« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Why Josh Marshall is Exactly Right about McCain’s Psychologyc
(This is a resubmission of a post made earlier this week. I am reposting it because it was originally only up for a couple of hours, because it gives some support of a professional nature to Josh’s post yesterday The Cowardice Issue, and because I feel strongly that the presidential campaign is now getting into very dangerous territory.)
As a clinical psychologist I have been watching John Mccain’s behavior toward Barrack Obama with increasing concern. There have now been several small incidents that indicate that McCain is actually having a very paranoid reaction toward Obama, and I fear that the recent descent of the McCain campaign into unacceptable levels of hatred may be a result. Here are the incidents that concern me:
McCain’s denunciation of Obama in letters exchanged in 2006 on ethics reform.
McCain’s being unable to look Obama in the eye during the first debate.
McCain’s obvious reluctance to shake hands with Obama on the Senate floor.
McCain’s claim that Obama is ‘touchy’ and ‘angry’.
McCain’s reference to Obama as ‘that one’ during the second debate.
McCain’s addressing a crowd at a rally as ‘my fellow prisoners’.
By themselves, none of these behaviors would amount to much, but taken together, they demonstrate the pattern of fear, animosity, and distorted perception that are characteristic of paranoia.
McCain’s extremely insulting written accusations of lying in 2006 because he and Obama disagreed on a minor procedural matter was very disproportionate, indicating strong animosity and possibly distorted perception. His being unable to make eye contact is (as was pointed out by an animal behaviorist) an indication of both submission and fear, as avoiding eye contact is a signal from subordinate animals to dominant ones that they wish to avoid conflict. This is also a signal of subordination is many human societies. McCain’s reluctance to shake hands shows animosity, as hand-shaking is a signal of mutual respect and cooperation.
McCain also claimed that Obama was ‘touchy’ and ‘angry’ when McCain himself was repeatedly showing these behaviors and being criticized for them. This is an example of projection, a primitive defense mechanism in which one’s own emotions are ‘projected’ onto someone else, usually the object of one’s own emotions. Since Obama is clearly the object of McCain’s hostility, he would become the one onto whom these feelings are projected, and this is exactly what happened. Projection is an example of distorted perception, and is also a characteristic feature of paranoia.
McCain referred to Obama as ‘that one’ during the second debate, an unusual reference to a person who is standing right next to you. This is referring to a someone as an object rather than as a person, and so is dehumanizing and therefore disrespectful, again showing animosity.
The oddest example of McCain’s recent behavior (and the one which motivated me to write this) is his addressing a crowd as ‘my fellow prisoners’. It is notable that he made this slip when he switched from talking about his policies to talking about his opponent. This is an intrusion into his thinking from more primitive emotions, and its paranoid tinge is unmistakable. What this certainly suggests is that thinking about Obama triggers and activates memories of his captivity, and this activation caused the intrusion into his speech.
The conclusion to be drawn from all of this is that McCain now experiences Obama as not simply out-competing him, but as actually dominating him. This activates emotions associated with traumatic memories, in which he was dominated by captors who were to him clearly evil. Because of this, McCain sees Obama as ‘other’, ‘not one of us’, ‘not what he appears to be’, and therefore as dishonest, hostile, and frightening.
Ordinarily, I would just regard this as the folly of a flawed candidate who is self-destructing, and would feel no need to write. What disturbs me, however, is that paranoia inevitably produces hatred. I believe, based on the above, that McCain harbors feelings of hatred toward Obama, and that consequently his campaign is now giving tacit permission to others to hate him as well. This is unbelievably dangerous. There is an extremely angry radical fringe on this country’s right wing that has been demoralized lately by lack of popular support, but it could be aroused and mobilized by any hint of sympathy from a major party candidate. There are signs that this is already happening, with McCain supporters shouting ‘terrorist’ and ‘kill him’ at campaign events without reprimand by either of the Republican candidates.
When I was young the country was rocked by a series of assassinations of Democratic leaders. Perhaps unfortunately, Obama combines the physical grace, intellect, and coolness under pressure of the Kennedys with the oratorical brilliance and African descent of Martin Luther King. In other words, he is all the things that frighten right-wing extremists and thereby incite them to hatred. The last thing we need is for a major-party candidate to give out a constant stream of hints that he feels the same way.
Comments (53)
I suspect that it would not take very much for McCain to snap. If, for example, Obama said something like the following during a debate,
"For some time now you [points at McCain] have been running the dirtiest, most negative presidential campaign in modern history. You [points again] repeat lies that have been disproved by every reputable media and fact-check site... But in the past week you have hit a new low, inciting mobs of scared, angry people, many of whom are seeing their life savings wiped out, with despicable lies and false accusations. It is dishonorable, and sullies the legacy of the John McCain I thought I knew."
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see McCain lunge across the stage, or launch into one of his famous beet-faced, spittle-spraying, profanity-rich tantrums. If they were in a town hall format and Obama could actually be walking toward McCain while he says this, even getting inside his "space," I have little doubt that McCain would swing on him.
October 10, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I both agree and disagree with the logical conclusion you reach here, hOdb. I don't think John McCain snapping would be anything other than him getting red-faced and saying something crazy and inappropriate. I think part of the problem that the OP so richly addresses is the fact that, physically, John McCain isn't half the man that Barack Obama is. I don't mean that in a chest-thumping, our guy is so awesome, rah rah way. I mean it quite literally. Part of the problem we're seeing in terms of the interactions between these two men is that every gesture by Obama toward McCain is a physical imposition and expression of Obama's dominance over McCain. He's taller, younger, more physically sound, and more physically fit.
Let's take the racial component out of it for a second. John McCain at 19 or 20 probably had the same temper and he might've been able to give a 19 or 20 year old Obama a go... But the reality of the physical limitations of a post-captivity John McCain are CONSTANT for him. I'm reminded here of contemporary Muhammad Ali. I get sad every time I see him now, because you know the trash-talking, brash kid from Louisville is trapped inside a mind that can barely coordinate basic movement. The Louisville Lip is still in there... but the jab is gone. That's gotta be hell. It's like the expression "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak..." McCain almost certainly views himself as intellectually superior to Obama for any number of reasons. But some things in life really boil down to "Do I think I can kick this guy's ass or not?" 2008 John McCain knows the answer is a resounding "no". There's undoubtedly a surplus of "want to" there, but in the absence of "can do" that's a liability. McCain might be weak-minded enough to snap and say some angry words, but I don't think his fear would allow him to actually put himself at risk of getting a public beatdown on national television, and while I don't think Barack would, I'm sure McCain knows Barack COULD.
October 10, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ondioline - I agree. I also think that the physical aspect of competitive relationships that you refer to is very much heightened in the military culture. Thanks for commenting.
October 10, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"McCain almost certainly views himself as intellectually superior to Obama for any number of reasons."
Ondioline, I'm curious -- would you suggest that these reasons are all in McCain's mind (maybe delusion, narcissism, and racism), or do you think McCain is in fact intellectually superior to Obama? I have paid a lot of attention to both of these guys and to me it is inconceivable that anyone could consider McCain intellectually superior to Obama.
I find Josh's assessment very well-founded. Thanks, Thomas, for posting it again.
October 10, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points, I stand corrected.
October 10, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about the typo in the title. Is there a way to edit it out?
October 10, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not yet. The new system will allow it though. Great post.
October 10, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Jason. I'm new to the tpmcafe. Good bunch of people.
October 10, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are in the same profession and likely the same generation.
I cannot disagree with what you have said. I view the man is a mixed character disorder, which includes anti-social, narcissistic, and histrionic tendencies. But that does not, of course, preclude a paranoid process, which you have done an excellent job pointing to.
We are witnessing the breakdown of a personality and the threat of a civil breakdown as a consequence.
I would add one more thing. And that is that paranoia is an inability to come to terms with loss. Instead of recognizing you've lost your wallet, for example, you accuse the bus driver of stealing it.
mcShame appears unable to concede that he is losing. And as a result he is decompensating. He's gone beyond denial to paranoia.
October 10, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a professional in the feild of psychology but I was once in a relationship with a man who had schizoprenic tendencies.
In my studies I have learned that a leader is reflected in the entity he is leading.
We can see a reflection of McCain in his campaign, in the people who are running his campaign, in his VP Sarah Palin, and in his crowds both via himself and Palin. You can see much of what you are talking about throughout.
The current state of our country is reflection of our president. Cheney is a reflection of Bush...the adminsration and how they have functioned are a reflection of Bush.
Fortunately we do have a possibility of electing a leader that would create a much healthier reflection with Senator Obama. Biden is a reflection of Obama himself. His campaign staff and they way they run his campaign are also a reflection of Senator Obama.
I feel that McCain has schizophrenic tendencies. He can behave normally but under stress he disassociates and loses touch with reality. When McCain voted for the bail out plan and then shortly thereafter the same day, stated that he wanted the president to veto the bail out knowing that the president had requested the bail out be passed immediately. That was a clear example of him being disconnected from all of his own information. Well it felt familiar to me....
It makes sense that he is compartmentalizing things from himself. And expressing things from one compartment... then shifting and expressing them from a contradictory compartment with an expression that clearly does not recognize what he has done. In his mind 'he' has not lied.
I am very concerned for Senator McCain that people around him are actually messing with him emotionally and psychologically.
October 10, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
People don't suddenly become schizophrenic at his age. But psychosis (craziness of the catch-all variety) is possible for older individuals. Or for anyone where there is a breakdown of personality.
October 10, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My best friend, a chinese woman who grew up during the Cultural Revolution, says that her father "became" schizophrenic after he had to perform a (very humiliating) self-denunciation and was abused by many red guards younger than him. He was 40 something years old.
He began to have many delusions and was violent towards his family.
Poorly trained doctors diagnosed him with schizophrenia and went about treating him with ECT (which I'm pretty sure is not how you should treat schizophrenia), and they did it so frequently and so much that he was docile, but also essentially lost most of his brain function.
It is interesting you mention this, because when this was explained to me I didn't think that schizophrenia as such can develop like that at such a late age, and perhaps it was some other (equally bad) condition.
October 11, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your friend's father may have been suffering from a condition called Brief Reactive Psychosis, which is the sudden onset of psychotic symptoms (usually hallucinations or delusions) following a very stressful event. Generally people with this get better on their own if the stress is removed. Sadly, your friend's father was probably both misdiagnosed and mistreated, but with all the abuses of the Cultural Revolution this is hardly surprising.
October 11, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a reply to TheraP and Synchronicity. I thank you both for your comments and insights. Let me say right away that I see no indication at all that Sen. McCain has any kind of mental illness. However, being free of mental illness does not mean that one's personality and temperament are sufficient to meet the demands of the presidency. My view is that Sen. McCain has personality flaws, as do we all, and that these are significant enough to affect his emotional reactions and decision-making in deleterious ways, which we would certainly want to avoid in a President.
TheraP, I'd be interested in your opinion on something. I was trained psychodynamically (descendants of Freud, for non-therapist readers) and have modified my thinking and way of working with patients based on subsequent experience. One thing that I have found is that Freud's 'style', of being relatively detached and formal, seems to work better with patients who are culturally conservative. With more culturally liberal patients, however, a directly related, friendly, style, more like a naturalistic conversation, seems to work better for them. I'm wondering if this in any way corresponds with your own experience?
Synchronicity, I agree with your important comments about the teams that McCain and Obama have assembled and what it says about them. I would add that Obama's team has remained very tight even when things were not going well, a good indication that Obama inspires and commands loyalty. With regard to schizophrenia, I see no sign of it in McCain, and a schizophenic would not be able to function at that level, or anywhere near it. Your point about dissociation is very interesting, especially since dissociation is not really an aspect of schizophrenia but of disorders that are often sequelae of severe abuse. However, the problem in applying this to politicians is that compartmentalizing is for them a professional skill. It's necessary for them to always be trying to maintain favor with any audience they are addressing, if they don't do that they are out of the game. Thanks again for commenting.
October 10, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was trained psychodynamically as well. If you have read the long article from Rolling Stone, I find it hard to imagine you would not see the severe and longstanding personality disorder. I would not see the man is treatable in any way, shape, or form. This is way more severe than "character flaws."
I wouldn't go with dissociation here. That's usually something that dates to childhood and even if someone learns to dissociate in adulthood, it would be circumscribed. So I'd rule that out.
I don't see a difference in working in therapy based on political leanings of the patient. I'd say it depends on whether there is a character disorder versus a more neurotic personality structure. But each person is unique.
"mental illness" per se is too broad a category to say you'd rule it out altogether. You need a diagnostic ballpark. I think the poster laid out an excellent case for paranoia. The excellent case for a personality disorder is based on current behavior and past history (see the Rolling Stone article).
October 10, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Strange that with several professionals here, nobody so far has mentioned that given his history, the possibility of PTSD in McCain is real. In fact, my own reaction (not a psychologist here) to the "fellow prisoners" slip-up was that for that instant, he thought he was addressing a group or prisoners because that was how he saw himself, in that instant. Later on, I read comments on it that said that this was a "flashback," a term used to describe momentary mental disturbances that PTSD victims experience.
So, given his wartime experience, one would think that PTSD would be very active component in McCain's psyche, not that it excludes other factors, such as age and incipient dementia.
October 10, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
PTSD is certainly a possibility. The other issues do not rule out PTSD. However, a longstanding character disorder is going to there regardless. And the PTSD is actually harder to know, since it relates to symptoms a person experiences, rather than simply something an observer can conclude. I would not rule that out, but we simply don't have sufficient data to make a determination. So it's best to go on the behavior record, what we see and hear for ourselves and what confirms that from the available history.
You could also make some speculations about the effect of being a prisoner and identification with the aggressor - in other words doing to others what was done to you. But the behavioral record already shows (prior to his imprisonment) that the man tended to bully others. Thus, there's no need to make that speculative leap, absent further info from his medical record.
October 10, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dementia may be there as well. Added on to everything else. Tough to tease this out without testing.
October 10, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent article. Many thanks, will pass this around.
October 10, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I appreciate your doing that. Please let me know if you would like more discussion or info.
October 10, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to know if your "professional" assessment of John McCain is within your "boundaries of competence" or should we pass this post on to the APA Ethics Committee for a determination? If you're in fact a "clinical psychologist," you shouldn't be writing a blog post publicly diagnosing John McCain as paranoid.
October 10, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately, for the purposes of this thread, we are dealing with an emergency.
Otherwise, thank you for your concern. I suppose if you could help us out with a link to contact the appropriate authorities so that this concern of yours does not go untreated, that would be much appreciated in comparison to vague threats.
October 11, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you drunk, stupid, or an actual troll, Elliottness? You don't even understand the passage you yourself quoted. (It means that the "psychologist" would be required to see John McCain as a patient if it were an "emergency," as in an emergency for John McCain, not an emergency for us, you dimwit).
Here's a newsflash: You're not as smart as you think you are.
Or you have a serious drinking problem. Not the first time I've thought you might be drunk.
So quit stalking me, shitforbrains. I'm giving up on you. Although it's pretty amusing now to think you read the FISA Amendment.
October 11, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? McCain is (1) a public figure, and (2) campaigning for the highest office in this country which directly impacts our lives.
And: are you an ethicist? (There is an ethical concern in discussing the possible pathologies of an individual, public or otherwise, without applying the minimum standards for responsible diagnostics, such as one-on-one interviews, and testing instruments.)
October 11, 2008 6:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. Get a brain. It's not just unprofessional but unethical for a psychologist to diagnose someone without evaluating them in private. So, for example, TheraP violates the ethics of her profession all the time on these boards, as exemplified by her comments in this thread.
Every profession has standards that set limits on behavior and define acceptable practices. Some violations can result in the suspension of one's license to practice. As a lay person, you should care about this. The ethics standards are in place for your protection, not theirs.
This poster is a troll or a quack. If you choose to be manipulated by a troll, that's your problem.
TheraP is definitely a quack.
October 11, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have always thought you lived up to your name, but I have come to a new conclusion. I think you should change your name to alreadyblownagasket.
To think that a post buried on a political chat zone has some deep underlying ethical impact is hilarious. And for you to follow up on my probably-not-too-humorous response to your over reaction with a ad hominem attack with little basis on reality just proves my developing thesis. Most of the shit on this site is of little to no value, why would a random post by a person claiming to be a psychoanalyst be any different?
As for stalking - I have lots better things to do than stalk someone on a chat board. It just so happens that when I read your posts I frequently find them to be offensive and bullyish. Not being one to sit and watch someone bully, I feel the need to comment.
Now that I think about it, I have said all this shit before. Fortunately you are giving up on me. Unfortunately you will not stop being an asshole. If I read some bullshit by you again, and I am moved comment - tough shit.
October 11, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is definitely suffering from paranoid episodes here, and there is no doubt he is effectively communicating his hatred toward Obama. His laughter in a recent clip when asked by (Charlie Gibson?) about Obama's "say it to my face" seemed particularly creepy and inappropriate, the laughter of mania rather than of amusement. I do think that there is a strong possibility of PTSD in the mix that just makes him a far more explosive character than his lifelong personality disorder would.
October 10, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
We had neighbors who divorced about 10 years ago and moved away. What I learned when the wife was left behind to sell their house was her husband did two tours in Viet Nam, he abused her and their two daughters, and was diagnosed bipolar. I remember him working furiously on remodeling projects which were never completed (the manic side) and then sometimes seeing sitting on a bench at a local park just staring into space. It was weird and frightening. I personally find McCain's behavior very frightening. There is a video on "Brave New Films" on this (on TPM a few days ago):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAyK-enrF1g
So (I am not a psychiatrist), is he either bipolar, in early stages of dementia (which I also think is highly possible) - or both?
October 10, 2008 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi. I have a question. I've read that McCain's staff tries to limit his cell phone use, as he tends to take as his own the opinions of the last person he talks to. Does this have any bearing on the observations about his personality that you are discussing?
October 10, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be interested in where you read this out of curiosity.
October 11, 2008 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that you have all played Mr. Psychoanalysis, does anyone have a comment on Senator McCain today defending Senator Obama during a town hall meeting he held? He did this more than once. Perhaps your jumping on this very questionable analysis of an older gentleman, Senator on the United States and war hero, says something about you all. Maybe you are not all the understanding, open minded individuals you think you are.
October 10, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, GO ON with your silly self!
October 10, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just maybe.
October 11, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Try being open-minded with some basic hard facts:
1. US involvement Vietnam was ILLEGAL.
2. One does not get "heroism" out of ILLEGAL.
3. McCain was bombing civilian infrastructure -- a war crime -- in North Vietnam when shot down -- thus failing in his mission.
He landed in a lake, where he would have drowned had he not been rescued by the "enemy". He was then properly imprisoned as a POW.
Failing in one's mission, and getting captured by the enemy, does not make one a "hero" -- except by means of LIE.
Further, his fellow POWs called him "Songbird," for obvious reasons.
Oh, right: his fellow POWs were "liberal media".
October 11, 2008 6:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that McCain does not have any terrible problems, were he a cranky retiree occasionably abusing a hapless servant or a stranger.
Clearly, he is well past his physical prime, and his war injuries are quite disabling. His mental capacities are also seemingly declining, not to the level of an idiot, but I think that 10 years ago he would learn about Shia and Sunnis etc.
My experience is that when you try to do something a bit harder than you can FOR A LONG TIME, it can be a disaster. The more you try, the more exhausted you are, and the more exhausted you are, the less steady are your movements and the less effective your effort and you are on a downward spiral.
To summarise, there is nothing wrong with McCain that a relaxing retirement could not cure. This guy as a President?
October 10, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
RING A BELL??
Gollum, originally known as Sméagol, was a creature of Stoorish origin. The name Gollum was derived from the disgusting gurgling, choking cough he made. His birth can be estimated to have happened c. the year 2430 of the Third Age. His death date is given as 25 March TA 3019. His life was extended far beyond its natural limits by the effects of possessing the One Ring. At the time of his death, Gollum was about 589 years old, a remarkable age for a creature who was once a Hobbit, but he had been deformed and twisted in both body and mind by the corruption of the Ring. One of his chief desires was to possess the Ring which had enslaved him, and he pursued it for many years after he lost it.
October 10, 2008 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you talking about, chuck?
October 10, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain was my hero today. No BS.
Not gonna vote for him, just testifyin.
My Hero.
October 11, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain08, surely you were present in psychology class when the Tolkien school of personality disorders was discussed?
October 11, 2008 12:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry Bruce, didn't make it to psychology class. I decided I wanted to contribute to society, so I attended business class.
This is, by the way, how I know that Senator Obama's tax increases on business (including small business) will effect the middle class far more than the rich he seems to want to soak.
October 11, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
The FACT is -- separate from Obama-Biden -- that 97 per cent of small businesses earn UNDER $250,000, therefore WILL NOT see a tax increase under Obama's plan.
Perhaps you should have gone to psychology class, so you would be able to contribute to society, instead of business class, so you could contribute only to yourself, and faciliate that by lying about Obama's tax plan.
October 11, 2008 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's obsession with "winning" in Iraq, when even Petraeus says "winning" in the conventional sense can't be achieved, appears to be an artifact of his imprisonment in the war we lost in Viet Nam. A war in which he was personally responsible and in which he failed.
While Joe Lieberman may have his own reasons for maintaining our military in Iraq (Israel), McCain's stubborness is obsessive. As Keith Olbermann has pointed out, the purpose of the war in Iraq is to have a war in Iraq. Thus, it may be argued that McCain will never withdraw the US from Iraq, no matter how "successful" we are until we attain the elusive victory that our military commanders say is not attainable.
While there are now lots of commercials from the McCain campaign, and lots of imprecations from Sarah Palin asking us if we know who the real Obama is, the question is better directed to John McCain, the archetypical Manchurian Candidate. Do we really know who he is? I think not.
This is all scary stuff. It's a good thing his campaign has imploded. Let's just hope his comments to the mob today will avoid a race riot or an assassination.
October 11, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well I'd go with ODD -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppositional_defiant_disorder -- except it appears ODD is only diagnosed in children.
If you saw the recent movie about McCain -- when he could have gone back to the US but decided to stay to remain with his prisoner colleagues, that could be interpreted both as heroism or oppositional defiance I would think.
It does appear even to laymen such as myself that there is a touch of something with McCain. I can't blame him for it, having gone through what he went through as well as the stress of being a politician.
I would like to shed some light on the stigma / ignorance of mental illness while we are on the subject if I might. (I have been diagnosed bipolar for 9 years now, I am now age 46.) Bipolar Disorder is referenced by some people as "CEO's Disease." There is a very interesting (for anyone) historical book written by an esteemed psychiatrist / psychiatry professor entitled "The Hypomanic Edge: The Link Between (A Little) Craziness and (A Lot of) Success in America" (John D Gartner.) This book suggests that one important ingredient in America's success / entrepreneurial zeal is the bipolar DNA in our population. Starting with Columbus and analyzing several other heavy hitters including Alexander Hamilton, William Penn, and Andrew Carnegie.
And if you Google "famous mental illness" and "famous bipolar" or "famous depression" you'll probably be surprised at how many creative giants have been considered to have a mental illness or if they are still living or aren't from too far back in history, have been known to have been diagnosed.
Plus there is a very large spectrum of mental illnesses in terms of how they are experienced and the degree of severity. In my case although I was diagnosed with the highest grade of bipolar disorder, I improved, which does not always seem to be the case. I guess I am lucky. My memory sucks now but other that that with the help of Wellbutrin XL I am as good as new. I was only crazy for one week. : ) But I actually am fond of the experience now that it is behind me and it hasn't repeated, it was quite the rabbit hole experience, although entirely delusional / hallucinational I'm convinced in retrospect. A Don Juan type of experience but without taking any substance.
At any rate I think we are on to something regardiing McCain. On the other hand if we have a candidate prone to hypomania (just a tad crazy -- enough to have the delusion come in handy so that you pursue your ideas rather than ignore them,) it might be a good thing.
October 11, 2008 1:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=DJIA&sid=1643&o_symb=DJIA&freq=2&time=20
An after thought -- if you doubt America has bipolar in it's DNA, just look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It looks like mania followed by depression to me. I hope they can figure out the right medication.
October 11, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tepper - your smuggness is what is scary...or at least pathetic. Calling McCain a manchurian candidate and so ofthandidly dismissing him as some kind of crazy is both offensive and sad. Whatever you think of his proposed policies, the man has been in the senate for years. Do you honestly believe he could have been reelected to the senate this many times if he was unbalanced? And givemeabreak, I understand everyone wants to make themselves feel better, but I don't believe that anyone can say Columbus, Alexander Hamilton, Jesus Christ, Julius Caesar or any other historic figure suffered from depression or bipolar disorder.
October 11, 2008 2:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
He has functioned somehow well enough but clearly when members of the senate say he has always been abusive something is off there and he has never been under this level of stressful campaigning... in his previous attempts he didn't get this far... plus he is getting older...
I am sorry but something is up with him... saying 'my fellow prisoners' in place of my fellow citizens is a giveaway.
October 11, 2008 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could McCain be bipolar?
October 11, 2008 3:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know anything about psychology, but it's obvious that McCain is angry/reactionary and displays open contempt for his opponent. Not exactly what I'm looking for in a president--resembles Cheney too much.
October 11, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, have to disagree with you on the last comment, McCain 08. Jesus was, in fact, tri-polar, as in "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." Anyway, I believe that McCain was affected by his stint as a POW: He was powerless for five years, and I think he has issues with his own power and other people's power over him. He acts in a "power over" manner, while Obama exudes "power from within." It probably confuses and enrages McCain.
October 11, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too many psychologists on this blog. And as for JNagarya's conclusion that being in business means that I am only contributing to myself, I guess you don't and have never worked for a business. You have never made a living from a business. The tax money that the government collects and has paid unemployment $ or welfare and free healthcare has nothing to do with business.
And as for your figures that 97% of businesses earn under $250,000, I question them. However, even if anywhere close to being accurate, the small businesses that earn under $250k employ nobody. They are not the small manufactures and restaurants that employ people. They are the individuals selling cosmetics or doing side businesses for extra money. Dolt.
October 11, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain08 -- while it does make people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness feel better about their situation to read the A list of creative types with mental illness, there is of course a much larger B and C list. B list being avereage Joes and C list being some of the homeless. (Although I bet if some of the homeless who have mental illness were provided the proper medication, some of them would become productive members of society.)
And when you look at a list of famous historical giants with mental illness, some are from way back and there might not have been a good way to diagnose, and in some cases there were not the categories of mental illness, in place yet, so I have always been a bit skeptical as well. On the other hand I think all of them could indeed have been historically diagnosed right on the money.
But the book I was referring to is a different matter, because the author never said he had a mental illness. He is a well regarded professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins med school I believe. And I'm sure he is way more qualified than you are to diagnose anyone, living or from the past.
October 11, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I might add that the only mental illness bashers I've ever encountered were Republicans. I also think you may be projecting a bit in your post McCain08 in terms of "feeling good" as perhaps you wouldn't feel as good if you felt you were extraordinary since you weren't diagnosed with a mental illness.
I did in fact see one historian suggest that Jesus was bipolar. It was in the book "Rabbi Jesus," which is a historical (non-religious) work about Jesus. I wouldn't be surprised to be honest with you, as it isn't hard to view Jesus as having a very bad case of grandiosity. I'm not saying I don't like what he stood for and said. Just that I think he belongs on the A list also, although you won't see it on any of the lists, unless you read "Rabbi Jesus."
October 11, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
givemeabreak - I don't follow your statement about me projecting. And how do you know I have not been diagnosed with a mental illness? Also, I don't think I was "mental illness bashing" whatever that means. Are you "pro mental illness?"
As for Jesus being bipolar, as I said before, what possible evidence is there for this? There is no recordings of Jesus, no written histories from his family or friends, discussing conversations or reactions to issues around him. Maybe he was, but maybe he wasn't. There is really no conclusive proof or data.
October 12, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment