On the whole, I don't think that speculating about what psychological disorders Donald Trump may or may not be suffering from is that useful, or informative.
For one thing, I'd prefer to see his opponents win by having better policies, rather than by just repeating "You have to vote for us next time, because the other guy's a maniac."
Also, I'm not convinced that applying psychological labels is always objective, or helpful. There have been alleged conditions, from "drapetomania", to "hysteria" and "opposition defiant disorder", which probably said more about the disorders of the societies which invented them than they do about the state of the alleged sufferers. Not only do such imprecise labels stigmatise the innocent, but they can let the guilty off the hook, too. If we think of Harvey Weinstein as an influential grown man who should know better than to go around raping and molesting women, then he just sounds like a scumbag. Which is why he wants us to think that he's suffering from "sex addiction." Because if he has a medical diagnosis, that means it's not his fault. Yeah, right.
However, not all judgements about a person's mental state are subjective and socially constructed. Sadly, organic mental deterioration, especially in older people, is all too real. Drapetomania, hysteria and ODD might be made-up afflictions, but conditions like Alzheimer's and vascular dementia definitely aren't.
I feel like a bit of a hypocrite at this point, having previously poured scorn on both armchair diagnoses and YouTube videos as sources of reliable information, but I've just seen a YouTube video which makes me wonder whether Trump is suffering from dementia. Still, I'm going to cite Sturgeon's Law as a partial defence and plunge in anyway.
I'm going to put the video towards the bottom of this post. Most of the material isn't particularly astonishing. There are the familiar clips of Trump babbling nonsense, which don't prove anything in themselves, other than that he's better at using a storm of short words from his limited vocabulary to push peoples' hot buttons than he is at constructing a coherent argument.
There are also clips of him wandering about at various public appearances, looking lost. He looks a bit like an elderly, confused person but this, too, is inconclusive. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens to a lot of top politicians. Many otherwise alert people, if jetted off to unfamiliar locations, or overloaded by crowds of busy people competing for their attention (staff trying to brief them on multiple issues, reporters asking questions, security people trying to shepherd them this way and that), while trying to remember the speech they're supposed to give, before being whisked off to the next, probably unrelated, appointment in their schedule, would probably get disoriented occasionally and be caught on film momentarily forgetting where the podium was, or something of the sort.
But there is one segment of the video that seems genuinely significant. It starts at 2' 30", with a clip of Donald Trump in 1980, talking about investing in inner city real estate. And it sounds perfectly normal, like an interview with somebody who's in control of his emotions, knows what he's talking about and can stay on topic without wandering off into rambling digressions, angry outbursts, bizarre non sequiturs and complete gibberish.
Put this old clip next to one of Trump's recent TV appearances and it does make you think that there's been a massive decline, both in his mental sharpness, and in his awareness of what is appropriate behaviour in a given situation. See what you think:
Even this isn't conclusive. Maybe the difference between young Trump talking real estate and old Trump trying to do presidential stuff has nothing to do with mental decline over time. Maybe the difference is that he knew and cared about the family real estate business, but has never known or cared about other facts, like the difference between two adjacent Middle Eastern countries where he doesn't even own any golf courses. And you'd have to sit through a lot of old Trump videos and a lot of new ones to be quite certain you that weren't comparing the best of the old with the worst of the new.
But it at least seems relatively plausible that the president could be suffering from some form of dementia.
If so, does it matter? Well, it's probably not the first time and we survived that. Anyway, a lot of what modern presidents (of both parties) do seems to be fronting for the interest groups and lobbyists whose cash and influence have given Americans the best democracy that money can buy, so maybe the capacities and personal qualities of an individual president don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things:
So there's probably nothing to worry about. Apart from the small matter of ultimate responsibility for launching a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons resting in the hands of a senior citizen who may no longer be in possession of his mental faculties.
Over to you, General Kelly and Secretary Mattis.
*I still take a dim view of medicalising personality traits like narcissism - I view it as a social flaw, like rudeness, rather than as a diagnosable medical condition.
For one thing, I'd prefer to see his opponents win by having better policies, rather than by just repeating "You have to vote for us next time, because the other guy's a maniac."
Also, I'm not convinced that applying psychological labels is always objective, or helpful. There have been alleged conditions, from "drapetomania", to "hysteria" and "opposition defiant disorder", which probably said more about the disorders of the societies which invented them than they do about the state of the alleged sufferers. Not only do such imprecise labels stigmatise the innocent, but they can let the guilty off the hook, too. If we think of Harvey Weinstein as an influential grown man who should know better than to go around raping and molesting women, then he just sounds like a scumbag. Which is why he wants us to think that he's suffering from "sex addiction." Because if he has a medical diagnosis, that means it's not his fault. Yeah, right.
However, not all judgements about a person's mental state are subjective and socially constructed. Sadly, organic mental deterioration, especially in older people, is all too real. Drapetomania, hysteria and ODD might be made-up afflictions, but conditions like Alzheimer's and vascular dementia definitely aren't.
I feel like a bit of a hypocrite at this point, having previously poured scorn on both armchair diagnoses and YouTube videos as sources of reliable information, but I've just seen a YouTube video which makes me wonder whether Trump is suffering from dementia. Still, I'm going to cite Sturgeon's Law as a partial defence and plunge in anyway.
I'm going to put the video towards the bottom of this post. Most of the material isn't particularly astonishing. There are the familiar clips of Trump babbling nonsense, which don't prove anything in themselves, other than that he's better at using a storm of short words from his limited vocabulary to push peoples' hot buttons than he is at constructing a coherent argument.
There are also clips of him wandering about at various public appearances, looking lost. He looks a bit like an elderly, confused person but this, too, is inconclusive. I wouldn't be surprised if this happens to a lot of top politicians. Many otherwise alert people, if jetted off to unfamiliar locations, or overloaded by crowds of busy people competing for their attention (staff trying to brief them on multiple issues, reporters asking questions, security people trying to shepherd them this way and that), while trying to remember the speech they're supposed to give, before being whisked off to the next, probably unrelated, appointment in their schedule, would probably get disoriented occasionally and be caught on film momentarily forgetting where the podium was, or something of the sort.
But there is one segment of the video that seems genuinely significant. It starts at 2' 30", with a clip of Donald Trump in 1980, talking about investing in inner city real estate. And it sounds perfectly normal, like an interview with somebody who's in control of his emotions, knows what he's talking about and can stay on topic without wandering off into rambling digressions, angry outbursts, bizarre non sequiturs and complete gibberish.
Put this old clip next to one of Trump's recent TV appearances and it does make you think that there's been a massive decline, both in his mental sharpness, and in his awareness of what is appropriate behaviour in a given situation. See what you think:
Even this isn't conclusive. Maybe the difference between young Trump talking real estate and old Trump trying to do presidential stuff has nothing to do with mental decline over time. Maybe the difference is that he knew and cared about the family real estate business, but has never known or cared about other facts, like the difference between two adjacent Middle Eastern countries where he doesn't even own any golf courses. And you'd have to sit through a lot of old Trump videos and a lot of new ones to be quite certain you that weren't comparing the best of the old with the worst of the new.
But it at least seems relatively plausible that the president could be suffering from some form of dementia.
If so, does it matter? Well, it's probably not the first time and we survived that. Anyway, a lot of what modern presidents (of both parties) do seems to be fronting for the interest groups and lobbyists whose cash and influence have given Americans the best democracy that money can buy, so maybe the capacities and personal qualities of an individual president don't matter that much in the grand scheme of things:
As a character, Zaphod is hedonistic and irresponsible, narcissistic* almost to the point of solipsism, and often extremely insensitive to the feelings of those around him. In the books and radio series, he is nevertheless quite charismatic which causes many characters to ignore his other flaws...From Wikipedia's description of another, fictional, president.
...He was briefly the President of the Galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who's really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited).
So there's probably nothing to worry about. Apart from the small matter of ultimate responsibility for launching a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons resting in the hands of a senior citizen who may no longer be in possession of his mental faculties.
 |
| You know you've reached a certain age when you find that you've walked into a room only to forget what you came in for, and why you seem to have absent-mindedly incinerated several million people in a massive nuclear conflagration... |
Over to you, General Kelly and Secretary Mattis.
*I still take a dim view of medicalising personality traits like narcissism - I view it as a social flaw, like rudeness, rather than as a diagnosable medical condition.
0 comments:
Post a Comment