Let’s frame this discussion with a couple of definitions of clinical pathologies:
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (Mayo Clinic): Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition in which people have an unreasonably high sense of their own importance. They need and seek too much attention and want people to admire them. People with this disorder may lack the ability to understand or care about the feelings of others. But behind this mask of extreme confidence, they are not sure of their self-worth and are easily upset by the slightest criticism.
Antisocial Personality Disorder (Mayo Clinic): Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental health condition in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others. People with antisocial personality disorder tend to purposely make others angry or upset and manipulate or treat others harshly or with cruel indifference. They lack remorse or do not regret their behavior.
A bit of music to set the tone: Abney Park: Circus at the End of the World
Once again, my friends, election season is upon us. Much in the same way a horde of starving rats might set upon an unwary traveler who blundered into the wrong alley.
(Why am I suddenly channeling the movie “Willard?”)
The rats have come out to demand our time, attention, money, and vote, but who are these people?
The media lackeys spew forth endless praise or the vilest venom in support of their paymasters, and we are asked to choose. Choose what exactly?
Given the two definitions above, could somebody please explain how politicians operating in either a democracy or a representative democracy do not, as a class, fit these clinical descriptions?
For the life of me I cannot find a difference based on their demonstrated behavior before, during, or after their tenure in office. This assumes you can ever get them OUT of office except in handcuffs during a perp walk or at room temperature.
Example: How does one enter a “sacred position of trust” and emerge miraculously wealthier than when they went in unless they have violated that sacred trust or the letter or spirit of the Oath of Office?
For the moment, let’s assume Joe Candidate suffers from an undiagnosed condition of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Review the symptoms listed by the Mayo Clinic in the definition and honestly examine Joe’s behavior, his words, and how he treats the people around him. Then how does he behave after the election? Does he become magically honorable and nice, or does he continue to revel in his own self-importance and whore himself out to anyone who plays to his ego?
The number of Narcissistic Personality Disorders in American politics is uncountable. (So far we’re up to #47, but the sickness won’t end there.) Who else would even want to be “President of the Greatest Country on Earth”?
Jane Candidate is no better. She’s a cold glass of sweet tea on the campaign trail. She’ll smile to your face, compliment you, pose for a selfie, and pat you on the back while looking for a good place to stick a knife.
Example: Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright played their roles as the Underwoods in House of Cards beautifully. Consider Spacey’s character of Frank Underwood in the light of the Antisocial Personality Disorder above. Seems chillingly similar. Remind you of anyone in real life? How would these characters not be ridiculous caricatures unless the viewers recognized their behaviors from real life politicians?
The counterargument is that these people have not been medically diagnosed with these conditions. That assertion does nothing to address the exhibited behavior and, in turn, begs the question whether all potential candidates for office should be medically screened for these conditions by a board of psychiatrists? Then we have a group of people installed in positions of power who could themselves be corrupted in the same manner, but I digress.
Fine. Let’s give George Average a shot at the ticket. Ol’ George is a great guy. A genuinely kind person, loving towards his family, and very smart. He has a lot of great ideas, but he’s humble enough to listen to the ideas of others and seek consensus on the best path forward. One day, George decides to run for City Council and his wholesome, down-home campaign works. He’s in the game.
How long before the poison George is wallowing in simply through associating with these career politicians begins to taint him? He begins to aspire to higher office. To get there he has to appear larger than life. To be the “people’s friend” and “champion.” To lie, cheat, steal, and backstab just like the clinical cases that surround him. Know any of those?
Jimmy Stewart starred in a film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. Watch it sometime.
If a sense of personal honor is insufficient to insulate one from the corruption inherent in the system, why would the best, brightest, and most honorable people in the country even try to make a difference?
Why should the person who raises a hand and says, “I know what to do. Put me in charge…” not be beaten unconscious before he can finish his sentence? Honorable men would call it self-defense against a person who is a danger to himself and others.
Many Native American cultures did not consider leadership a position to be sought. Leadership was earned through a person’s reputation, built over years of contributing to the general welfare and demonstrating wisdom. Best of all, that non-position could be withdrawn because other people simply stopped hailing to the “chief.”
