YOU MIGHT’VE READ a little op-ed piece in the tiny P-I-edited section of the local Sunday paper, in which one Renana Brooks, billed as a “clinical psychologist,” claimed George W. Bush isn’t really a verbal stumbler but a master communicator of fear, dependency, and “empty language.”

On the site of her Sommet Institute for the Study of Power and Persuasion, Brooks goes on to condemn Bush further. She claims he’s “the hero in his own fairy tale fantasies that are passed off as a vision for the rest of the country.” She even compares his rhetorical stance with “the communication structure of an abusive personality”:

“The hallmark of the abusive personality is the need to cast itself as the savior though personalization, creating a dependency dynamic. In order to present himself as the only man for the job, Bush uses personalization to contrast his positive ‘optimistic personality with the difficult times at hand. Bush openly identifies himself as the only person capable of producing positive outcomes, even when the actions required are vaguely understood. Contrast Bush’s signature line in his speech to Congress ,’I will not falter, I will not tire, I will not fail..’ with Kennedy’s signature line “ask not what your country can do for you, ask rather what you can do for your country.”

And she accuses him of deliberately “governing by crisis,” to keep people despondent and dependent:

“Bush uses crisis ‘empty language” statements to place himself in a “one up” position vis a vis the American people. [He may have learned this both as a younger brother in a home driven by as domineering mother and an absent father, and honed it as a response to the pressures of needing to succeed in a world where he felt that it was necessary to build a persona that avoided difficult truths in relationships with more driven people than himself.] Whatever its ultimate root, Bush has become a master at using empty language to succeed.

“Even his many malapropisms may be explained as areas where empty language is being used to grapple with uncomfortable or unknown subjects, and that these malapropisms disappear as Bush grows more familiar and powerful in the subjects.

“This relentless pessimism coupled with repeated depictions of himself in a positive light by means of empty language is suggestive of the dynamics that occur in spousal abuse. There the abuser copes with underlying feelings of helplessness or anxiety and maintains dominance and control by consistently describing his partner as deficient and inadequate with no hope of improving. In cases of spousal abuse the more that the abused spouse is criticized the more she ‘appreciates’ her spouse even while disagreeing within.

“This may explain why the President’s poll ratings remain high despite the fact that people express disagreement with specific policies.”

For once, somebody’s finally put linguistic “deconstruction” analysis to a useful purpose. Now, if enough people would listen, so’s we can get started on the biz of re-constructing democracy.