Former congressman Anthony Weiner, who has now resigned in disgrace, took, and then transmitted, various photos of himself — either posing and flexing in gym attire, pointing to his private parts, smiling in various states of undress and sexual arousal, or in combinations of these themes.
Americans find this bizarre, largely because the vast majority of American males, at least above the age of 25, not only have not taken sexually explicit photos of themselves (much less sent them to near strangers), but have not taken any self-portraits whatsoever. Apparently Mr. Weiner believed that his position as a relatively high-profile congressman made, literally, all of him of interest to almost anyone. Someone somehow had apparently convinced the rather geeky Mr. Weiner that he was quite attractive, to the point that he assumed others would wish to join such a Narcissus in fixating at the pool of his own rather sad reflection.
Advertisement
Former senator and vice-presidential candidate John Edwards is terribly angry at his mistress, Rielle Hunter. She apparently, with his consent, used her film-producing expertise to make explicit tapes of the two naked and in flagrante delicto in an Indianapolis hotel room — and then carelessly lost possession of the tapes. (So much for eternal infatuation.) The details of their scripted sexual congress are of no interest; but the motivation for it is in a way.
John Edwards was once acclaimed a savvy trial lawyer, and as a high-profile politician he knew that he had to either lead an exemplary life, or ensure that there were no hard data showing that he had not. Yet he chose to put his cheap adultery on tape, and now is facing not only the specter of a prison sentence for alleged campaign-finance irregularities, but also the possible tawdriness of having his private moments ricocheted around the Internet. I say “possible” not in the sense that it might not happen, but, given the Weiner exemplar, in the sense that Edwards might not find it so tawdry.
Still, why did he do such a thing? Did his narcissism trump his political sense to the extent that he was willing to ruin his political career, humiliate his cancer-stricken wife, destroy his family unity, and even risk “John’s room” in his palatial estate for the occasional titillation of watching himself commit sex again and again, thanks to the rewind button (perhaps with friends over, as for the Super Bowl, with popcorn and beer?).
We can easily find multiple examples of these symptoms of political narcissism: The late Sen. Robert Byrd, in Josef Stalin or Saddam Hussein fashion, plastering his name and image over all sorts of West Virginia public-works projects, many of them unneeded and funded at the expense of far more important investments. Do we remember the former speaker of the House, Jim Wright, publishing a book, Reflections of a Public Man, that no one in his right mind would wish to read and then distributing it through bulk purchases using campaign funds and donations? And back in the Petronian sphere, did Rep. Mark Foley (who lectured gays on traditional morality) really believe that he had the right to inquire, in dirty-old-man fashion, about the coming-of-age sexuality of teenage boys? Did Sen. Larry Craig (who lectured Clinton on being “naughty”) think it appropriate to cruise for raunchy homosexual sex in public restrooms? How about Gov. Eliot Spitzer (who lectured Wall Street on being excessive and self-indulgent) frequenting young prostitutes?
The list of the near-unbelievable is nearly endless, and it raises an interesting question: Do narcissists gravitate to political office, or does the insular, Versailles-like nature of a Washington, an Albany, or a Sacramento turn normal men into narcissists?
I think the ancient Greek notion of "Hubris" sums up this phenomenon pretty well.
Although it probably is true to some extent that holding public office increases existing narcissism and sense of entitlement, I think what's more relevant is that narcissism goes with power-seeking in general.
In other words, narcissists are more likely to want to seek public office, and consequently as a professional group a disproportionately large number of politicians are narcissists.
Relevant to Weiner, in particular, bulking up in the gym, launching into bullying tirades, and sending out images of the privates are all signs of insecurity and self-doubt.
I concur with VDH with one caveat: While I agree that public office and all that accompanies it, often has the effect of changing a man (for the worse), I also think those temptations have the effect of revealing the "true" man. That is, the testing of man's character often reveals who he is. There is a saying about men and character: The measure of a man’s real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out.
VDH is, of course, correct, though incomplete. If our culture were such that it viewed these men for the preening peacocks they are the voters would rightly turn them out of office long before the elements VDH points to could exacerbate their pre-existing character flaws once they gained office. But the truth is that too many of the rank and file of our culture are entirely narcissistic, and thus the politicians reflect the voters who keep them in office. The idea that otherwise humble politicians suddenly become narcissists due to the corruptive elements VDH points to is a non-starter; Wiener was a megalomaniac long before he gained national office, as was Byrd. Once our culture and its voters return to the place where narcissism is viewed as a disqualifying characteristic generally, much less for our leaders, then the people elected to office will reflect that value. But as it stands, we live in a culture where everyone believes themselves entitled to their fifteen minutes of fame on YouTube, crude reality TV emphasizing ostentatious flamboyance dominates the fare, and outrageous, immoral behavior (think Charlie Sheen or Lady GaGa) is excused so long as it is understood that the motivation for the behavior was in pursuit of fame and publicity. Thus, while we could (and should) institute all the reforms VDH suggests on their own merits, I doubt it would result in any reduction in Wieners/Craigs/Foleys/Edwards/etc. because the voting public would continue to elect people that reflect the public's own values.
Thank you Dr. Hanson. The way you compare our current cast of characters with those of the Classics is delicious. It's elightening, educational and erudite.
This reminds me of the disgust I felt when erstwhile Mayor Tom Bradley named the domestic terminal at LAX after himself. The same Tom Bradley whose private residence was the highest consumer of water during one of the many droughts to hit Los Angeles in the 1980s. I was taking "Navy" showers and he was watering his lawn.
Mock these idiots. (Of both stripes.) Humiliate them. For the majority of them, they're self-righteous lawyers who couldn't chase enough ambulances to make the living they feel they are entitled to. The Weiners and Edwards wannabes of the world (and their media enablers) need to be humiliated on a daily basis to be reminded of who they really are.
Let's shoot them all and start over.
"There is absolutely no need for any living member of Congress to have his name on any public project — period."
Amen.
This feature of modern political life is detestable and that it continues to be allowed testifies to the value it brings incumbents.
Does anyone ever hear the adage: "Power corrupts..." anymore? Term limits are the means of unplugging the source of corrupting power; time. Political capital is built over time by trading "favors" of all kinds. A pol can only build an account when he has time to accrue a significant account AND when everyone who supplicates to him knows he has time to insure the favors sought (and paid for) will be delivered.
Unplug the source of corruption; time and you'll see less narcissism and the inevitable corruption. Why? It simply won't be able to grow into a meaningful pile of power.
Narcissists will look elsewhere for career "fulfillment" because they will know, intuitively, that they won't be able to play the game long enough to make it "work" for them to a meaningful degree.
Wilhelm Reich, one of the early psychoanalysts wrote in one of his books, Character Analysis, that the character defense, which he named 'psychopathy,' results when a person chooses the pleasure of the feeling of power over the pleasure of the feeling of sexual love (love being central). The defense usually takes form at about five-six years old.
The sexual escapades of the people you cite are not about sexual pleasure. They are about using power. They chase these kinds of sexual encounters because they can.These are the people who become the politicians, or at least the successful ones.
By the way, one exception here was the affair of Mark Sanford, who very willingly gave up his position for the woman he called "the love of my life."
Dr. Hanson, I fear your erudite and wise analysis will be lost on the larger audience as those who are aware of our western heritage are few and those desiring to learn are even less.
I'm as disgusted by these narcissists as anyone. More so, perhaps, as someone who believes that government has a larger role to play than most of you believe it does.
Just a reminder -- in condemning these gruesome politicians, consider what drives corporate culture. Or, instead of considering -- spend a night at a strip club in Manhattan if you can bear it, or a really expensive restaurant if you can't.
MikeB: The founders knew that men would always be subject to their fallen nature and thus limited the federal government. But you want to increase the reach of that government without knowing how fix the fallen nature?
Isn't there a story about a King that hired someone to follow him around telling him he was just human? I know it was fiction but I remember it as a life lesson.
On Ash Wednesday, during the imposition of the ashes, we are told, "Remember man that you are dust, and to dust you shall return." I know that Weiner isn't Catholic (or much of a man either) but I believe the sentiment holds for those in office.
How do we fix it? If the House members are our representatives (as in the people of the States) then why aren't they paid by the States? The Senate was set up to be the representative of the individual State (appointed by the State). Just because the Senate went to popular elections doesn't mean that they aren't supposed to represent the States. This is fundamental to the theory of Federalism and the balance of power between the States and the Federal government.
If you have purchased real estate you were probably given a sheet to sign that stated that your agent was really representing the seller, not you. That is because the seller pays their commission. If the Congress is being paid by the US Government then they actually work FOR the US Government and they REPRESENT the US Government, not the States (the Senate) or the citizens of the States (the House). This easily explains the increase in Government spending. Maybe if we paid them (and decided their expenses and the size of their staffs) then they would start representing US again!
A Roman general (or Emperor) celebrating his triumph had a slave behind him in the chariot who was supposed to whisper in his ear at intervals, "Remember, Lord, you are only mortal."
This, is, however quite possibly a moralistic and ahistorical invention.
In any case, not too much later it didn't really apply, since the emperors were officially deified and worshipped as gods.
