Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
When Faced with the Failures of Leftism, Leftists Want More Leftism. But with Different Leftists.
A recent poll asked about President Biden’s job approval. Among Democrat voters, 73% of them said they approved of the job he is doing. So Biden’s voters mostly support him. But this is less true among Democrat party operatives and elected officials:
“To say our country was on the right track would flagrantly depart from reality,” DNC member Steve Simeonidis told the NYT, adding that Biden “should announce his intent not to seek re-election in ’24 right after the midterms.”
“Democrats are like, ‘What the hell is going on?’ Our country is completely falling apart. And so I think we’re lacking in the excitement,” said Jasmine Crockett, Democratic nominee for a key House seat in Dallas.
The power structure within his own party is starting to wonder out loud if it might be best if President Biden were to step down very soon. But the reason they want him to do this is so that they can nominate another Democrat, which seems odd.
The Democrats have controlled the Presidency, the House, and the Senate for two years. When even those Democrats notice that America is quickly disintegrating under Democrat policies, they don’t recognize that this might have something to do with Democrat policies.
No. They just need more Democrats. And different Democrats. That should help!
This seems odd, but it’s common among leftists.
Brett Weinstein, whom I respect, was recently asked how he felt about the UN passing a “COVID treaty” in which the countries of the world would work together in future pandemics, to coordinate the power of their various governments for the common good. Mr. Weinstein explained why he was scared of this international power grab (emphasis mine):
Even if, in principle, in a well-governed world, this is exactly what we would want, And believe me, I’m a liberal, I know that we need governance at every scale that is important, And that means, that ultimately, we want some authority that’s capable of coordinating a global response, to a pandemic. But I don’t want these people anywhere near that kind of power. They have demonstrated they are incapable of wielding it responsibly. So, I am very concerned about this treaty … These people are not good at managing a complex system, and they’ve shown us that again and again.
So he emphasizes that he’s a liberal, and is a proponent of strong government. But not with these people. He doesn’t want these people anywhere near that kind of power.
Just like the Democrats above, he thinks these centralized power structures will work if only they get the right people in power. The Soviets thought the same thing. So did the Romans. So do today’s Californians.
They believe that centralized power works. But not with these people.
Which leads one to wonder which people, exactly, could make centralized power work?
I believe that many leftists would think (although they may not admit it): “People like me. Give me the power. I’d do a better job than these fools.”
The arrogance and foolishness of such an outlook are absolutely remarkable. And, among leftists, very common, in my view. I addressed this phenomenon in a post I wrote five years ago:
Even as a freshman in a college philosophy course, I thought that Plato’s Republic was satire. “People will be happy and content under the absolute authority of kings? And who does this out-of-touch philosopher think would make the best kings? Philosopher-kings? Come on – is he serious?”
My point is that while both conservatives and progressives take a dim view of human nature, their different approaches to dealing with it might be because conservatives are also skeptical about their own human nature. They don’t trust themselves in positions of power any more than anyone else. While progressives believe that if we can just find the right leader (someone like them) and put him in a position of authority, then everything will be ok.
Perhaps that is the true definition of conservatism. I used to think that conservatives just believed in basic human rights, individual liberty, and constrained government. But progressives would agree with much of that. So perhaps the best description of conservatism is simply humility.
You are not perfect, and you should not be trusted with power. And neither should I.
It will be difficult for leftists to accept that the problem is not the people, it’s the leftism. No one can make centralized control systems work, for many and varied reasons. Some of those reasons are complex, like the interactions between powerful governments and free markets. But they don’t have to understand all that. If they even understood one simple reason, that would be a start:
You are not perfect, and you should not be trusted with power. And neither should I.
Solzhenitsyn looks disappointed in us. And he should be…
The more we centralize power, the worse things get. Every time. Everywhere. Every single blessed time.
It doesn’t matter who’s in charge.
So stop changing the people in charge. Change the system. Go back to a decentralized system of federalism like our Founders gave us. We don’t need to figure out how to do this. We already have an instruction manual: our Constitution. All we have to do is read it and do what it says.
On the other hand, it’d be easier to just vote for a nice Democrat — he says he really cares about me.
Yeah, never mind. Let’s just do that.
Published in General
Y0u do not understand the nature of revolution, comrade.
Sartre explained how the revolution necessarily creates organizations and various social entities to advance its purpose. Once created, however, these entities invariably start to become stagnant, inward-looking, and thus lose their praxis. They must be destroyed when that happens. Mao’s Cultural Revolution and Pol Pot’s corrections are examples of revolutions that correctly tear down institutions that are no longer serving the revolution.
The revolution is not responsible for some brain-dead bureaucratic failure precisely because such entities should only be allowed to exist when they serve the revolution, not self-dealing while claiming to be its endpoint.
You speak of programs and policies “getting worse” as if the goal were to make the oppressive status quo less painful and its inequity structures more hardened in place. If the addictive bourgeois superstitions about markets were finally shattered such that food, energy, and personal security must be provided by government in a sustained crisis atmosphere, is that really “worse” if it brings us closer to real liberation?
How about we just kill and bury the self-esteem movement (also known as “pride”) and drive a stake through its heart to make sure it doesn’t rise from the dead? That’s my thought behind reciting the Penitential Act. You’re not God. You owe fealty to a Higher Power (Truth), even higher than the United States. And repentance and atonement are good for you and those around you. We’re teaching kids the opposite. That they’re the center of the universe and Big Daddy Government owes them a comfortable, pain-free life. It’s such a lie.
This.
It’s beyond Democrats and progressives. They are just tools for a very small group of elitists…the Davos crowd. I do not understand their hubris. Nor do I understand their motivation. Why does anyone want to control the world? They, after all, are mere humans like you and me. They won’t live any longer…maybe even shorter…so why don’t they just control their own lives and leave me and my life alone? These people are a mystery to me. But I do not like them. That much I know.
I ask anyone on this thread if they have any knowledge about any religious claims of any of the big players that are part of the Davos crowd? We can observe where our own American Democrat political leaders who claim to be Christian, Catholic no less, support abortion up to birth. I have as much trouble understanding this as @cdor expresses in this comment.
A claim of having warm and fuzzy feelings for all mankind is supposed to be synonymous with deeply held religious beliefs. In this novo-elite mode, one may endorse or even practice a diverse array of sexual perversions, support abortion even after delivery, and favor exclusion and abuse of persons with more orthodox religious beliefs yet still claim to be the true heirs of Christ’s message on account of deep personal concerns about climate change and gun control.
OK, that’s a general description, can you put some names to it?
You can tell these people when they talk. You hear references to My God and my relationship with God. God becomes peripheral to them and not his own supreme entity.
I’ve heard Dennis Prager repeat the line, “the Left loves humanity, it’s people they dislike.”
They can only love their internal vision of humanity as they would like it to be; they couldn’t like humanity as it is, since it’s made up of people.
Rather like how Obama and others could love their impossible dream of what America could be if only they could remake it in their own image. But they don’t like real America.
Starting to understand why it’s almost hopeless. Dinner with friends. Both restaurant union types who did very well as long term employees (gal actually became a manager) of a well known SF restaurant and enjoying retirement -condo in SF, house in Palm Desert. Made a brief gripe about gas prices. The lady actually responds “it’s all Trump’s fault.” Say what? Her guy rolled his eyes. Army vet so one of about 12 Republicans in SF. And then she wanted to defend our Commie DA who just got kicked out. Some people have no idea about how the world really works. After 85 years.
Yep that’s my mother’s age and she doesn’t have a clue either.
A promising formula for a self-chosen hell. I tried it out in a short story myself.
Self-esteem is not a bad thing. At the most basic level, it is the opposition to despair. Despair is not redemptive, it is a black hole that pulls you in to its clutches. In despair, you have given up on improvement. If you don’t love yourself, you cannot love your neighbor as yourself. Despair says life is suffering, and only suffering. You cannot win. It’s the cross without an empty tomb.
All of the Deadly Sins are based off of unhealthy takes on normal human behavior. Being angry is not the same as wrath, being attracted to your spouse is not lust, and having self-respect and joy in accomplishments is not same as pride. When you or someone you care about accomplishes something difficult, it is perfectly normal and reasonable to be happy and have a sense of accomplishment. A proper sense of self-esteem and self-confidence is exactly what many young people are lacking, according to my friends who own businesses. They are fragile.
I’m not sure how the rite of repentance is going to do much for them. Either they believe it, and break down into useless weeping wrecks, or they don’t believe it and resent the implication.
I don’t think Christian teaching has normally focused on making people able to handle challenges on their own. It’s been more of a focus for secular self-help like Jordan Peterson.
That isn’t Christianity. It is poorly led and feminized churches.
I have been doing just fine relying on my faith to handle challenges. But Christian community is a vital necessity for that and fellowship in the church seems to be an incredible weakness, both for those in the church and those not strong in their faith. Almost like no one knows what a church is.
Self-love and self-esteem are two different things. Everyone — most people — love themselves already, it is a given. Every father — most fathers — are evil, it’s a given. Yet everyone — people generally — have a higher view of their competence and goodness than is accurate, it’s a given.
In contrast, loving your neighbor or your wife as you already love yourself is relatively rare, and it is not a given.
This old quote from C.S. Lewis seems apropos:
I have known some leftists who clearly wanted to be ruled by a Big Brother who would take care of them, providing for all their material wants while relieving them of the burden of thought.
They might want that, but the people they want to be Big Brother are incapable of doing it, and they show it repeatedly.
The funny thing is that they all believe that Big Brother will take care of them at their current standard of living or better. They do not seem to understand that when Big Brother is involved it basically means most are poor and the rest are better kept depending on their relationship to Big Brother.
True, but how to explain that to fools? (Although I admit that a few of those fools seemed to be capable of being satisfied with little more than a subsistence living.)
(Most of the leftists I’ve known have displayed a mix of motivations–partly to be cared for by Big Brother and partly to be Big Brother–or at least to be a member of Big Brother’s apparat.)
And since we’re currently living through Milton Friedman’s revenge, here’s a related exchange:
“I don’t even trust you to do that!” I would modify slightly. “I especially don’t trust you to do that, or anyone else so inclined to ‘organize’ society.”
Power will be abused. The only way to prevent this is to prevent the power from be accumulated in the first place.
The rising rates of suicide would tend to disagree with you.
A lot of the woke seem to hate their neighbors as they despise themselves. Remember Churchill’s line about communism being the equal distribution of misery?
Not sure what the line about fathers being evil has to do with anything.
My first two assertions are a close paraphrase of Scripture. The third is a fairly common psychological assertion. The fourth is my own observation, also based on my understanding of Scripture. (And fathers being evil, is to point out the self-centeredness in normal people, as opposed to mankind being inherently loving to those outside their family.)
As I wrote this I knew that there were exceptions, rare to a large degree.
I believe that things like cutting oneself, suicide, and even self-loathing are not necessarily endogenous to the mind, but the result of other pressures (societal and/or demonic). Nonetheless, suicide really is self-murder. So the victim is also in fact the villain; that is, suicide no matter the motivation is a great sin against God and His order.
And much of the dysfunction that we see around us today is not only due to the rejection of God individually and the rebellion against the Holy Spirit, but also due to the effects of increasingly prevalent demonic inspiration.
Speaking of suicide, this makes me think of the suicides of mass murderers. They know that they will more than likely die at the end of their demonic spree and yet they decide to. Mass murders are a celebration of destruction, including, or culminating in, self-destruction (or else suicide by cop). But even these have a strong element of self-esteem and a twisted glory, in that they think they will finally achieve something lasting by their last act. [Note about demonic influence: Have you wondered about the looks of disbelief that is on the faces of captured mass killers in their mug shots? It’s as if when it was all over they couldn’t wrap their heads around what had happened.]
Anyway, this idea of the result outliving the act of suicide is why people leave suicide notes.
In the end, though there may be exceptions and a lot of psychological and spiritual confusion in people, people on the whole generally love themselves and what is theirs more than anyone else.
If one is painfully dying, pushing the moment up a bit doesn’t seem so horrific. But purposely taking innocent, life-loving people out with you, is most certainly deserving of the inner circle of hell for one’s “reward”. IMHO.
If death becomes a relief, there are ways of ending one’s own life that don’t involve guns, blades, poisons, or pharmaceuticals. This may be rare in the extreme but I believe @nanoceltthecontrarian wrote of a woman who willed herself to death.
If someone has that much will, why not put it towards living?
I think there was a question of the good of the devoted grown daughter to consider. I can’t do justice to the story.