Bush and Blair: sufferers from Hubristic Syndrome?

Through an interesting and happy concatenation of events, I ended up at a small-ish lunch yesterday along with former British Foreign Secretary David Owen. He recently released– but only, alas, in the UK book market– a book called The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair and the Intoxication of Power.
The first thing to remember is that David Owen was also– long before he became a Labour MP, and even longer before he became Foreign Secretary, or a leader of the SDP breakaway from Labour, or the EU’s chief negotiator on former Yugoslavia– he was a medical doctor. And he seems quite serious about having identified an actual clinical condition that occurs in some leaders in politics or business, called Hubristic Syndrome.
As lunch wound down we had a short conversation about the book, and the whole theory of what, I’m afraid, we will have to call “HS”. He said it’s important to distinguish it from bipolar disorder (which, I gather, he thinks W. Churchill probably suffered from.) He said HS often occurs in individuals who also have some form of adult ADHD or propensity to addictions.
I haven’t gotten ahold of the book yet, but this is from the “Synopsis” published on the Amazon.co.uk website:

    For many politicians, power seems to go to their head, and becomes a heady drug affecting every action they take. The Greeks called it hubris, where the hero wins glory, acclaim and success – but it is often followed by nemesis. David Owen suggests George Bush and Tony Blair developed a Hubristic Syndrome while in power. He provides a powerful analysis, looking at their behaviour, beliefs and governing style, in particular the nature of their hubristic incompetence in handling the Iraq War. Both of them, and in her last year in office, Margaret Thatcher, developed many of the tell-tale and defining symptoms. A statesman, politician and medical doctor, with personal knowledge of the war in the Balkans, David Owen has unique insight into Blair’s premiership, including several meetings and conversations with Blair from 1996-2004. With his long political experience, Owen has written a devastating critique of the way that Bush and Blair manipulated intelligence and failed to plan for the aftermath of taking Baghdad. Their messianic manner, excessive confidence in their own judgement, and unshakeable belief that they will be vindicated by a ‘higher court’, have doomed what the author believes could have been a successful democratic transformation of Iraq.

It seems like an interesting move, to “medicalize” what we might otherwise regard simply as extremely bad behavior in these leaders. To me, at first blush, it doesn’t seem a sufficient explanation of what has gone on with these two men (and Maggie T. in her last year in power.) I guess I’ll need to read the whole book to see whether the concept of HS has any explanatory power, or simply a degree of descriptive power.
Also, if what they’re suffering from is a medical condition, does that– or should that– decrease the degree of actual responsibility we should attribute to them in connection with actions and decisions regarding the war that certainly did seem to involve a high, possibly even criminal, degree of both recklessness and dereliction of duty– including the duty of “due diligence”?
On the other hand, as a Quaker-Buddhist, I do hold fast to the two ideas that (1) There is that of the divine in everyone, regardless of how much I might disapprove of her/his actions; and (2) Harmful behaviors spring from lack of awareness of the truths about the human condition, not from any intrinsic badness in the perpetrator’s personality… And certainly, one of the main symptoms of HS would seem to be a very serious divorce from awareness of reality.
One further note: At the lunch David made the point– as alluded to in the publisher’s synopsis above– that he had supported the original decision to invade Iraq. As longtime JWN readers are aware, I never did. I disagree with David Owen that the outcome of the invasion “could have been a successful democratic transformation of Iraq.” From that point of view, if I were to subscribe to his general diagnosis of Bush’s (and perhaps also Blair’s) condition, I would probably tend to date the onset of HS in both men to a time considerably before March 2003… And yes, in Bush’s case, there is plenty of evidence of that– including many of the conversations described in Bob Woodward’s “State of Denial”, and the materials in the Paul O’Neil/ Ron Susskind book on Bush.
But, as noted above, I really do need to read David’s book before I comment too much more.

15 thoughts on “Bush and Blair: sufferers from Hubristic Syndrome?”

  1. In 2004, long-time BBC commentator John Humphrys published a minor little masterpiece called Lost for Words: the Mangling and Manipulating of the English Language. In it, he subjects both Bush and Blair — whom I prefer to characterize as the Texas stud hamster and his spayed British poodle — to a damning analysis: not so much for their tragic Greek qualities as for their Elmer-Gantry-like fascination with Orwellian linguistic marketing techniques employed to sell themselves as images of artificially manufactured desire. I sometimes think that Humphrys might have better described Bush and Blair by pilfering the title of his book from an old Harrold Robbins pulp novel about Hollywood called The Dream Merchants.
    With Blair gone now and Bush staggering onward to even greater lame-duck humiliation — for both himself and America — I think our attention ought to focus more on those who seek to replace them. From all appearances, at least in the United States, it looks like a contest between a herd of gilded geldings and a muddled mare trying to sell herself as a Hobson’s Choice hawk. In terms of peace/war stereotypes, though, Gore Vidal said it best when he said that these people resemble not so much “doves” or “hawks” as capons.
    After meditating on this concept for some time, I awoke this morning to an image of the American President as some combination of Samurai Salesman and Super Chicken, who dresses up in Bushido attire only to brandish the wrong sword instead of a fan — castrating himself and his country in the process. Or, on the off chance that Buffaloed Girl gets to try out for a part in Memoirs of a Military/Industrial Geisha, she accidentally commits ritual Seppuku (as prescribed for women of the Samurai class) by stabbing herself not in the neck but in her mouth.
    Anyway, given the moral and intellectual mediocrities posing for political pictures in America these days, I’d go easy looking for tragic Greek themes — which presume some sort of heroic-though-flawed qualities in a character — and focus instead on comedic folly. Didn’t the Greeks (as well as Shakespeare) have quite a lot to offer in that genre as well?

  2. David Owen shares some of the responsibility for the disaster in Bosnia; his lack of action in the face of that catastrophe displayed the indifference that seems typical of politicians.
    I think there was a study done which found that politicians share similar personalities with criminals; they both have a below average sensitivity to others.

  3. Here is more from David Owen in same line.
    Hubris: the new Iraq war syndrome
    Former Foreign Secretary David Owen says the post-Saddam debacle is born of the intoxicating allure of power,
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1934344,00.html
    Helena,
    As longtime JWN readers are aware, I never did. I disagree with David Owen
    Helena now this from the past actually it’s irrelevant.
    These things not clears the facts that Iraq becoming a new Palestine, whatever people or US citizens believes before and now things looks no affect at all on what really was planed for Iraq with US occupations and her feet’s on the ground there.
    Just days ago in the news, US planning to establish new 20 military bases in Iraq! With cost running in billions, these billions from your and other US citizens whatever your position before the war and now no one care or take it in account, everything’s moving forward as planed whomever in WH.

  4. Hubristic syndrome? A successful democratic transformation of Iraq by means of shock and awe? My aunt Fatima!
    George W. Bush is a classic narcissist with a major dose of sociopathy. Don’t know about sidekick Tony Blair, but panting, tail wagging poodle DOES capture the image pretty well. It seems to me he granted whatever power he might have had to Georgie, and just followed along with mouth agape, tongue hanging, and tail wagging. What a pair!
    And this is the quality of human being that threatens the future of humanity.

  5. there was a study done which found that politicians share similar personalities with criminals; they both have a below average sensitivity to others.
    One if the primary signs of narcissism is a lack of empathic ability, which is probably a prerequisite for a successful politician.

  6. Shirin,
    The sad fact is Tony Blair seems all too typical of politicians; when faced between a choice of principle or opportunism most choose the latter. Craig Murray has written on his blog that Blair made huge amounts of money from military interests for his support of the colonial war against Iraq.
    George Bush does seem like a sociopath. I think his brother Jeb Bush is cut from the same cloth; I vaguely recall a trial in Florida over the S & L scandal where Jeb made some outrageous claims of entitlement.
    However, I wonder how different things would have been under a Gore/Lieberman administration. Gore tried to position himself as more of a hawk during the 2000 presidential race and was one of the most hawkish members of the Clinton administration. He was beholden to zionist interests.

  7. The Reverse shock and awe Doctrineby?
    I wonder what would happen if the people and their representatives were to shock the powerful and their funders for a change? What if on November 16th, the Iraq Moratorium day, everybody together took major actions? What if everyone with a job took the day off work? What if everyone wore orange? What if everyone with a tax bill wrote to the IRS to say not to expect another dollar of that portion of taxes that goes to war? What if everyone who gives money to Democrats wrote to them to say not one more dime before impeachment? What if everyone left their homes in the morning and went straight to the nearest district office of their congress member, sat down, and picnicked on the floor, refusing to leave without two written commitments: 1. to vote no on any more money to occupy Iraq, and 2. to cosponsor articles of impeachment against Cheney and Bush? What if everyone brought cell phones and media lists and spent all day phoning the media from their congress member’s office?
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_david_sw_071112_the_reverse_shock_do.htm

  8. It is ironic that Owen, in many ways the forerunner of Blair, should turn against him. I suspect he rather resents the younger man’s “success” in reducing the Labour party into Toryism minus tradition. As to the disease in question it is called Imperialism and it makes cholera look positively benign.

  9. edq, I just love watching how everyone suddenly idolized Al Gore. They talk about what would – or more accurately would NEVER EVER – have happened had Gore won, and they say it with such absolute certainty too.
    Honestly, during that election I was actually more worried about Gore than I was about Lieberman (I should have been at least as worried about Lieberman). Al Gore used to weep during his annual speech at the AIPAC convention when he waxed lyrical about his great love for Israel. Yes, he was very much in the pocket of AIPAC. I actually thought Lieberman might prove to be more moderate on Middle Eastern issues, particularly pertaining to Israel since, being a Jew, he would not have to work so hard to prove himself in that regard. I might have been wrong about that, but…
    And I don’t recall ever hearing about Gore questioning the horrors that Clinton visited upon the Iraqis or anyone else.
    So now, after seven years of Bush, Gore looks like a knight in shining armour, but there was a reason that some of us found we could not vote for either of them.

  10. Shirin, I have met people who voted for Bush in 2000 because they thought he would have a more balanced Middle East policy; Bush convinced some people he would be different by taking a modest position against anti-Arab discrimination in Wisconsin.
    I think that after Gore left office he was no longer owned by the Israeli lobby and could oppose the war. Lieberman seems like a “true believer”.

  11. edq,
    I believe you are right both about Gore and about Lieberman.
    But that makes Gore a political whore, does it not?
    As for Bush, a lot of Muslims voted for him in 2000 because they had the illusion that he would support religious initiatives across the board. I tried to warn them that he is a Christian Supremacist, but most did not listen. They learned the hard way.

  12. Helena,
    It’s not the first time that theories emerges trying to explain the deeds of politicians through illness. some years ago I remember of a book entitled “These sick individuals governing us” (Ces malades qui nous gouvernent). Personnally, I think that when an individual comes to power it’s because he has support, usually support from the powerfull; sometimes also support from the poors and the excluded (but that most of the time doesn’t come without a revolution).
    In the case of the Iraq war, Bush, Cheney, Blair and co were supported by the big companies : oil companies, militaro-industrial companies etc; add to that, knowledge about the scarcity of oil and the sick theories concerning the superiority of the US (like the XXIth Century being the American Empire’s Century) plus the trauma caused by the twin tower destruction and you have all you need to explain why Bush went to war. No need to look for special deseases..
    If the Americans weren’t agreeing with Bush’s deeds, he would already be impeached, he won’t have been reelected. Or, I’ll grant you that some Americans of good faith have been lured by the Bush propaganda, but if the powerfull lobbies weren’t supporting Bush’s deeds, they would already have found a way to throw him out. In fact those who counts in the US think that the occupation of Iraq is a good thing, because the US need to control countries producing oil. As is now clear from the fist debates of the democrates candidates, they won’t change course in Iraq.

Comments are closed.