The Wages of Hubris

We went to see a local performance of Sophocles’ “Antigone” tonight. (Hadn’t seen it performed in over fifty years.) The play was written in ancient Greece about two and a half millennia ago. It may be a subtle political statement like Arthur Miller’s “Crucible”.
In any case the story centers around an extremely stubborn and arrogant ruler whose unwillingness to change his mind or his policy results in horrific destruction. King Creon of Thebes has determined to heap disgrace on the body of a fallen enemy (Polyneices). His corpse is to be left for the wild dogs to tear – anyone who buries him is to be executed.
Of course Polyneices’ sister, Antigone, goes out and buries him. She is a princess and the fiancé of King Creon’s son. Despite warnings from the gods (through a prophet who has hither to for been Creon’s man), from Theban elders and his own family, Creon persists in his plan to inflict a horrible death on Antigone for defying him.
His stubbornness results in Antigone’s death, his son’s death and Creon’s wife’s suicide. Creon is a horrified and shattered man at the end of the play. His hubris has ruined his life.
It struck me that the past fifty years have seen entirely too many Creons in the White House. We have had more than our share of stubborn, wrongheaded and arrogant presidents. We have paid a terrible price in blood and treasure for their hubris. They have paid, too.
Lyndon Johnson leaps to mind. Here was a man so determined to carry out his own narrow view of how America must stop a Communist threat that wasn’t ever really there, that he shattered the morale of the American military for years to come – and lost anyway. In the end, the man who won the White House by the biggest landslide ever resigned without daring to run again. He died soon after.
Then came Richard Nixon. “I am not going to be the first American President to lose a war,” he declared. So he piled more and more chips on the table. He lied, he twisted, he spent blood – and he lost anyway. Caught in his own lies, he became the first president ever to resign in midterm. His disgrace will probably never be effaced.
We could include the Carter/Reagan era – not so much blood, but the roots of our present economic disaster. They slashed regulation and cut taxes – without cutting programs or making up the revenue shortfall. Their legacy is best articulated by the present vice-president, Dick Cheney, “Deficits don’t matter”. (Oh yes they do.)
Clinton was far more pragmatic. He really never committed himself to something he had to back away from. We tend to look back, understandably, at his administration as a golden age. His only real hubris came in reference to his sexual appetites, and these did not damage the country itself, only his own reputation.
Next came the pig-headed hubris of our current president. He was noted for his sarcasm and his derision of anyone whose opinion disagreed with his. When he decided to make a move, no wisdom or set of facts could change him – neither militarily nor economically.
As he trudges –reduced to a non-factor in his own administration – toward the end of his presidency, he faces the lowest approval ratings of any president in our history. His own party runs against him as it seeks to retain the White House. (Al Gore merely ignored Clinton; he didn’t run against him.)
Two points: evaluate this year’s presidential candidates in terms of their potential for flexibility. Anyone can be wrong, especially in volatile times. But, like FDR, can they change their minds before disaster strikes? That should be a major consideration. I don’t hear anyone talking about the premier characteristic of the truly great: flexibility.
Second point: One reason it isn’t talked about is that voters tend to punish flexibility. They seem to want leaders who come to the office with great certitude. If a candidate admits to having changed his mind, he is seen as vacillating, insecure, and unfit for office.
A classic case is that of the senior Romney who, while running for the Republican nomination in 1968, admitted that the military command in Vietnam had deceived him. Realizing the facts, he said he had reversed his attitude. The media covered him with derision, and he was done.
Perhaps we should change our minds about the virtue of a candidate who can change his. Otherwise we are sure to be stuck with more Creons, Nixons, Johnsons, and Bushes. Certitude without limit can lead very quickly to hubris.