In a remarkable act of self-awareness, courage and public accountability, rising Democratic star Jason Kander, 37, has published a letter revealing his personal struggle with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [PTSD]. In his letter, he describes his previously undisclosed 11-year history of depression, stress and anxiety resulting, at least partially, from a tour of duty in Afghanistan as a U.S. Army intelligence officer.

As he privately fought his mental-health demons, Kander had a very public life: He served Missouri as Secretary of State, and then ran—unsuccessfully—for U.S. Senate against Missouri’s entrenched incumbent, Roy Blunt. After losing that bruising election, Kander picked himself up, dusted himself off and founded Let America Vote. Earlier this year, he threw himself back into the electoral ring with a bid to become Mayor of Kansas City, Mo.

Now that he has revealed his struggle with PTSD, and has acknowledged that he has delayed seeking psychological help until now, the bullet points in his resume take on new meaning—particularly his Army service: He volunteered—probably out of patriotic motivation [possibly as a result of the jingoistic propaganda pushed in this country ever since 9/11, and maybe even being suckered into the notion that that, in military-worshipping America, serving in the Army would be good for a political career.] Then, in his campaign for U.S. Senate, he famously ran an ad that built on his military training: In the ad, he demonstrates his ability to assemble an Army assault rifle while blindfolded. The ad went viral, and helped propel Kander to a near-miss against Blunt. Just as a reminder, here’s the ad. [Now that he has revealed his PTSD, you have to wonder what he was feeling as he filmed this.]

After he lost to Blunt, Kander began presenting himself as a political pundit—and a witty one, at that. He began appearing as a commentator on CNN, MSNBC and other national outlets, as well as creating a Twitter feed laced with pithy, quotable comments. In light of his recent open letter, you have to wonder how difficult it was for him to maintain the public persona of an upbeat, on-the-rise politico. Judging from comments on his letter, from people who know him personally, I am sure that Kander’s effort to establish Let America Vote was sincere in its purpose [he had been, after all, Missouri’s Secretary of State—responsible for overseeing elections and voting—before running for Senate, so he has the credentials.] But now we know that everything he did was shaded by his internal struggle to keep it all together. It makes you feel really bad for him.

His decision to run for Mayor of Kansas City was seen by many as an effort to stay in the game while making an honest effort in public service, and possibly position himself for another run for higher office. But looking at this resume point now—along with his run for Senate—you have to wonder how much damage campaigning has inflicted on Kander, or has compounded his problems. In his run for Senate, Kander had to raise tens of millions of dollars. I am sure that he sincerely believed that he could do a good job as Senator and that he wanted to bring his more progressive ideas to office as a way of serving Missouri constituents. But to get there, he was under daily pressure to suck up to potential donors, appear upbeat, cowtow to the national Democratic fundraising and political apparatus, and cold-call thousands of people to beg for money. Even the most glued-together human being would be strained by the absurd demands of campaigning in 21st Century America. Imagine how it must have felt for Kander.

I don’t know Kander personally, but I am rooting for him. His openness about his personal struggle is a rarity among politicians. It’s risky to be open like that. Another Missouri politician—Senator Thomas Eagleton—got dumped as George McGovern’s vice-presidential running mate in 1972 when it was revealed that he had been treated for depression. I admire Kander’s courage, and I wish him the best in his journey back to wellness.

I fear that he will be mocked, that his political career will be irreparably damaged, and that a worthy, well-intentioned man will never get the chance to do the good that he is clearly capable of.

I hope, though, that Kander’s story will help us understand the perils of worshipping the military, glorifying “heroism” on the battlefield, recruiting young men and women by touting patriotism and jingoism, and by promising adventure and glory. We need to stop valuing military service over all other forms of service—such as teaching, nursing, and even parenting.

Kander’s story is a perfect example of how our political system and our fascination with power, weaponry and war have come together to create an environment where PTSD and other mental-health disorders are becoming features of our culture, rather than bugs.

Here is the full text of Kander’s remarkable letter:

The post Jason Kander’s PTSD, and what it says about America appeared first on Occasional Planet.

One of the excuses de jour of why to not enact stringent gun controls is that the problems would be solved if guns were kept away from those who are mentally ill.

There are lots of problems with this contention:

1. Guns kill. They facilitate violence among human beings. The more guns that are in our society, the more likely it is that someone, deemed mentally stable or mentally ill, will be able to use one. The most effective way to control guns is to reduce their number. It’s kind of like the most effective way to combat obesity is to reduce calories.
2. Who really knows how to define or categorize who is mentally ill? Much as we may like to think otherwise, the fields of psychology and psychiatry are inexact sciences. Labels, diagnoses are things that we are forced to do because the nature of human communication requires descriptions to explain even what is uncertain.
3. For what it is worth, researchers have found that at some point in our lives, over half of Americans will experience some sort of mental illness. We move in and out of periods of our life when we are depressed or anxious. The symptoms of other problems such as manic-depression or bi-polarity occur at varying times in a person’s life. For all of us, some days are good ones, other days are miserable.

Considering that we are people in motion, not just physically but also mentally, it is wise to minimize our proximity to weapons that can either do harm to others or to ourselves.

Consider one of the nation’s greatest proponents of gun rights, Missouri Governor Eric Greitens. To say that he had a bad day yesterday would be putting it mildly. He was humiliated to do the perp walk as he was indicted for on a felony invasion of privacy charge for allegedly taking and transmitting a non-consensual photo of his partly nude lover. Details of what exactly happened fall short of actual facts, at least with regard to what the general public knows. But it is rather clear that there was some sadistic, if not masochistic, behavior involved by Greitens. There was clearly hypocrisy involved as he ran for governor as a man of family values (his official gubernatorial portrait is not an individual one; rather it includes his wife and two children).

But hypocrisy may be normal for politicians, in fact, for most of us. But he has other strange behaviors such as disappearing for days at a time. He is very belligerent towards others. He has few friends, even among those who are supposed to like him like his Republican colleagues.

It certainly is not for me to say that Eric Greitens is mentally ill. However, despite his military career which included being a Navy Seal, he still seems to be rather fragile. Again, that is not an indictment of him in comparison to anyone else. It is simply evidence that if we want to have a safe and secure society, we are better off having as few guns as possible within the civilian population.

Unless Greitens is convicted, he will be free to purchase virtually whatever guns he wants. That scares me. I think that it’s scary for America.

How many times has he been called one of the “good guys,” and as Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association says, “the only way to top a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.”

If only LaPierre and his like knew on any given day who are the good guys and who are the bad guys. I think that’s beyond all of our pay grades, even his, which is high. To be safe, let’s get rid of as many guns in civilian hands as we can.

The post Greitens illustrates why the mental health diagnoses won’t work appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In unison, the talking heads at Fox News and Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee assaulted both current FBI Director Christopher Wray and former Director Robert Mueller. Mueller also happens to be Special Counsel investigating foreign election intervention by Russia. Their complaint was that the F.B.I. is politicized and out to get Donald Trump. In the minds of those on the right, the same is true of Special Counsel Mueller.

Fox anchor and commentator Gregg Jarrett said,

“I think that we now know that the Mueller Investigation is illegitimate and corrupt. And Mueller has been using the F.B.I. as a political weapon, and the F.B.I. has become America’s secret police, secret surveillance, wire-tapping, intimidation, harassment and threats. It’s like the old KGB that comes for you in the dark of the night, banging through your door. The F.B.I. is a shadow government now; it has become highly politicized.”

Peter Strzok is the perfect example of it. He led both the Hillary Clinton investigation and, until recently, the Mueller investigation. This is a guy who has corrupt political motives. We now know it. Congress has the emails. But he’s the tip of the iceberg.

Rarely has a public figure received as much universal praise as Robert Mueller, at least up until a few weeks ago. But as his investigation has evolved to the point where we now have perp walks, the heat is getting to be too much for many on the right. In their minds, Mueller and those working for him no longer have objectivity; their clear and present motive is to get Donald Trump and those close to him.

If you believe that we are now living in two un-parallel universes, the right is right. Mueller is out to get Trump and those close to him. At least this is how most people in Trump’s 34% universe of the American electorate see it.

Here’s the problem that the right has. Mueller is coming from a perspective founded in the Age of Reason. He is employing logic and deductive reasoning. He is hiring people who come from the same school. When the Trump-o-philes complain that Mueller has hired lawyers who have represented Democrats or contributed to the campaign of Democrats, they are right. What do they expect, lawyers from Breitbart? Mueller is hiring lawyers who can follow both the facts and the law.

Mueller is an evidence-based person. This comes with the territory when you are a post-J-Edgar director of the F.B.I. Or as Sergeant Joe Friday of Dragnet fame said, “Just the facts, ma’am.” He is following what is empirical, and often times this means following the money. For Trump, this means getting into his “privates.” His allies think that’s off-limits, but in reality, his finances should be in the public domain.

These two universes go beyond disagreeing on policies or even on proper legal procedure. They reflect a huge cultural divide in our country. It has gotten so wide that each side goes beyond calling the other side “bad” or misguided; now each side challenges the mental health of those on the other side.

Conventional analysis would indicate that Trump or Roy Moore are people whose mental stability should be questioned, but to those on the right it is the likes of Mueller or Barack Obama who are unstable.

There is a connection between rational thinking and those who are politically more to the left. Mueller’s investigation is reflective of that; the best investigators tend to be closer to non-conspiratorial journalists and others looking to document occurrences. This has to be frightening to Trump, Fox News and others of similar mind-sets. From where they sit, it is indeed true that Mueller is stacking the deck against Trump. It will be that way so long as two plus two equals four.

The post The right is right: Mueller is stacking deck against Trump appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s risky, but impeachment definitely has to be on the table. If you have been watching television lately, you have probably seen a video by Tom Steyer making a case for impeachment.

However, we have to be cautious. The very reason why Trump should be removed from office is the same reason why no attempt should be made. As we have previously stated, trying to assess him by his “beliefs” or positions on issues is irrelevant, because he is a psychologically damaged individual and the nature of his illness(es) is what drives his actions. The word “unhinged” has frequently been used, and with the exception of Richard Nixon in his final days, we have never had a situation quite like this.

Trump is far too erratic to be a legitimate leader of our country. But because he is unhinged, we are taking a trip into the unknown if a serious attempt is made to remove him from office. Legally, he has his finger on the button; he can be the one to launch American nuclear missiles. Practically, we are not sure whether there are military or other security personnel in the government who have taken steps to prevent Trump from acting unilaterally, even if he thinks that he can. Just think about what you would do if you were in the government and you had an opportunity to “disarm” Trump. Would you take steps of dubious constitutionality to save the country or the world? Not an easy question to answer.

Maggie Haberman of the New York Times stated this morning on CNN’s New Day that Trump’s disconnect has been markedly accelerated in recent days and weeks. His retweeting this morning of far-right, Anti-Muslim videos seems to be more gratuitously nasty and distorted than anything he has done to date.

Republicans are not going to take the lead on impeachment. They should, because in a sense, they own him. To paraphrase Colin Powell about the Pottery Barn policy, “if you break it you own it.” But most Republicans are too partisan to act boldly, and perhaps more importantly, they are often poor readers of reality; e.g. when a tax bill would take way health coverage from thirteen million or more Americans, they don’t seem to see the pain. People who can’t see pain are not really equipped to assess the damage done by Trump.

The downside to Democrats taking the lead on impeachment is that it would appear to be partisan. In part, it would be. But is it possible for something partisan to also be good policy? The answer is clearly yes, witness virtually everything that Democrats were able to do in the New Deal and the Great Society. More recently, the establishment of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by Democrats.

On the partisan scale, it would be important for Democrats to get ahead of the curve and make it even more clear that they have had little or nothing to do with the damage that Trump has done, and likely will continue to do to the country. If Democrats do not act, there will be a certain hollowness to their future pleas that they did everything that they could to spare the nation from the wrath of Trump.

But more important than any political benefits to Democrats, the issue of Trump being unhinged begs for our attention. As Maggie Haberman said, it is only getting worse.

If a genuine effort was made to impeach Donald Trump, there are at least two areas of risk. The first can be summed up in two words: Mike Pence. The second is the question of what Trump would do while the process is taking place.

My suggestion would be for the Democrats to take the lead on a move for impeachment, but to recognize that they might have to back off if the Trump situation gets too volatile. Theoretically, if Trump’s behavior becomes even more outrageous, it might prompt discussion between Pence and members of the Cabinet on invoking the 25^th Amendment to temporarily remove Trump from office. Finally, there is the wording in Section 4 of the 25^th Amendment which allows Congress to take quick action for temporary removal.

This is all tricky. We need to say things publicly that might best be said behind Trump’s back. But that is not an option. We may need to follow the old adage, “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.” Of course, like Trump, the adage needs to include women.

Postscript: Interview with Psychiatrist Lance Dodes re. mental status of Donald Trump

The post Impeachment might make sense where very little else does appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As if on cue, following Donald Trump’s speech about Afghanistan last Monday (8/21/17), he removed the subtlety of his mental and emotional challenges the next night in his “campaign speech” in Phoenix. As soon as he gave himself permission to walk away from the teleprompter, it was open season on the bizarre, the rash, the offensive, the nonsense, and the falsehoods. Once the speech was concluded, CNN’s Don Lemon was a little less polite in his assessment.

Since the Phoenix speech, there have predictably and fortunately been more disclosures and revelations about Trump’s mental state and how it puts the country and the world at risk in an unprecedented fashion. But fortunately for all of us, talk of his instability is becoming more and more commonplace.

Former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, shared his thoughts Tuesday evening with Don Lemon. “I really question his ability to be — his fitness to be — in this office, and I also am beginning to wonder about his motivation for it.”

The following day, Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk Gersen wrote a comprehensive article in The New Yorker about why the Goldwater Rule should be revisited.

The class of professionals best equipped to answer these questions has largely abstained from speaking publicly about the President’s mental health. The principle known as the “Goldwater rule” prohibits psychiatrists from giving professional opinions about public figures without personally conducting an examination.

The Constitution contemplates, by virtue of the First Amendment, that we may freely raise concerns about elected officials, and also that in the extreme circumstance envisioned in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, medical professionals would be free to help us understand whether the President can fulfill his duties. If those who know the most are the least free to speak, neither Amendment can function properly. The Goldwater rule was an overreaction to psychiatrists wielding their professional badge to do politics. Today, the profession risks protecting itself from the taint of politics by withholding expertise from a vital public debate—a situation that seems no less irresponsible.

It is not just a matter of professionals in the field of mental health to offer their assessments of the president. All of us as citizens must include the mental and emotional state of the president as we make judgments about whether he or she is fit to serve.

Consider the words of Hillary Clinton who experienced Trump in an “up-close and personal” manner that would make most of us cringe. In her forthcoming book, “What Happened,” she writes about how Trump was stalking her on the stage of the second debate at Washington University in St. Louis:

“This is not okay, I thought,” Clinton said, reading from her book. “It was the second presidential debate and Donald Trump was looming behind me. Two days before, the world heard him brag about groping women. Now we were on a small stage and no matter where I walked, he followed me closely, staring at me, making faces.

“It was incredibly uncomfortable. He was literally breathing down my neck. My skin crawled. It was one of those moments where you wish you could hit pause and ask everyone watching, ‘Well, what would you do?’ Do you stay calm, keep smiling and carry on as if he weren’t repeatedly invading your space? Or do you turn, look him in the eye and say loudly and clearly, ‘Back up, you creep. Get away from me. I know you love to intimidate women, but you can’t intimidate me, so back up.’”

Here is the audio (excuse the opening commercial).

A major problem that our country has, and one that is rarely discussed, is that as individuals, we need to improve our “creep detection” ability. Innocent people continuously are victimized by others who one way or another may fit within the definition of a “creep.” Hillary Clinton tells us how she saw that in Donald Trump and millions of other Americans did as well. Unfortunately, millions did not see that, or they did see it and did not care.

Using such loose language can be dangerous. But with everything that we see in Donald Trump and the risks that he presents to us. we are obliged to truly call it as we see it. Short of him receiving some remarkable therapy, he is thoroughly unfit to be out president and either by the Twenty-Fifth Amendment or impeachment, he must be removed from the position.

The post Saying that Trump is unhinged is the polite way to put it appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s possible that Donald Trump can run away from his Charlottesville problems by trying to be commander-in-chief and uttering a policy about Afghanistan. What he cannot run away from, unless he receives some miraculous treatment for narcissistic tendencies, is the mental health baggage that he carries with him.

While it is true that all of us make decisions based on our psychological make-up, it would be thoroughly confusing and unworkable for us to base everyone’s judgment calls on their psychological make-up. An extension of this is that we cannot assess policy decisions on the psychological profiles of those who make them.

But when someone is as detached from reality as Donald Trump, it is essential that we put psychology first and policy assessments second. What took place in his mind to spur him to present to the country and the world a new program of adding 3,900 uncounted troops to Afghanistan? What makes him think that if he chooses a strategy that is remarkably similar to the one that he consistently disparaged and berated from Barack Obama, that he will have sudden success? It is timely that we remind ourselves that one definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Isn’t that what Trump is doing in Afghanistan?

He said,

We will not talk about numbers of troops or our plans for further military activities. Conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables, will guide our strategy from now on. America’s enemies never know our plans or believe they can wait us out.

He thinks this is new, perhaps because in style it varies from what Barack Obama did. But in substance, it is precisely what George W. Bush, Obama’s predecessor, and the man who initiated the sixteen-year-long quagmire in Afghanistan, did. The Bush-Cheney Administration went gung-ho into Afghanistan, wishing to spare no limitations on how it would try to rid the country of terrorists and to make it thoroughly inhospitable to terrorists in the future.

It may serve any United States president well to not just look back at the policies of Barack Obama or George W. Bush in trying to “conquer” Afghanistan. He won’t find success there and he won’t with Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev whose late 1970s invasion into Afghanistan was a total fiasco. If you want victory in Afghanistan, then you might find some with Alexander the Great with his campaign from 330 – 323 BCE. That really wasn’t that good either,

The type of guerilla-style fighting that Alexander faced during the Afghan campaign was described centuries later by the chronicler Plutarch, who compared Afghan tribesmen to a hydra-headed monster: as soon as Alexander cut off one head, three more would grow back in its place.

In some ways, looking at Trump through the lens of his mental health issues rather than standard policy evaluations, reveals the irony in that he could have done what he previously espoused, and what no western country has done in millennia. He could have just pulled out.

Imagine if Barack Obama had tried to simply disengage from Afghanistan. It is what many Americans, including those in uniform, wanted him to do. But since Obama had never been in the military, and he was the one who called America’s presence in Iraq “a dumb war … a rash war,” his credentials were somewhat tainted for withdrawal (as opposed, for instance, to Dwight Eisenhower leading the U.S. out of Korea in 1953).

But with Trump’s psyche and his penchant for outright lying, there is no requirement that he follow reason or base decisions on evidence. That’s why he could have chosen in his August 21, 2017 speech to pull the United States out of Afghanistan. It simply would have been “Trumpian.”

But for whatever reason, he didn’t. And now we’ll all have to pay the price. Whether the military actually gave him the advice that he ascribed to them, they had better keep a close eye on him. The idea of Donald Trump using military resources is about as scary as it can get. We can never lose sight of who he is and what he brings to the table. First and foremost, it is an illness, and that is not the correct prescription for leadership.

The post With Afghanistan, Trump cannot run away from his mental health problems appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In 1964, 1,189 psychiatrists said, “Goldwater is psychologically unfit to be president.” The reaction to that is what created the Goldwater Rule which stated, “it is unethical for psychiatrists to give a professional opinion about public figures they have not examined in person, and from whom they have not obtained consent to discuss their mental health in public statements.”

FiveThirtyEight recently revisited the issue with a Christie Aschwanden post, “’Diagnosing’ Trump Is More About Politics Than Mental Health.” This is very timely because the nature of Donald Trump, both before the 2016 election and since, is such that many people are asking WTF is going on?

Aschwanden talks about the confusion regarding the rule with three similar-sounding organizations weighing in: The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychoanalytical Association and the American Psychological Association. It should be no wonder that three organizations are not on the same page regarding the Goldwater Rule.

Professional organizations tend to get huffy about their territory and may not always take a global view of what is going on at ground-level. In the case of Trump, it is rather clear, at the minimum, that he is rather unique. It may be that some people think that he is a very healthy person, mentally. While many Americans are absolutely repulsed by his persona, there are millions who think that he is just fine. Fine enough to be president of the world’s longest-standing democracy.

Perhaps, and only perhaps, mental health assessment should be exclusively in the purview of the professionals, but in reality, most of us engage in analysis, or at least speculation. Chances are that the conclusions we draw are more a result of our own personal nature and nurture combination than any professional training. How we express it is also a reflection of who we are.

There are those who simply say that Trump is an idiot. Others will say that he is insane.

Those who give the situation a little more reflection might say that he does not seem to be mentally fit to be president, or that he has a narcissistic disorder that precludes him from distinguishing reality from fantasy. But as those on the left say such things, there are others on the right, particularly the alt-right, who think that he has all the qualities of an outstanding leader.

It is indeed difficult to distinguish between our amateurish psychological assessments of leaders and our plain and simple cultural biases. Again, to many progressives, Trump would be the nightmare guest at any gathering that one would attend. He would suck the oxygen out of the air while hurling insults at individuals and groups alike. Essentially everything that he would have to say would be about his one favorite topic, himself and how great he is.

Those of us who believe that modesty is indeed the best policy tend to be repelled by Trump and many of his associates. But there are millions of others who cannot construct a subtle way integrate their personality, so bragging and taunting is a natural way to feel good about oneself.

If the worlds of psychiatry, psychoanalysis and psychology were exact sciences, it would be easier to accept the Goldwater Rule. But we all know that one mental health professional can come to Diagnosis ‘A’ while a second comes to Diagnosis ‘B’ and so on.  So, the beat goes on. We will look at one another, and particularly our leaders, in ways that reflect our own personal values and even prejudices.

My frustration with the present situation is one that is common to almost everyone walking the planet. I wish that more people agreed with me. I wish that they would see the world as I do. If they did, we would never have anyone like Trump in the White House and we would live in peace with respect for economic, social and human rights.

But obviously, that is not the way it is, for any of us. For those of us who find Trump objectionable, we must try to find effective ways to convince others. More likely, what we need is for Trump to discover new ways to offend his base in ways that does not do too much damage to the world.

We all will continue to see things as they come most naturally to us. For those of us who wonder how we can be in a world in which Donald Trump is president of the United States, maybe our best solace is that “shit happens (not a psychological term),” and hopefully it will happen in a way that will be beneficial for us personally and the world in which we live. If we’re insightful and persistent, perhaps we can help influence what happens.

The post If Psychiatry was an exact science, the Goldwater Rule might make sense appeared first on Occasional Planet.