like anyone else, has a history of problems and that we shouldn’t use them to score points. However, the question of whether or not this latest development might be true, and if it is whether it is making them even more unfit for office than they were before is one that’s hard to avoid in a larger political sense.
Convoluted liberal, thy name is Rod.
Jane:
That which you hate, you become. You can disagree with Bush (and I do). You can abhore his policies and worldview (and I do). But the second you say you will do anything to get rid of him you yourself have abdicated the morals you profess to have. This is what bothers me about politics. It ceases to be about standards and values and becomes just one big King of hte Hill contest, with both sides using the sme tactics. I’ve received just as many blatantly false and misleading flyers in the mail from the Democrats as I have the Republicans. Ditto with ads.
In my role as community activist I’ve worked with a lot of elected officials. Some are good some are bad. The split isn’t by party but by individual character. That’s what we should go by.
As a personal aside, I watched my father slowly kill himself with alcohol and nicotine. It took him over 30 years to do it, because he was in such good shape to start with, but he managed, and died in his late 50’s. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone, or their families. The ripples just go too far. Unless someone is completely cut off from society their own spiral downward will inevietably (sp?) take a lot of other people along for the trip.
Let it go, Matt, if not for his sake, then for your own.
Suzy Shedd:
I can think of many good reasons for removing Bush from office, for impeaching him, for shaming him — but not for wishing for his destruction from an illness unrelated to his political actions. When Bush goes down, I want it to be because of what he DID (or didn’t do) when he fully intended to do (or not do) it. Rejoicing in someone else’s illness lacks effectiveness as well as compassion. (And excuse me for being picky, but the politics of compassion, usually part of a leftist philosophy, is not something we get to apply only to the “deserving.”) If we want Bush to understand the ramifications of his actions, the response has to be related to those actions.
Beyond what is or is not right for us from an ethical point of view, is the compelling argument advanced in the post: we REALLY do NOT want an alcohol-impaired president. When we “ill-wish” a powerful person, we are also wishing ill on ourselves. When that person is the POTUS, the consequences could be tragic, not just for us, but for generations to come. If there are political liberals so compassion-impaired that they can find no ability to render decent treatment to Bush, let us hope that they can still have a thought to spare for the rest of us.
frenchy lamour:
you know what? fuck bush.
my mother is an alcoholic. I love her very much, but when she’s drunk, I don’t talk to her. I don’t feel sorry for her either, and I’m not shy about pointing out her drinking problem.
Indeed, drug and alcohol addiction THRIVES on not talking about the problem. “Let’s keep it quiet and a secret, it’s such a STIGMA.”
If Bush is an alcoholic who’s drinking again, it should be screamed from the rooftops. Why BECAUSE AS YOUR FRIEND SAYS, AN ACTIVE ALCOHOLIC IS A DANGEROUS UNPREDICATIBLE PERSON WHO SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM ANY POSITION OF RESPONSIBILITY.
As there is NO WAY Bush will leave on his own, an intervention (of sorts) is certainly called for, and that can come in the way of a media shitstorm.
Which is worse: the politics of personal destruction, or an unpredictable drunk with his finger on the button of world destruction?
And if it means the lowlife shitbag murderous childkilling fascist goes “down the tubes”, well so be it. He’s sent plenty of lives down the tubes himself.
frenchy lamour:
I will add, again speaking as the child of an alcoholic, that sympathy is the LAST thing an alcoholic needs. the alcoholic will take that sympathy and manipulate you with it.
been there, done that, friends.
you wouldn’t trust a drunk behind the wheel of a car; whay would you trust one, especially a relapsed one, at the wheel of the ship of state?
Jane:
I would not suggest we offer sympathy or ignore the problem. I had more than a few uncomfortable conversations with my problem parent, too.
But we are seeing this through the lens of a tabloid. Unlike our personal situations, we have NO PROOF of this. We can’t go to the White House and count the bottles in the trash or sniff the coffee mug to see what’s in it besides coffee. We don’t have the opportunity to see Bush walk or hear him talk. He hasn’t shown up drunk at a press conference or pulled a Boris Yeltsin by staggering around and urinating in public.
Nor are we likely too. Bush’s entourage is too tightly knit. I sincerely doubt that Cheney, Rice, Hughes, etc., are going to let him do anything so overt that we will notice. After all, they’ve pretty much been running the country since day 1, isn’t that what many of us have been saying all along? We can’t change our tune now just because we’ve found another reason to attack Bush.
What is insidious about this is that there is no way, from this distance, to know for sure what is happening. I admire people who overcome addiction; I think it is the hardest thing in the world to do. If he had kicked his demons, then that is one thing to cheer him for (possibly the only thing). But those people are then open, for the rest of their life, to people insinuating that they have backslidden. Stumble, and you’re drunk. Money is misplaced, you must have taken it to buy drink or drugs. Marriage in trouble, must be because of drinking. Hopefully most of us will never know what it feels like to live under constant suspicion.
We ourselves practice a form of codependency by always blaming the Republicans when their campaign tactics work. We should be blaming the electorate. We have met the enemy and they are us.
Bob:
I think some people are teeing off on issues the comment doesn’t address. As Matt said, it was written in response to a specific rant, which included these graphs:
“If true, Bush’s drinking is a development we should welcome. There is, in fact, less danger from a drunken Bush, and his return to drinking would provide one of the most fitting possible outcomes for his destructive, miserable time in office, a political version, if you will, of time wounds all heels.”
***
“In the meantime, I think it would be helpful, as well as a fitting political statement, for all concerned Americans who can afford the cost to send a gift bottle of Bourbon to the White House. Who knows, it might just speed things along?”
The comment is clear that IF Bush is drinking, it’s very serious — and a matter of grave public concern that ought to be investigated. Hell, Bush is incompetent sober; drunk he’s a greater threat to national security than a terrorist with a Russian tactical nuke in mid-town Manhattan. (Unsecured Russian nukes being among the threats Bush still doesn’t care about 4 years after 911).
The comment addresses 2 narrow points:
(1) Do we on the Left care at all about facts, or are we like the Rightwingers who happily launch personal/political attacks based on what amount to rumors? Personally, I’m not willing to leave the “reality-based community” quite yet. Facts and evidence tend to support liberal interests, if only we focused more energy and competence on establishing them and getting them out there. To those of you who can’t resist the fun of devolving to the Right’s level of slinging dirt, I’d say this: over the long haul you’ll get your asses whupped. The Right has more money and a better infrastructure to do it, and they’re far better at it than you are. Ask yourselves: when the dirt settles, what’s left? No place I want to live.
(2) If it’s true that Bush is drinking again, how far should we go with it? I’d say that an alcoholically-drinking Bush justifies going as far as necessary to get Bush, as well as those who are shielding him, out of power — by political means. Granted, at the moment impeachment isn’t realistic (although I think he’s already committed impeachable offenses), and the 25th Amendment would only ratify a Cheney Administration (thanks for that). But with solid evidence behind them, even the Democrats could generate enough public pressure to get him out.
But it’s quite another thing to cheer for Bush to destroy himself through alcoholism. That’s where the comment draws the line. If that’s a line you’re comfortable crossing, I want nothing to do with you: you’re not a Leftist, a liberal, or a moderate; you’re nothing better than an unprincipled nihilist who simply found a comfortable place to sit along the political spectrum.
somegirl:
way to go with the judgments, bob. perhaps you’d be more comfortable with the christocrats.
Bob:
somegirl:
Let’s see, you judge me as someone who might be more comfortable with “christocrats” (whoever they are, but I’d guess they’re bad) because I judged people who cheer on Bush’s self-destruction?
I’m having trouble with your math….
somegirl:
bob, i don’t know what math you’re talking about but if you don’t want to stand with the bitter and angry on the left, you’re really cutting out a lot of people. so good luck with that. i’m not judging you by pointing out the harsh rhetoric you’re hurling at your allies - just wondering where the fuck you get off doing that shit.
Kate:
I hope Bush is impeached because of his failed leadership and criminal negligence. Aren’t those good enough reasons? As for his drinking, whether or not he’s fallen off the wagon doesn’t matter at all in my opinion. The entire topic stinks of more distraction tactics to me. It serves Bush and his puppet masters well when we pay attention to unsubstantiated rumors about personal matters rather than the very real bullshit he’s up to every day (excluding his vacations, of course).
Drinking alcohol has been and continues to be a large part of our culture. Alcoholism knows no class or race. I gather from reading the post and the comments that the question about Bush and his supposed drinking has to do with his ability to be president on one hand and the question of his personal character on the other. Has he honestly gotten worse as a president since this supposed relapse? Was there some time the past five years when he was a competent, strong leader? When he was a man of honorable character? If so, please tell me, because I missed it. He’s been a disaster, with or without beer and pretzels. Let’s stick to what matters, y’all. Please!
Bob:
somegirl:
I’m as angry as anyone — have been since ‘93 when the Rightwingers decided to take down Clinton at any cost because he was a Democrat, and establishment Washington — including many so-called “liberals” and the corporate press — passively looked down their noses from the sidelines because the Clintons didn’t belong in “their” town anyway. (I find plenty of targets for my anger.)
And I’ve had nothing but contempt for Bush, both personally and politically, since he beat Ann Richards for governor of Texas. He’s an incompetent figurehead who bought his political career with brazen, dishonest power plays paid for with other people’s money and influence, and he hasn’t done an honest day’s work in his life.
But as angry and contemptuous as I am, I’m not bitter enough to cheer Bush on to kill himself with booze — or with a gun, for that matter. That’s not politics, it’s an attitude that’s given up on politics. What does it mean to stand with people who feel that way? What am I standing for if I do? Liberal values and policies? A humane alternative to the soulless, ruthless thugs who are in power now?
I admit I came on a little strong at the end of my first comment. I’m just concerned that if we let ourselves get carried away with our anger — in our politics — we lose what we stand for. As human beings, many of us wish someone dead at some time or other (I admit I have, thankfully it didn’t happen). But that’s personal, not politics. Once we put it into public discourse we have to square it with our principles. I can’t. Can you?
Peace.
jami:
great post. seeing the feeding frenzy on the left pained me. “there goes the high ground,” i thought.
i’d been ridiculing wingnuts for engaging in “national enquirer politics” from time to time. little did i know “moonbats” would literally do so given the first chance.
additionally, i hear the bottle bush was hitting was full of (shocking!) near beer. what a nightmare for this great nation!
frenchy lamour:
Bob: “I’m not bitter enough to cheer Bush on to kill himself with booze — or with a gun, for that matter. That’s not politics, it’s an attitude that’s given up on politics.”
Well then I guess i’ve given up on politics, because I would do the Mummer’s strut, NAKED, if I read that Bush blew his own brains out. Particularly if he did it on national tv.
somegirl:
hmmm, gotta say i like what kate has to say here.
i really don’t think the alcohol per se matters. it’s just another area where he’s taken the moral high ground and should be exposed for the hypocrite he is.
and i still maintain that it doesn’t matter to me how he goes down as long as he does.
i too have given up. so what?
Comments