U.S. Rep Charlie Rangel exhibits numerous behavioral clues to alcoholism.
In an early 2009 piece on white collar crime, The Economist magazine suggests there may be some truth in something those who have read my books would predict: “Many [Club Fed and other white collar] prisoners suddenly discover, post-conviction, that they had a drinking problem….” I would add that those who don’t figure this out might benefit from greater introspection. In the spirit of The Economist’s discovery, a recent story follows for which the evidence of alcoholism is in the behavior itself.
U.S. Representative Charlie Rangel (D-NY), found guilty of violating 11 House ethics rules by the House Ethics Committee. Among the 11 violations was a failure to declare about $75,000 in rental income from a Dominican villa over a several year period, which is truly egregious since he is a former chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which is responsible for writing tax law. Rangel, 80, walked out at the tail-end of the proceedings claiming he had not been given a chance to retain new lawyers for his defense, which the ethics panel interpreted as meaning he was no longer contesting the facts underlying the allegations. The panel, split evenly between Democrats and Republicans, reached a unanimous conclusion on 10 of 11 counts. The 20-term congressman, after parting ways with his legal team to which he paid $2 million for his defense, had the temerity to ask, “How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the ethics subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room?” Based on numerous behavioral indications of addiction and the methodology detailed in How to Spot Hidden Alcoholics: Using Behavioral Clues to Recognize Addiction in Its Early Stages—including his expansive use of manipulative charm, being in a position that allows the capricious use of power, engaging in risky behaviors ($75,000 of unreported income?!!! In his position?!!!), pontification, the use of twisted logic, flouting rules and convention, seemingly a great liar and possibly committing felonious behavior (even if not convicted of such in a court of law)—the Drug Addiction Recognition Expert ® would ascribe 80% odds of addiction without proof of use. The other 20% of the time there is another plausible explanation for such gross misbehaviors, including untreated severe codependency, which occurs in some children of alcoholics. According to The Economist, he accused his father of being “absolutely no good” in his memoirs, at the age of 5 or 6 he tried to stop his father from beating his mother, and “when his father walked out and his mother had to travel to work, young Charlie was sometimes left with uncles who got drunk and lost him.” One way or the other, the best explanation for Charlie Rangel’s misbehaviors is alcoholism—if not in him, in someone (or many) who greatly affected him.