THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2023
Dr. Dodes describes Donald Trump: As he has occasionally done in the past, Lawrence O'Donnell spoke with Dr. Lance Dodes in the final segment of last evening's Last Word.
Who the heck is Dr. Dodes? At the start of the brief closing segment, Lawrence let viewers know:
Joining us now is Dr. Lance Dodes, retired assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Dodes is a contributor to the best-selling [2017] book. The Dangerous Cast of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.
That book was assembled by Dr. Bandy X. Lee, who was, at the time, a psychiatrist at Yale.
Why does Donald J. Trump behave in the ways he does? In the first year of Trump's presidency, the book examined that highly important question.
As Lawrence noted, the book became a New York Times best-seller, but it was largely ignored by the upper-end press. For better or worse, the following is still plainly true:
Psychiatry of the type explored within the book may be a part of 20th century medical science. But our major news orgs largely agree that it can't be part of 21st century journalism, at least not where major political figures are involved.
We're left with a stunningly bowdlerized account of Trump's extremely unusual conduct. We're stripped of the chance to hear carefully selected medical specialists offer their best estimates of where things might go next.
O'Donnell has been one of the very few high-end journalists to permit such discussions—in this case, on high nightly cable news show.
That isn't to say that he's done a good job in his intermittent, brief interviews with Dr. Dodes. But last night, the last of his five exchanges with Dodes gave viewers a chance to hear this:
DODES (6/14/23): I think to the extent that the trials are able to go forward, despite his bluster, despite the possible bias of the judge in Miami, to the extent they go forward, he will look worse and worse. He won't be worse and worse, but it will be less of a veneer. We will see how much of a psychopath he is.
I mean, that's the psychiatric explanation. He is fundamentally different from normal people, and we'll see more and more of that.
For the second time in this five-minute exchange, Se. Dodes described Trump as a psychopath. He wasn't asked to explain what that term means, but he did say this:
"He is fundamentally different from normal people."
Donald Trump is fundamentally different from normal people! In a less nonrational realm, that would be the start of a discussion of antisocial personality disorder, the clinical term for the severe disorder being diagnosed here, not the end of a five-minute segment at the end of an hour-long show.
We can think of many questions we'd like to see Dr. Dodes (and others) respond to. Has Trump been this way from childhood? Possibly even om birth? Could this be an organic disorder over which he, and others so afflicted, lack any basic control?
(Think colorblindness, or allergies.)
Also, is it possible that Trump believes the baldly inaccurate things he says? Earlier, Dodes said this, and Lawrence let it pass:
DODES: I think he is aware of the threat to him [in the difficult road ahead]. I don't think he is capable of being aware that he has actually done something that is a problem.
Dodes doesn't think that Trump is capable of being aware that he has actually done something that is a problem?
Does that mean that he truly believes his endless ridiculous claims? Lawrence didn't stop to ask, and the segment hurried along.
What does it mean to be afflicted by antisocial personality disorder? For starters, is "afflicted" even the right word?
We'd prefer to inhabit a realm where rational discourse was permitted, possibly even encouraged. Instead, our journalists have almost wholly split into tribes. They offer selective presentations designed to entertain and flatter their segregated audiences, and they agree that they'll never discuss what they all surely believe.
We're restricted to one-handed typing today, and so we'll stop right here. For a longer excerpt from Dr. Dodes, we'll link you to this June 1 essay at Salon.
For our money, the author of that essay is much too strongly inclined to politicize and tribalize this type of discussion. But that author, Chauncey DeVega, is right as rain on this point
DEVEGA (6/1/23): For all its strengths, however, this new reporting by The Washington Post continues with the same dangerous choice(s) that has plagued and undermined the mainstream news media's ability to accurately and effectively communicate to the public the extreme dangers to American society and democracy embodied by Donald Trump and the Republican fascists and larger MAGA movement: No mental health experts were quoted or otherwise featured in the text of the article.
DeVega believes it, and we agree:
You can't conduct a serious discussion of Donald J. Trump without contributions from mental health specialists.
At present, that isn't allowed in our major newspapers. Our national discourse, such as it is, lies in the hands of an unusual breed:
It lies in the hands of nonrational animals who went to the finest schools!
Tomorrow: IN RE Hillary's emails
Trump has indicated that he is indeed aware that there are problems with his actions, we have seen this through recordings or witness testimony that show that Trump knew, for example, that Covid was a serious threat, that he lost the election fairly, that he had taken and was passing around classified material.
ReplyDeleteTrump is often very careful when engaging in corrupt behavior, to do so in a way that limits his culpability and liability. This also indicates he is aware that there is a problem with his behavior.
Trump’s behavior is not “extremely unusual conduct”, as he is supported and mirrored by some 70 million Americans.
Somerby likely has some misguided notions about free will existing, and beyond that, would likely be less puzzled by the world by reading some anthropology, psychology, and sociology.
Anyone who manages to be elected president is fundamentally different from normal people.
ReplyDeleteTrump is fundamentally no different than the millions of “normal” people that voted for him.
DeleteWhat difference to anything could it possibly make to know whether Trump has been "like this" from birth? It doesn't exonerate him for any of his behavior.
ReplyDeleteCorrect. But to exonerate his in this fashion is now all Bob can come up with.
Delete"We're stripped of the chance to hear carefully selected medical specialists offer their best estimates of where things might go next."
ReplyDeleteThose medical specialists (again, the word "carefully selected") have no idea where things might go next. Their specialty is not predicting future behavior. In fact, the maxim of the fields that do deal in behavior is "the best predictor of future behavior is the past". We all have access to knowledge about what Trump has already done. Any of us can extend that into the future to guess what might come next with Trump, especially since he tends to do what he says he will do.
Somerby seems to have built up a few fringe partisan mental health practitioners into some sort of oracle. Psychiatrists diagnose but they do not study or know much about what causes mental illness. They know how to give patients pills that they hope will relieve symptoms and allow more normal functioning. Most do not do "talking therapy," which deals with helping a patient cope with their illness in day-to-day life. They do not know how to cure mental illness in any medical sense.
Mental health practitioners get involved with patients when there is a conflict between the patient's behavior and society. That means family concerns, inability to maintain a relationship with other people, problems staying employed, problems with the law. Sometimes mentally ill people engage in bizarre behavior, but so do people who are not mentally ill. Eccentricity alone is not a symptom and neither is breaking the law by itself. The hallmark of mental illness is that the people who have it are suffering.
Does it sound like Trump has been suffering? Has he been unable to hold a job or relate to others? Recall that he has millions of followers. Trump could have consulted any number of mental health specialists with his money, had he seen the need. His relatives could have pushed him into it.
Labeling someone like Trump "crazy" is not an application of diagnostic criteria -- no one has examined him, except perhaps his personal physician, and that person has maintained confidentiality, as is appropriate. Somerby has decided that Trump is crazy and now he seeks confirmation -- hence the term "carefully selected" applied to such people. Somerby's criterion is clearly that the mental health specialists must agree with his belief that Trump is crazy. But there is no consensus that even Hitler was crazy, and Hitler is perhaps the closest approximation to Trump we have.
Modern psychiatry is not going to rescue our society from Trump. We need to do that ourselves by refusing to vote for him, by taking his ideas seriously and debunking them over and over, and by finding and putting up our own alternative candidates (in every sphere, not just politics) so that people can make better choices. And by putting Trump in jail when he has broken the law and there is sufficient evidence to convict him. Somerby resists that part, but what is the point of calling Trump crazy if you then let him do whatever he wants and make a shambles out of our institutions?
Forget the navel-gazing into Trump's psyche and defend democracy. This means you too, Somerby.
"At present, that isn't allowed in our major newspapers."
ReplyDeleteIsn't allowed by whom? We have no government censors on what newspapers can say. We have editorials that have said what Somerby wants to hear.
Bandy Lee left Yale because she no longer had a valid license to practice in CT. She is still working in New York. Most psychiatrists consider it a violation of professional ethics to diagnose anyone, much less the president, remotely without examination.
Somerby complains so much about partisan abuse of journalistic platforms. Why does he not recognize that this too is a partisan abuse of professional training. Bandy Lee's book was wrong, grossly unfair to Trump and to the field of psychiatry. How can anyone trust a mental health professional to maintain confidentiality when someone like Lee has demonstrated that mental health specialists can and will attempt to destroy someone using their knowledge? Lee has set back the entire field by undermining that trust.
This is a tick of Bob shared at times by those across the spectrum. The claim that what he claims isn’t being said enough is restricted or “banned.” Former fans of Bob like myself should be a bit ashamed we nodded along with this at times when we thought the point was credible. These would be in instances where obvious points in Clinton or Gores favor seemed deliberately off limits to the discussion. Or to bring one up to date, it would seem forbidden for MSNBC to mention how Juanita Broaddrick attacks women who have come forward about sex abuse claims against Trump almost daily. It’s quite relevant. But they don’t mention it because it’s “banned”, they don’t mention it because it would embarrass them and confuse their target audience. Bob doesn’t mention it because it would humiliate Republicans.
DeleteSomerby was pretty clever in not revealing his right wing stance in his first few years, where he used his cunning to acquire a large audience of the blue tribe.
DeleteIn reality he was kind of playing them for rubes.
There were a couple commenters that caught on to Somerby early, and I feel ashamed for dogmatically defending Somerby back then, when I should have been considering the substance of the criticism.
Bob's laziness was the "tell". It always is with Right-wingers.
DeleteHere’s the formula: Republican elected a continue to support an obvious nutcase, and it’s Democrats fault because they don’t point it out enough. This provides Trump both empathy and an exculpatory way to view his actions. Actions which, we should note, Bob spent Trump’s years in office rationalizing, focusing on some weak disclaimer that supposedly balanced his crude vitriol. Bob didn’t seem to think he was crazy then. Events have forced Bob into this silly new corner. It’s tough to say, given the criminality Trump has confessed to over Sean’s pleading with him to claim innocence, that “the Democrats are looking for a legal solution to a political problem.” Bob has this new line of BS, he may have banned himself from saying that anymore.
ReplyDeleteOnce “respectable” Republicans like Grassly are pimping evidence free theories about the Biden Crime Theories. Pretty obviously, this is where fidelity to Trump have brought these sad, stupid, desperate men. Bob seems to be banned from saying anything about this.
“the author of that essay is much too strongly inclined to politicize and tribalize this type of discussion.”
ReplyDeleteSomerby is happy to agree with DeVega as long as the subject is Trump. But when DeVega extends the question of mental health to “Republican fascists” and the “larger MAGA movement”, that is “politicizing” the discussion. As if Trump can be viewed in isolation from his followers.
Sadly letting Trump’s followers off the hook is pretty standard, Bill Maher is the worst. With Bob, it’s pretty much taken for granted.
DeleteBill Maher has not let Trump off the hook. Trump sued Maher. Maher hates Trump.
DeleteRe: Trump vs. Maher
DeleteMake Dueling Great Again.
Bill Maher may hate Trump, but he caters to Trump’s supporters, who, at this point, make up the majority of his audience.
DeleteTrump has been insane from the moment of conception.
ReplyDeleteTo be fair, the Bible makes it clear that life starts at first breath, and that an unborn fetus is merely the property of the mother, not a living entity.
DeleteThe mother is the property of the zygote.
DeleteZygotes are a non sentient clump of cells, therefore can not own property.
DeleteThe mother of all zygotes is something like bacteria.
A zygote is a single cell. After it divides it becomes an embryo. After it develops major organs it becomes a fetus.
DeleteThe development from zygote to blastocyst to embryo to fetus, etc. is on a continuum; fair enough, but the point stands.
DeleteGod knows which ovum and which spermatozoon are going to combine to form a zygote, even if we don’t. Some ovum and some spermatozoon, as soon as they both form, are partners in owning the mother.
DeleteGod knows everything, that’s his main superpower.
DeleteHowever, the circumstance of a zygote, whether providentially designed or via evolution, is such that it has neither sentience nor agency, and therefore can neither own nor owe.
Zygotes are people and therefore have the right to keep and bear arms.
DeleteAnd it should not be overlooked that Bob displays zero interest in the victims of Trumps behavior. Not the Country at large whose government he tried to rape, children separated from their families, the cops who got beat spray in the face, the election workers slimed and harassed, etc.
ReplyDeleteFor Bob it’s all about poor Trump.
Worse, Somerby routinely blames the victims.
DeleteSome say there is a category of crime called: victimless crimes. Also there is criminal intent, where there is intent to commit a crime, even if there is no victim.
DeleteAs I said yesterday, we know what a Trump Presidency looks like. All this psycho-babble tells us nothing.
ReplyDeleteD in C
You don’t have to call it psychobabble.
DeleteI want to know what to expect for an encore. Tanks in the street?
DeleteThe fact remains, Dems will elect someone with the personality of a doorknob, someone bland with zero charisma, they do it often and they’re happy to do it; Republicans struggle with electing anyone without charisma and a domineering, bullying disposition - granted the charisma is of the snake oil salesman variety.
DeletePresidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama had/have charisma out the wazoo.
DeleteNot sure Truman was charismatic.
DeleteTruman’s challenger, Tom Dewey, had negative charisma.
Deleteanonymouse 10:44pm, Pres. Truman was funny.
DeleteRoosevelt and Truman had no charisma, Clinton is debatable, Obama was bland.
DeleteThe case remains.
What are the arguments of those that take the side that Bill Clinton is not charismatic?
DeleteIf Clinton had been truly charismatic, Monica would never have let his DNA dribble onto her dress, she would have swallowed it.
DeleteThe press played up Clinton as a manipulative (often demonic) genius. But he won against weak challengers. Like most who win the office, he got the breaks. And I like the Clintons.
DeleteClinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, bombed Serbia, expanded NATO, ... ,
DeleteThere’s nothing charming about third way neoliberalism.
DeleteWearing sunglasses and playing a saxophone while mildly engaging in womanizing and kicking people in need off government programs vital to maintaining a healthy society, is simply not charming.
Not blaming Clinton necessarily, just saying the claim of charisma is suspect.
DeleteThe sum of Clinton is a combination of inherited privilege (white male), his life experiences, and happenstance. Blame is a game right wingers play.
Jack Teixeira is innocent.
ReplyDeleteHe's guilty of exposing the Biden administration's lies about how well Ukraine is doing.
DeleteTo be fair to young Jack Teixeira, the classified docs he passed around do not expose any Biden admin lies, in fact they indicate that Russian losses are close to double that of Ukraine’s; furthermore, this was not young Jack’s intention, as he was merely showing off to a fellow group of young men and teenagers that like to chat about video games and guns, and explore engaging in racism.
DeleteIndeed, Jack’s likely stint in prison will not be the punishment many suppose, since young right wingers like Jack tend to prefer to sit in their rooms and gab about their fascist values online.
Ask Trump normal policy questions.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1669656390959345665?cxt=HHwWgsC9gYbp56suAAAA
Bob Somerby is too morally challenged to be worthy of washing Joyce Vance’s feet.
ReplyDeleteWell then, maybe he could wash her ----.
DeleteThere’s more to criticize about the Pope than that he wears a funny hat; having said that, Somerby likely is morally challenged, however there’s no evidence Vance’s feet are dirty.
DeleteThere may be reasons to criticize the pope. His fashion choice isn’t one of them.
DeleteI claim to be in good standing when criticizing the Pope for wearing his funny hat, and other extraordinary accouterments.
DeleteIf you find the Pope’s attire perfectly fine, I see little reason not to respect your stance, even though I may disagree on this somewhat trivial issue.
I don’t care about the Pope’s wardrobe.
DeleteThe Pope’s hat is the most important problem in the world.
DeleteIt’s hard to gauge its importance, but it is vexing - that hat the pope wears.
DeleteKind of looks like a dunce, wearing that hat, wtf.
Psychiatry of the type explored within the book may be a part of 20th century medical science. But our major news orgs largely agree that it can't be part of 21st century journalism, at least not where major political figures are involved.
ReplyDelete