“Why is this woman so vicious?!”
On November 26, 2016, chairwoman of the Kuomintang (KMT), little hot pepper Hung Hsiu-chu, asked this question about President Tsai Ing-wen and chairwoman of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).
Hung Hsiu-chu also described the new DPP government as a “hooligan government, a robber government, a bandit government” and accused President Tsai Ing-wen of creating social hatred and social division.
[Master Chen Says] My question is:
Is political vindictiveness a pathological symptom of the “hubris syndrome” of majoritarianism?
Or is political vendetta a pathological symptom of the “hubris syndrome” as a mental disorder proposed by David Owen?
Political vindictiveness has been progressive since the election win by the DPP and Tsai Ing-wen on January 16, 2016 and since inauguration day on May 20, 2016.
The negative traits of hubris now recognized as indicators of the “hubris syndrome” as a mental disorder include a refusal to listen to advice, overwhelming contempt for others, impetuous behavior, impulsiveness, and recklessness leading to political and social disaster, and incompetence of leadership. These are also personality flaws.
The “hubris syndrome” as a psychological disorder is acquired when a candidate is elected and acquires political power, and there is a pathological personality change. This pathological personality change or changes are collectively termed the “hubris syndrome”. The “hubris syndrome” is formulated as a pattern of changed behavior in a person who manifests contempt for others, recklessness, impulsivity, stubborn adherence to personal view of moral rectitude to obviate practicality regardless of outcome, cost or loss and incompetence in policy decision making.
I say, the “hubris syndrome” should also include political vindictiveness. This political vindictiveness is both personal and governmental, and it permeates throughout the newly appointed high ranking government officials.
Majoritarianism is thus manifested by the “hubris syndrome” with all its traits common to a mental disorder of neurosis. Overwhelming contempt for others, especially towards political enemies, is shown by an overwhelming manifestation of political vendetta and political and personal vindictiveness. During her campaign, Tsai Ing-wen said she stood on the side of the laborers, but when some labor representatives demonstrated in front of her residence, she wrote a letter to her neighbors labeling the demonstrators as agitators.
I encourage those who are interested in studying David Owen’s “hubris syndrome” as a mental disorder to study the behavior of President Tsai Ing-wen and her new government.
Another important pathological symptom of the “hubris syndrome” is mental and psychological politicization. To me, mental and psychological politicization is a pathology, i.e., a progression of psychological and mental deviation from the moral norm. Politicization erases humane sensitivity and humanitarian morality or at least blinds the mind from such sensitivity.
To me, the “hubris syndrome” and all of its manifestations are not permanent mental states of mental disorder. They are temporary manifestations that last throughout the term of office. The duration of being in high power and high government authority determines the duration of the “hubris syndrome”.
In psychology and in law, it is known as “temporary insanity”. Therefore, any definition of the “hubris syndrome” as a mental disorder must be framed within the confines of a “temporary mental disorder”.