Here's an interesting article:
americanpolitics.com
Sept. 24, 2002 -- HARTFORD (APJP) -- Alcoholics Anonymous has a name for
someone who is a drunk in every way except for the actual imbibing of
spirits. They call that person a "dry drunk." This is not a judgmental
term,
nor should this be a judgmental topic in America, where there are, by even
the most conservative estimates, 10 million adult alcoholics, and very few
families that have not been touched, in one way or another, by this
national
scourge. This same scourge has, by his own admission, also touched the
life
of our Commander in Chief.
Whether George W. Bush is or was an alcoholic is not the point here. I am
taking him at his word that he stopped what he termed "heavy drinking" in
1986, at age 40. The point here is that, based on Bush's recent behavior,
he
could very well be a "dry drunk." Of course, he may just be an immature
bully who will gladly sacrifice thousands of lives to get his way even
against the advice of the most respected and mature members of his own
party.
Still, Bush's past battles with the bottle are worth pondering at a time
like this, one of the most dangerous in the nation's history. When a
recovering alcoholic begins to engage in what AA calls "stinking
thinking,"
he or she begins to exhibit the old attitudes and pathologies of their
drinking years. These include an increase in anxiety, mild tremors, mild
depression, disturbed sleep patterns, inability to think clearly, craving
for junk food, irritability, sudden bursts of anger and unpredictable mood
swings. According to AA literature, "Boredom and listlessness may
alternate
with intense feelings of resentment against family and friends, and
explosive outbursts of violence."
Bush said he was a "heavy drinker." But let's not be coy here. Anyone who
has ever imbibed heavily over a long period of time knows that "heavy
drinker" is the rich man's (or the politician's) code for alcoholic.
For the record, Bush claims to have stopped drinking for reasons that
change
each time he's asked about his substance-abusing past (which isn't often,
thanks to a cowed press). Let's say he started experimenting with alcohol,
as per the national norm, at 16 at prep school, and he began getting
regularly wasted at Yale at 18. This would mean that Bush drank steadily
"heavily" for at least 22 years. We are, then, asked to believe that he
went
cold turkey after more than two decades of heavy drinking, a nearly
impossible feat even for someone, as he claims, who was rescued by God.
Far be it from me to cast stones when it comes to alcohol. I've seen the
devastating toll alcoholism can take. My brother was an honors student in
college, when he began drinking heavily (party drinking, as was the
tradition at southern colleges back then). By the time he was in his
mid-30s, real and dramatic changes had occurred in his metabolism and
brain
chemistry. Medical experts told me at the time that just 15 years of
sustained drinking can do irreversible physical harm of this sort. In
other
words, even if my brother stopped drinking, the damage would remain done.
But by most measuring sticks, my brother was a functioning member of
society. He held jobs, paid his rent and bills, and he made heroic efforts
to beat his cursed addiction. He climbed the 12 steps more times than
Stallone climbed those steps in "Rocky."
Though I deeply loved my brother and miss him terribly now, I could not
deny
the damage, even in his long periods of sobriety, that alcohol did to him.
Rather, I could not deny the damage, but I could not bear to watch it
happen. I could feel it in my bones that he was up against something
stronger than his will and his prodigious intellect. Stinking thinking,
like
kudzu, simply overtook his mind, and alcohol killed his body.
It is worth reflecting on George W. Bush's academic history. He graduated
from two of the finest institutions of higher learning in this country:
Yale
and Harvard. He didn't make great grades, but he graduated, an
accomplishment warranting some respect. Many rich, well-connected boys
have
flunked out. [NOTE from the editors: ...or tossed out, as was one Richard
Scaife, from Yale, allegedly for his own love of the bottle.]
The question is then begged, and seems to at least deserve some pause for
pondering: how did he, at age 58, get so fumble-tongued, incapable of
stringing more than two coherent sentences together, snippily irritable
with
anyone who dares disagree with him or even ask a question, poutily turning
his back on the democratically elected president of one of our most
important allies because of something one of his underlings said about him
(Germany's Schroder, of course), listlessly in need of constant vacations
and rest, dangerously obsessed with only one thing (Iraq), to the
exclusion
of all other things (including an economy that is slowly sucking the life
from the nation as ! well as the retirement savings of anyone reading
these
words)?
Furthermore, why is Bush so eager to engage in violence and so incapable
of
explaining why?
For drunks to function for any length of time in the world, they need
enablers. Congress is filling that bill splendidly right now for Bush. As
BuzzFlash put it about the recent corporate scandals, "For most of his
adult
life, those people around him enabled Bush's alcoholism. Now the
Democratic
Senate is enabling the corporate corruption problem of his administration
by
not using their Constitutional powers to demand the truth."
Not only the Congress but the nation seems to be watching this happen. No.
They are encouraging it to happen. Who knows, maybe we are all in shock,
just as we are when a member of our family does something appalling or
outrageous under alcohol's bidding. God knows, the crazy behavior by the
administration is so wild and unprecedented, covering such frightening
unknown territory up ahead that it may be easier to look away. |
