Study: Political Power breeds Egotism

If “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (Lord Acton), then this is likely to germinate from the ego via the psychological ego’s desire for more power and the consequent actions to acquire it.

Political power, says a study, drives politicians to acquire a hubris syndrome.

From DailyMail.com.uk (hat tip LewRockwell.com) [bold mine]

Dubbed Hubris syndrome, it has been suggested that a number of Prime Ministers may have developed the personality disorder - known as Hubris syndrome - while in power.

Researchers at St George's, University of London have discovered that this personality change was reflected in both Blair's and Thatcher's use of language.

Hubris, say the researchers, is commonly associated with a loss of contact with reality and an overestimation of one's own competence, accomplishments or capabilities.

It is characterised by a pattern of exuberant self-confidence, recklessness and contempt for others, and is most particularly recognised in subjects holding positions of significant power.

Fourteen clinical symptoms of Hubris syndrome have been described. People who show at least three of these could be diagnosed with the disorder.

Power, literally, goes to their head…

Dr Peter Garrard, the lead researcher, from St George's, University of London, said: 'Hubris syndrome represents a radical change in a person's outlook, style and attitude after they acquire positions of power or great influence.

'They become obsessed with their self-image, excessively confident in their own judgement and dismissive of others, often leading to rash, ill thought-out decisions.

'In other words, the acquisition of power can bring about a change in personality: it is as if power, almost literally "goes to their head".

The other way to see this is that egotists desire political power whose ego inflates further once in position. 

Also, political power is a magnet for sociopaths, which seems complimentary to the hubris syndrome.

Quote of the Day: The Failure of Leadership

That’s what leadership is all about — solemn and pompous lying. The greatest leaders are those who do it most grandly. Abraham Lincoln, for example. Without his leadership, the US would have probably split apart, which is to say the southern states would have been permitted to exercise the right laid out for them in the Declaration of Independence. They merely demanded to do what the 13 colonies had done before them — to misgovern themselves rather than have it imposed on them by others.

Lincoln — at Gettysburg — told the biggest lie in American history. He said they were fighting to preserve the promise of the revolution, and that the war was a test of whether “any nation, so conceived…can long endure.” In the end, his generals, Grant and Sherman, decided the matter in the negative.

The next greatest leadership debacle came in 1917. That was when Woodrow Wilson launched the US into someone else’s war on the basis of a breathtaking deceit. It was a “war to make the world safe for democracy,” he said. But if that were so, the US went in on the wrong side. Specifically, Britain and France ruled hundreds of millions of people — in Africa, Ireland, India, Southeast Asia — with no votes allowed! Germany, in comparison, was a model of democratic humbug.

Leaders lie. And their leadership — founded on lies — typically brings disasters. WWI was a disaster. Then came an economic disaster — the Great Depression. In the previous depression, 1920-1921, US president Warren Harding and Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, simply ignored it. No leadership was provided. Two years later the depression was over.

This is from Agora publishing editor Bill Bonner at the Daily Reckoning.

10 Signs of a Sociopath; The Worst Get on Top

The recent unfortunate slapping incident during a TV debate by a Greek politician looks like signs of a sociopath.

Naturalnews.com talks about the risks of associating with people with sociopath traits.(bold original)

Sociopaths are masters at influence and deception. Very little of what they say actually checks out in terms of facts or reality, but they're extremely skillful at making the things they say sound believable, even if they're just making them up out of thin air. Here, I'm going to present quotes and videos of some legendary sociopaths who convinced everyday people to participate in mass suicides. And then I'm going to demonstrate how and why similar sociopaths are operating right now... today.

Why cover this subject? I've seen a lot of people get hoodwinked, scammed or even harmed by sociopaths, and it bewilders me that people are so easily sucked into their destructive influence. I want to share with NaturalNews readers the warning signs of sociopaths so that you can spot them, avoid them, and save yourself the trouble of being unduly influenced by them.

Much of this information is derived from the fascinating book,The Sociopath Next Door(http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828), which says that 4% of the population are sociopaths. The book is a fascinating read.

Aside from being hoodwinked from their glib persuasions, sociopaths or psychopaths don’t take the responsibility for their actions, and thus, resort to blaming others for their mistakes, as explained by author Michael Cross (video on this link, thanks to an anonymous commenter)

Yet here are the ten signs to look for, again from Naturalnews.com

10 Signs for Spotting a Sociopath

#1) Sociopaths are charming.Sociopaths have high charisma and tend to attract a following just because people want to be around them. They have a "glow" about them that attracts people who typically seek guidance or direction. They often appear to be sexy or have a strong sexual attraction. Not all sexy people are sociopaths, obviously, but watch out for over-the-top sexual appetites and weird fetishes.

#2) Sociopaths are more spontaneous and intense than other people. They tend to do bizarre, sometimes erratic things that most regular people wouldn't do. They are unbound by normal social contracts. Their behavior often seems irrational or extremely risky.

#3) Sociopaths are incapable of feeling shame, guilt or remorse.Their brains simply lack the circuitry to process such emotions. This allows them to betray people, threaten people or harm people without giving it a second thought. They pursue any action that serves their own self interest even if it seriously harms others.

#4) Sociopaths invent outrageous lies about their experiences.They wildly exaggerate things to the point of absurdity, but when they describe it to you in a storytelling format, for some reason it sounds believable at the time.

#5) Sociopaths seek to dominate others and "win" at all costs.They hate to lose any argument or fight and will viciously defend their web of lies, even to the point of logical absurdity.

#6) Sociopaths tend to be highly intelligent, but they use their brainpower to deceive others rather than empower them. Their high IQs often makes them dangerous. This is why many of the best-known serial killers who successfully evaded law enforcement were sociopaths.

#7) Sociopaths are incapable of love and are entirely self-serving. They may feign love or compassion in order to get what they want, but they don't actually FEEL love in the way that you or I do.

#8) Sociopaths speak poetically. They are master wordsmiths, able to deliver a running "stream of consciousness" monologue that is both intriguing and hypnotic. They are expert storytellers and even poets. As a great example of this in action, watch this interview of Charles Manson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIfGj_55FHI

#9) Sociopaths never apologize.They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.

#10) Sociopaths are delusional and literally believe that what they say becomes truth merely because they say it!Charles Manson, the sociopathic murderer, is famous for saying, "I've never killed anyone! I don't need to kill anyone! I THINK it! I have it HERE! (Pointing to his temple.) I don't need to live in this physical realm..."
Watch Charles Manson saying this at the 3:05 mark of this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIfGj_55FHI

Read the explanations of the above qualities here.

Well, as previously pointed out, there are parallel traits between politicians and psycho-sociopaths.

[UPDATED to ADD: As an aside, although sociopaths may rise in the corporate world, their actions are limited by profits and losses. This is unlike politics, where mistakes would, ironically, have politicians call for more of the same set of actions which brought them to such conditions. Besides, since government is a mandated monopoly, there are no market prices for their activities, example police are paid for in salaries but we cannot establish the real worth of their services, hence there is no way to make politicians or the bureaucracy accountable in the same way as the markets operate. Thus politicians usually come away clean from their blemishes.]

That’s because the nature of politics seamlessly fits into the adaption of these qualities such that people with these characteristics tend to rise to the occasion to assume the role of leadership.

The great Friedrich von Hayek said that in politics, the only worst people get on the top.

Explains Mises Institute’s Doug French, (bold emphasis mine)

F.A. Hayek famously argued in The Road to Serfdom, that in politics, the worst get on top, and outlined three reasons this is so. First, Hayek makes the point that people of higher intelligence have different tastes and views. So, as Hayek writes, “we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive instincts prevail,” to have uniformity of opinion.

Second, those on top must “gain the support of the docile and gullible,” who are ready to accept whatever values and ideology is drummed into them. Totalitarians depend upon those who are guided by their passions and emotions rather than by critical thinking.

Finally, leaders don’t promote a positive agenda, but a negative one of hating an enemy and envy of the wealthy. To appeal to the masses, leaders preach an “us” against “them” program.

What’s Common between Politicians and Psychopaths?

The similarities of politicians and psychopaths, writes Douglas French at the Mises Blog (bold emphasis mine)

According to law enforcement examiner Jim Kouri, politicians share a number of traits with serial killers. People with a talent for mixing charm, manipulation, intimidation, and occasionally violence to control others, to satisfy their own selfish needs are psychopathic.

Not all psychopaths are serial killers, but according to Kouri, serial killers display numerous psychopathic traits. Kouri writes,

“What doesn’t go unnoticed is the fact that some of the character traits exhibited by serial killers or criminals may be observed in many within the political arena. While not exhibiting physical violence, many political leaders display varying degrees of anger, feigned outrage and other behaviors. They also lack what most consider a “shame” mechanism. Quite simply, most serial killers and many professional politicians must mimic what they believe, are appropriate responses to situations they face such as sadness, empathy, sympathy, and other human responses to outside stimuli.”

Professions of Politicians

The Economist came up with an unusual observation about the stereotyped professions of politicians in different countries.

From the Economist, ``WHEN Barack Obama met Hu Jintao, his Chinese counterpart, it was an encounter not just between two presidents, but also between two professions. A lawyer, trained to argue from first principles and haggle over words, was speaking to an engineer, who knew how to build physical structures and keep them intact. To find out why some professions are prevalent among politicians The Economist trawled through a sample of almost 5,000 politicians in “International Who’s Who”, a reference book, to examine their backgrounds. Some findings are predictable. Africa is full of military men, while lawyers dominate in democracies such as Germany, France and, of course, America. China has a fondness for engineers. But other countries have their own peculiarities. Egypt likes academics; South Korea, civil servants; Brazil, doctors."

Military leaders in Africa reflects on the despotic state of national governance, while "law" in democracies are representative of the prominence of argumentation and debate characteristics which are almost always designed to win the appeal of voters.

Here in the Philippines, many past and present politicos have "law" as background. 8 of the 14 Philippine Presidents were law graduates, namely Ferdinand Marcos, Diosdado Macapagal, Carlos Garcia, Elpidio Quirino, Manuel Roxas, Sergio Osmenia, Jose Laurel, Manuel Quezon. Even Corazon Aquino had an unfinished post graduate studies in law.

Interestingly, since President Marcos, the succeeding presidents have had diverse credentials: Asia's first female President Corazon Aquino had been known as "plain housewife", President Fidel V. Ramos had been a top ranking military officer, President Joseph Estrada a prestigous film actor and the incumbent President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo had been an academic economist and a civil servant.

Nonetheless going back to the commentary by the Economist, we can't explain the quirks of China (fondness for engineers), South Korea (civil servants), Egypt (academics) or Brazil (doctors).

But all these reminds me of two signficant commentaries from Frank Chodorov (1887–1966) in Economics versus Politics, The Rise and Fall of the Society where he says (bold highlight mine)...

``The intrusion of politics into the field of economics is simply an evidence of human ignorance or arrogance, and is as fatuous as an attempt to control the rise and fall of tides. Since the beginning of political institutions, there have been attempts to fix wages, control prices, and create capital, all resulting in failure. Such undertakings must fail because the only competence of politics is in compelling men to do what they do not want to do or to refrain from doing what they are inclined to do, and the laws of economics do not come within that scope. They are impervious to coercion. Wages and prices and capital accumulations have laws of their own, laws which are beyond the purview of the policeman."

and secondly...

``The assumption that economics is subservient to politics stems from a logical fallacy. Since the state (the machinery of politics) can and does control human behavior, and since men are always engaged in the making of a living, in which the laws of economics operate, it seems to follow that in controlling men the state can also bend these laws to its will. The reasoning is erroneous because it overlooks consequences. It is an invariable principle that men labor in order to satisfy their desires, or that the motive power of production is the prospect of consumption; in fact, a thing is not produced until it reaches the consumer."

The underlying moral: regardless of the politician's experience or background, the law of economics must dominate society's needs.