September 19, 2005
The Anchoress Discusses The Clinton
Relatively early in my blogging career I came across the Anchoress. We fought the brave fight to keep Terri alive, to no avail, but it was still a fight worth fighting. Today, I just finished reading her take on Bill Clinton and I gotta tell you, it is just brilliant. A a couple of telling grafs:
If you know nothing else about Bill Clinton than the fact that he grew up sort of “between fathers,†with a somewhat colorful and flamboyant mother, that he was a bright boy full to the brim with talent, but lugging around an aching void that was never filled and never healed, then you know enough about Bill Clinton to know why he dropped a bomb on George W. Bush yesterday.Now go read the whole thing and drop her a comment and let her know what you thought. Posted by GM Roper at September 19, 2005 09:38 PM | TrackBackBill was the boy with nothing. George W. Bush was the boy with everything.
I’m not talking about material things, here. “Things†make one neither holy nor whole. Anyone who has read the letters of George H.W. Bush or really looked into the early years of George Walker Bush knows that the younger Bush grew up in a rather average house, with average playmates and a public elementary school. Nevertheless, George W. Bush had something Bill Clinton never had: a father who clearly loved him and a devoted mother whose first interest lay with her family. Forget material considerations. With those ample riches, the boy called Dubya grew up comfortable in his own skin and not needing to look outside of who he was, or who he loved, to find trustworthy affirmation and acceptance.
I think you chose one of the most important parts of her post. It helps tp explain Bill's character a lot.
Posted by NYgirl at September 19, 2005 10:55 PM
After reading that deep psychological analysis, I have come to this thoughtful conclusion. No matter how you try to dress it up or package it, Bill Clinton is still White Trash. Sometimes you don't need a psych major to see things for what they are.
Posted by Woody at September 20, 2005 10:27 AM
The Anchoress' essay is an interesting and thoughtful armchair analysis of Bill Clinton's psyche. Unfortunately, like most post hoc narratives of this type, it provides more heat than light.
(1) Because of the retrospective nature of the study, the author can shape the narrative so as to make the behavior conform to the explanation. This is the hazard of any investigative process that starts with the explanation and then works backwards to make the evidence conform to the theory. This is analogous to the classical Procrustean Bed approach to hospitality, where the proprietor forced his guests to fit his bed, either by stretching out his poor guest to make him taller, or by hacking off inconvenient limbs to make him shorter.
(2) This retrospective approach also provides no predictive power, and thus there is not way to verify or disprove the author's analysis. In particular, rather than being the victim of one or more of unconcious motivations that the author postulated, Mr. Clinton may have had very different reasons (conscious and/or unconcious) for his actions.
(3) The author's analysis leaves unclear what response she intends the reader to have after reading her essay. Is this putative new understanding of ours supposes to evoke pity in us for Mr. Clinton, act as exculpatory or mitigating circumstances in the court of public opinion, or make us glad he is not longer in an elected official, for instance?
For me, the bottom line is that at his age, Mr. Clinton has had plenty of opportunity to deal with his personal issues, and that therefore he is fully responsible for his actions and the consequences that ensue, regardless of whatever psychological issues he still has.
That is, in my expansive fashion, I have essentially arrived at the same destination that Woody did in three sentences.
Posted by civil truth at September 20, 2005 03:42 PM
CT, as a psychotherapist I'm always interested in an analysis of how people got to be where they are. You are right vis-a-vis predictive value of an analysis, but at the same time, sometimes information available about one can convince the subject that changes are needed and attainable. I honestly doubt that this will be the case in THIS case.
My gut tells me that the Anchoress has written a very good analysis of the character of Clinton and Woody has nailed it in his description too.
Posted by GM Roper at September 20, 2005 05:29 PM
GM, I don't think we have any substantive disagreement here. I was not trying to negate the value of pyschotherapy itself. Rather, I was trying to raise questions regarding the value of "analysis at a distance" and the pitfalls that such an analysis entails.
When I sent my comments to the Anchoress, I prefaced them with the following paragraph:
Incidentally, I appreciate the thought and analysis that went into your essay. Much of what you said certainly makes sense at an intuitive level and is probably on the mark. Nonetheless, I have methodological problems with retrospective psychological analyses which I did want to express.
The essay certainly is food for thought, and Woody cut to the chase much more succinctly than I.
Happy birthday again!
Posted by civil truth at September 20, 2005 06:20 PM
