Presidential Hubris

Things Didn’t Go Wrong, They Already Were Wrong

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Aug. 20, 2009

As the agenda of the Obama administration continues to unravel, the media ask, “What went wrong?” Pundits have various answers, but the question is misleading. Nothing went wrong. Things already were wrong.

The ancient Greeks defined hubris as conceit or arrogance so great that it evokes the anger of the gods. We no longer believe in pagan gods − except Marx, that is. But we still are afflicted by hubris.

·         We suffer from technological hubris, the mistaken belief that there are technological solutions to human problems. Thus if cars unexpectedly accelerate, we blame the car, but we ignore the driver − who mistook the accelerator for the brake. If we are not sure what to do in many areas of life, often it is best to step on the brake, not the accelerator.

·         We suffer from numerical hubris, the mistaken belief that everything can be quantified. This may be true in science, but it is very far from true in human relations. Thus when asked whether an elderly person should receive a pacemaker, President Obama replied, “If we’ve got experts…advising doctors that the pacemaker may ultimately save money…”

·         We suffer from organizational hubris, the mistaken belief that if we design an organization, it will work regardless of the people who fill the slots. Thus we plan a vast reorganization of our health care, with everything centrally controlled. But who will manage the system? The geniuses who led our largest banks into insolvency? The geniuses who led the world’s largest auto maker into bankruptcy? The geniuses in the government who oversaw − and overlooked − these disasters? With managers like this, the reorganization of our health care will turn out to be only half-vast.

·         We suffer from educational hubris, the mistaken belief that graduates of prestigious universities are superior to people who have less formal education, but who probably have more life experience − and often more wisdom as well. An example is Lenin, who posed as the champion of the poor, but who privately referred to peasants as “cattle.” Cattle are herded, and ultimately slaughtered. Thus the president believes that merely because he graduated from Harvard Law School, he somehow deserves to decide who gets pain pills instead of hip surgery, and who gets his best wishes instead of a cardiac pacemaker. Cattle, indeed.

·         We suffer from ideological hubris, the mistaken belief that our ideas are correct regardless of the evidence. Are there record cool temperatures this summer? Has there been no global warming for a decade? Are global temperatures closely correlated with energy output by the sun? No matter. Continue to proclaim that human-caused global warming is a “crisis” that demands drastic action to stave off catastrophe. Thus the president demanded, and the House passed without reading it, a 1500-page “Cap and Tax” bill that will affect virtually every aspect of the economy and raise everyone’s energy costs. And New York Times columnist Paul Krugman calls global-warming denial “treason against the planet.” We execute traitors − is this what Krugman implies?

·         We suffer from political hubris, the mistaken belief that we are “good,” while our opponents are not just ill-informed or mistaken, but actually “evil.” Thus Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls those who object to government-run health care un-American and implies they are Nazis, and she calls health-insurance companies “villains.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid calls protestors “phony” and “evil-mongers.” Senator Barbara Boxer calls the protests “a diversion by people who want to hurt President Obama.” Not one to mince words, former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean charges that Republicans want to “kill the bill and kill the president…” But words have consequences. Protestors have been intimidated, locked out and even beaten. Isn’t that what such disgusting people deserve?

What is the source of such hubris? Some people are narcissists. They believe that their ideas are best, so that other ideas are inferior. They believe that those who hold contrary ideas are not just mistaken, but morally and intellectually deficient. They ask, “How could anyone who is an intelligent, good-hearted person possibly disagree with my brilliant insights?”

Some people are elitists. They believe that they belong to a superior class, and that other people are inferior. They believe that their status entitles them to make decisions for “lower-class” people, who are incapable of running their own lives. In past times − and to some extent even now in parts of the world − the “upper class” is determined by birth.

But in America, “upper class” is often defined by education − but not actual education. I have an A.B. from U.C. Berkeley and an M.D. from U.C. San Francisco, but I am by no means a member of the “elite.” No, the “elite” are defined by prestige. They have degrees from Ivy League universities, whether or not their field of study has anything to do with the subject at hand. Barack Obama’s bachelor’s degree from Columbia and his law degree from Harvard somehow entitle him to make decisions that affect the health care of 307 million Americans.

In addition, the “elite” are defined by membership in the political class. Persons with degrees from less prestigious institutions may be elevated to “upper-class” status by membership in Congress, especially the Senate, or by association with such people − but only if they hold politically correct, liberal views.

George W. Bush served two terms as governor of Texas, our second most populous state, and two terms as president. In addition, he has a bachelor’s degree from Yale and an M.B.A. from Harvard, but he was never a member of the “elite.” His Texas twang and his moderately conservative views consigned him to the “others” − the great unwashed, ignorant masses that the “elite” hold in contempt, and that Lenin referred to − and treated − as “cattle.”

The problem with being members of an elevated “elite” is that at their high altitude, they lose sight of individual human beings − they see only groups. From their lofty perch, they lose touch with ordinary mortals. They communicate only with fellow members of the “elite.” They rarely eat lunch, much less dinner, with an outsider. They get their news from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN and National Public Radio. They read the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and most papers in between.

The “elite” thus hear only liberal opinions, which reinforce their own. So when they unexpectedly are confronted by someone who disagrees, they tend to be shocked and angered − and often resort to vile name-calling. The reaction of the “elite” to the health-care debate is a striking example. They are so unused to debating that they have almost forgotten how. Conservatives, on the contrary, are exposed to all these liberal media, so they cannot avoid hearing contrary views − and thereby sharpen their own arguments.

Being a member of the “elite” has many advantages. But being in touch with the opinions of ordinary people is not among them. In the end, being a member of the “elite” becomes self-defeating. From my point of view, this is a very good thing.

We no longer believe that extreme arrogance angers the gods, but it surely does irritate the voters.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com