The Hubris-Nemesis Complex : Pathology Puts Great Energy Into Hating, Harming the U.S.

This week it’s Moammar Kadafi. Soon it may be Fidel Castro again, or the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Through them the ancient forces of hubris and Nemesis are trying to tear the modern world apart--but in a way that Greek mythology never warned us about.

Hubris is the pretention to be godlike. It is the capital sin of the arrogant, self-exalting leader who believes that he has the ability and the right to get away with whatever he wishes, even if this means violating accepted standards of conduct and mocking the cardinal virtues of life.

Nemesis was the goddess of divine vengeance. If the gods on high became angry that some mortal was exceeding his fate, she might intervene in human affairs to restore equilibrium; she could be devastating with hubris.

These ancient terms seldom surface in common conversaton, but the dynamic remains contemporary. The proverb, “Pride comes before the fall,” has often been used in reference to Richard M. Nixon or the Shah of Iran.

Castro, Kadafi and Khomeini have shown themselves to be filled with hubris, and perhaps they, too, will eventually bring about their own downfall. But that is not the point here.

These three leaders embody the spread of a terrible new dynamic that we are only beginning to understand: the hubris-nemesis complex. In addition to having hubris, they have internalized the role of Nemesis. Each is committed to being the nemesis of the United States; for these men, America is the epitome of hubris, and hence the chosen enemy.

In this rare pathology, the two forces, which normally contradict one another, have become one, a fusion that generates awesome energy and ambition. To be as powerful as their hubris requires, these leaders must defy and attack the United States. To play the role of Nemesis, they must possess total power at home and project themselves onto the world stage. The two forces, now compatible, feed on one another.

Castro, Kadafi and Khomeini might not be alone in having this affliction. Liberal and conservative analysts might have other candidates to add to the list. And a broader discussion of the complex might have to include a few Western leaders who, besides displaying vainglorious appetites for power, have shown themselves to be dead set on perpetual vengeance against the Soviet Union, the Palestinians or some other chosen enemy.

We must be on guard against the complex no matter what country, government, military, ideology or religion the leader belongs to. Even so, Castro, Kadafi and Khomeini are important to single out because of the violent ways in which they have transcended the limitations of their small countries to become globe-shaking crusaders against the world’s greatest power, our United States.

How does the hubris-nemesis complex govern behavior? It means that to varying degrees Castro, Kadafi and Khomeini must present themselves as virtual messiahs who have a special destiny to revolutionize history. They may propose monumental projects and societal changes that seem constructive and benevolent to their own subjects. Yet their vision depends on wreaking a great deal of destructive vengeance abroad, and that is what consumes their passions.

It means that they espouse high ideals that rationalize violence. Moral goals may seem to prevail over material goals in their schemes. Yet even as they try to offer something great to love (the revolution), they offer something even greater to hate (the United States). They thrive on high-minded rhetoric, the ability to shift blame to others, the politics of polarization and violence.

It means that they demand absolute loyalty and constant attention--the bigger the audience, the better. They cannot tolerate being ignored or upstaged. They compete with even “friendly” rivals more than they cooperate. They write their own rules, and hate to play by anybody else’s. They regard compromise and accommodation as weakness. They refuse to be humbled by their allies or enemies (though they feign humility to selected audiences).

It means that they relish the challenge of terrible odds, threats and obstacles. They thrive on defiance and confrontation simply to confirm their invincibility. They are not suicidal in an ordinary sense, but they are death-defying. Under extreme conditions, they might prefer martyrdom to surrender or humiliation.

This is not a complex that grows benign over time. At times it may seem subordinate to some expedient, pragmatic requirement of the moment. When the going gets rough, or when opportunities are lacking, a Castro, a Kadafi or a Khomeini may behave for a while in a moderate, statesmanlike manner and seem disposed to be accommodative. But it is an error to think that someone in the grip of a hubris-nemesis complex can be psyched into pragmatism by carrots and sticks and ordinary cost-benefit calculations of his and his nation’s interests. This complex is inherent; it was present in the shadows of the leaders’ personalities before events gave them a venue for acting it out. Because of this, they can’t be expected to relinquish their dual desires to be godlike and harm the United States.

Ideology and evil are not the defining issues here. Ideology is a secondary motivation, if not a mask. And it does not stand to reason that somebody like Castro is simply evil-minded. He, like others, may define good and evil in absolute, polarizing terms, yet he may not see the chosen enemy as pure evil incarnate. In this complex, the desire to humiliate the enemy derives more from its perceived hubris (the way it demands or exercises power) than from its perceived evilness.

Unfortunately for policy-makers, a world that has grown to 159 independent governments has given rise to an unprecedented number of leaders under the spell of hubris-nemesis.