Senator Obama: a case study in hubris

Today we often use the word "hubris" synonymously with "pride." But hubris, a word that comes from ancient Greek, has a slightly different meaning than pride, and in that slight difference lies the key to the aspect of Senator Obama's character that makes him a dangerous choice for President of the United States America.

• In Greek myth and tragedy, hubris (or hybris) is the pretension to be godlike, and thereby fail to observe the divine equilibrium among god, man, and nature.
• It is “a state of mind in which man thinks more than human thoughts and later translates them into act. It is an offense against the order of the world” (Grene, 1961: 487).
• It is “the arrogant violation of limits set by ... by human society” (North, 1966: 6).
• It is “having energy or power and misusing it self-indulgently” (MacDowell, 1976: 21).

From Beware the Hubris-Nemesis Complex: A Concept for Leadership Analysis by David Ronfeldt, publshed by RAND,1994 (emphases added).

As November 4 draws clearer, Senator Obama's belief that he is somehow beyond the constraints that apply to other people are evermore in evidence. Perhaps this is unsurprising: with over 150 million dollars gushing into his campaign coffers, he can afford to belittle a person who seeks to earn $250,000 a year.^* With adoring fans proclaiming love for him, he may well think that he can use people as he pleases only to disrespect or ditch them when it serves his purposes (consider his treatment of Jesse Jackson, Sr. or Wesley Clark).

Let's consider a view from abroad, excerpted below,regarding a recent appearance by Senator Obama in New Hampshire where, ironically, Senator Obama himself discussed hubris (emphases added):

The supremely confident demeanour and exalted rhetoric of the Democratic nominee at a New Hampshire event betrayed that he is a man convinced he is poised to make history.

While his Republican opponent John McCain, trailing in the polls, is pursuing a strategy of eking out a victory in traditional swing states, Mr Obama is transferring resources to conservative strongholds like Georgia, West Virginia and even Kentucky in pursuit of a landslide victory.

Speaking in an apple orchard against the picture-perfect New England backdrop of an red, green and yellow autumn foliage on a stage adorned with pumpkins and hay bales, Mr Obama reminded voters of the dangers of hubris.

Polls indicated that the young Illinois senator was cruising towards a crushing victory over Hillary Clinton in the state's Democratic primary. His rallies were two or three times the size of hers. The media had declared him the victor, a conclusion shared by Obama aides.

On election day, however, Mrs Clinton won. "We are 19 days away from changing this country. Nineteen days away. But for those who are getting a little cocky, I've got two words for you: New Hampshire," said Mr Obama.

"I learned right here, with the help of my great friend and supporter Hillary Clinton, that you cannot let up, you can't pay too much attention to polls. We've got to keep making our case for change. We've got to keep fighting for every single vote. We've got to keep running through the finish line."

At a glitzy fundraising event in Manhattan at which Bruce Springsteen and Billy Joel performed Mr Obama warned high-roller supporters: "Don't underestimate the capacity of Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Don't underestimate our ability to screw it up."

But much of Mr Obama's speech in Londonderry - punctuated by cries of "We all love you Obama", "I love you" and "We will work with you" - was devoted to the kind of quasi-religious sentiments and motivational-coach style exhortations, the kind of pride that set him up for a big fall in January.

"I want you to believe," said the candidate, clad in an open-necked shirt and barn jacket. "Not so much believe just in me but believe in yourselves. Believe in the future. Believe in the future we can build together. I'm confident together we can't fail."

There was a carnival atmosphere among the crowd of some 4,000, who almost drowned Mr Obama out as he reached his crescendo and said: "I promise you. We won't just win New Hampshire. We will win this election and, you and I together, we're going to change the country and change the world."

Mr Obama was described as "preternaturally confident" in a gushing endorsement by the Washington Post on Friday.

Note that Senator Obama's warnings about complacency are not inconsistent with the claim that he epitomizes hubris. He urges OTHERS to beware complacency about HIS election, demanding more resources from them, even as he claims inevitable victory.

In the RAND study I referenced above, the author expands on the dynamics of hubris in contemporary world leaders. He writes about a "hubris-nemesis" complex, which he, argued Americans have difficult appreciating and dealing with effectively in world leaders. Below are some traits he attributes to leaders with a hubris-nemesis complex. While the author was focused on foreign leaders, nothing in his analysis restricts the complex he describes to non-Americans.

A Destructive-Constructive Messianism.
    A hubris-nemesis leader believes himself to be—and presents himself as being—a virtual messiah or savior who is on a crusade and has a fate, destiny, or mission that is historic, both timeless and time-changing in its implications. All is politicized in the name of the mission and the high principles it engages.

    Combining constructive with destructive tendencies, he proposes to accomplish monumental projects that will confirm his and his nation’s greatness. Such projects, if achieved, may bring material progress, but their purpose goes beyond that. They symbolize the leader’s desire to direct vast energies at constructing something awesome that commands widespread respect and honor and enhances people’s feelings of pride and dignity, thereby validating his leadership and his conception of his and his nation’s abilities. Meanwhile, he seeks to blame and attack the chosen enemy and its imperious ways for his nation’s weaknesses and failures to live up to its hopes and capabilities.

High Ideals and a Moralization of Violence.
    The hubris-nemesis leader offers his followers something great and attractive to love ... and something equally great and attractive to hate ... . Good and evil are defined in stark, absolute, polarizing terms, and the leader may rage against the chosen enemy in those terms. However, he may not treat the enemy as pure evil incarnate. The desire to humiliate and destroy the enemy may derive more from its perceived hubris—the way it exercises power—than from its perceived evilness.

    The leader exalts living up to idealized expectations, and related to this, emphasizes the power of ideas. Moral goals and incentives may often prevail over material goals and incentives in his schemes, perhaps especially when it comes to justifying struggle and violence. ...

Absolute Power, Loyalty, and Attention.
    The hubris-nemesis leader insists on virtually absolute power and loyalty, in ways that combine military discipline and religious devotion. This power is justified as necessary to overcome the weight of past history and control destiny for a high purpose, as well as to meet all external and internal threats.

     Such a leader seeks constant attention. The bigger the audience and the larger the stage, the better. He hates to be upstaged or ignored—and if he is ignored, he may brood on how to regain attention. He does not tolerate abandonment by subordinates. And he is intolerant of both domestic and international rivals. Domestic rivals are crushed, especially if they challenge his power or vision. He is more likely to compete than cooperate with his international counterparts, perhaps especially if their behavior also fits the hubris-nemesis mold.

    Whether he is dealing with allies or enemies, he refuses to be humbled. But he may appear humble before selected audiences (e.g., religious visitors). Like any successful leader, he is capable of pragmatic behavior .... Yet, he never relents in his ambition for power, or his goal of retribution against the chosen enemy.

A Fierce Sense of Struggle That May Turn Self-Sacrificial.
He believes that he can—indeed, must—overcome terrible odds, threats, and obstacles. This
reinforces his insistence on total power, and justifies expecting his followers to tolerate hardship, sacrifice, and struggle to achieve the goals he sets. He thrives on threat-mongering and confrontation, or at least on their rhetoric. Defiance, rage, and vengeance (but not necessarily an all-encompassing hatred) are directed at the chosen enemy in ways that say “the more the enemy attacks us, the stronger we are.” Threats and attacks from the enemy are used to confirm the validity of the hubris-nemesis complex.

Barack Obama is not the first American politician to put me in mind of the hubris nemesis complex.  Richard Nixon, the figure who I regards as Senator Obama's nearest political relative was often characterized as hubristic, perhaps most eloquently by William Shirer, writing in The Nation, who saw in Nixon's tactics echos of 1930s Berlin. Shirer quotes Nixon, and comments:

"The average American," [Nixon] told a Washington Star reporter on the eve of his re-election, "is just like the child in the family." The implication was that the average citizen could easily be manipulated by Papa. It is, of course, a form of contempt for the common people.

Nixon, like Senator Obama, played victim when it suited him and defined others as nemesis to vindicate the claims of victimhood. And Nixon, like Obama, disregarded law, procedure, and principle whenever it served his will to power.

Some Democrats seem to operate with a double standard: Nixonian behavior is unacceptable in Republicans but permissible for Democrats. I believe that in a democracy, where rule of law is all that stands between that democracy and its downfall, this is folly.

_______
*The Illinois senator, whose appearance here came a day after McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, made a high-profile swing through the state, also jabbed McCain for claiming he would fight for “Joe the Plumber,” an Ohio man who became a central figure in Wednesday’s debate. The plumber made news this week when Obama told him at a campaign event that his tax policy would likely affect him if he bought a new company worth between $250,000 and $280,000.

“He somehow tries to convince us that a plumber is the guy he’s fighting for,” Obama said of McCain. “How many plumbers you know making a quarter-million dollars a year? I have a different set of priorities.” (source).

Comments

[Mirlo]

If the description of the hubris nemesis complex is a psychological/analytical one, I would like to add that the "need and greed to feed" the complex will never be completely satisfied, there will always be more power grabbing, the need is perpetual, it will only be terminated by disaster. Hitler had exactly this complex, didn't he?

[riverdaughter]

Excellent! So, what's the conclusion? How do we stop it?

[don tufts]

great post hedi,spot on.btw i was right in my assumption about the zogby questions.fox reports rnc started running ads this morning about barkys approval of illegals having drivers licenses.

[NH]

This man SCARES ME SILLY.

Why don't people wake up?

[Alwaysthinking]

From what I have concluded in reading various comments and from watching Hillary's diligent efforts on behalf of Obama, it seems that people with positions of great authority have given up the fight to stop him. Accepting "the handwriting on the wall," they therefore are going along to get along and are hoping for the best after the election.

When we look at history, this seems a tragic approach. Hubris-nemesis. Great suffering.

And how long are we going to suffer as a nation because we choose a leader with some kind of major psychological complex? How much harm is yet to come to those who question that person? Joe the Plumber is the latest to experience Obama's wrath. Who will be next?

[GoldwaterGirl]

Interesting. He has certainly displayed a messiah complex and a need to destroy anyone who opposes him.

[Not Your sweetie]

Fantastic essay! Hubris/nemesis is indeed the pattern that was displayed throughout this election, with the media cheering on and projecting it on his opponents (Hillary's "inevitability" meme and the so called unacceptable tone from both Hillary and McPalin)

[Northwest rain]

Great article -- very thought provoking.

Yes I agree -- Obama and Nixon share many personality traits.

However, Nixon was far more experienced then Obama will ever be -- because Nixon wasn't lazy like Obama seems to be.

Obama likes to surround himself with an adoring circle of enablers -- much like Nixon and they both like the trappings of power. Obama has his presidential chair on his smelly airplane -- and Nixon dressed the palace guard well like something out of an opera.

Obama seems to think he can delegate the stuff that doesn't interest him -- meanwhile he can do the tasks that feed his ego.

The democratic party is gone --murdered by the DNC. All for the adoration of a con man from Chicago via Hawaii.

[Susan B.]

After reading this article, I can see what Obama and Oprah have in common. Both attended Rev. Wright's Trinity (black liberation theology) racist church. When you hear Oprah's biography on television, she ALWAYS mentions in there that she just knew SHE WAS DESTINED FOR GREATNESS. What scares me most about Obama (a long list of things) is his naivete regarding the motives of others. Many Germans did not share Hitler's ideologies but were willing to be his pawns for a myriad of reasons. Obama is a willing pawn for others (terrorists, racists, crooks) and therefore very dangerous. He is the Trojan Horse hiding excessive dynamite and deceptive practices well thought out not by him but by others who wish to do this country harm. He is the Charlie McCarthy to their Edgar Bergen. I fear that with Obama at the helm, these people may get their wish.

[AJ Fish]

"Such a leader seeks constant attention. The bigger the audience and the larger the stage, the better. He hates to be upstaged or ignored—and if he is ignored, he may brood on how to regain attention. He does not tolerate abandonment by subordinates. And he is intolerant of both domestic and international rivals. Domestic rivals are crushed, especially if they challenge his power or vision. He is more likely to compete than cooperate with his international counterparts, perhaps especially if their behavior also fits the hubris-nemesis mold."

Chilling. Have you heard his election night party is going to be bigger than his stadium party?