BMW540I6speed
Golden Member
- Aug 26, 2005
- 1,055
- 0
- 0
Bush could be in the catagory of a sociopath. There are sufficient public examples of his sociopathic tendancies to render any private revelations to the contrary as specious. And indeed we see here that many of the private revelations actually serve to reinforce the notion, such as his absolute arrogance in believing he is never to be challenged or questioned yet everyone else most certainly should be.
Viewed from within his circle he is perceived as decisive, intelligent, charming, shrewd, and even visionary. Viewed from without, his flaws become obvious, encompassing petulance, insecurity, inflexibility, spite, indifference to suffering.
Bush's personality types are all over the place, and are particularly drawn to positions of power and influence; that is another defining trait they have, the desire to control others, coupled with lack of empathy or shame.
They're well-represented in any industry that richly rewards winners, which is why they're better represented in politics and in the business world, and likely in the entertainment world, where "kicking ass" can get you ahead - money, fame, power, control - they thirst for those things, will seek what brings it to them, and they don't care how they get it, just so long as it isn't too much work.
Willing to take risks and uncaring of the outcomes (except inasmuch as those outcomes affect them personally), functional sociopaths are able to rise high, whether through brains or connections, but the damage they leave in passing is substantial.
And at the highest levels, such a person would wreak untold social damage - things like suppression of habeas corpus, engaging in disastrous wars of opportunity, Indifference to American cities during disasters, creating secret prisons and sanctioning torture, and adopting things like warrantless surveillance, that kind of thing. Power insulates and protects the wielder of it - might makes right, which is a sociopathic value if ever there was one.
Is "sociopath" too strong a word for Bush? I don't know. But it's certainly plausible, given his behavior in the past and the present.
Viewed from within his circle he is perceived as decisive, intelligent, charming, shrewd, and even visionary. Viewed from without, his flaws become obvious, encompassing petulance, insecurity, inflexibility, spite, indifference to suffering.
Bush's personality types are all over the place, and are particularly drawn to positions of power and influence; that is another defining trait they have, the desire to control others, coupled with lack of empathy or shame.
They're well-represented in any industry that richly rewards winners, which is why they're better represented in politics and in the business world, and likely in the entertainment world, where "kicking ass" can get you ahead - money, fame, power, control - they thirst for those things, will seek what brings it to them, and they don't care how they get it, just so long as it isn't too much work.
Willing to take risks and uncaring of the outcomes (except inasmuch as those outcomes affect them personally), functional sociopaths are able to rise high, whether through brains or connections, but the damage they leave in passing is substantial.
And at the highest levels, such a person would wreak untold social damage - things like suppression of habeas corpus, engaging in disastrous wars of opportunity, Indifference to American cities during disasters, creating secret prisons and sanctioning torture, and adopting things like warrantless surveillance, that kind of thing. Power insulates and protects the wielder of it - might makes right, which is a sociopathic value if ever there was one.
Is "sociopath" too strong a word for Bush? I don't know. But it's certainly plausible, given his behavior in the past and the present.