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.
My 750th post: The GUTOL (Grand Unified Theory Of Leftism)
There has been an interesting exchange of ideas recently on Ricochet, in this order:
- I recently wrote a post in which I wondered how my leftist friends, who are intelligent and nice people, could vote for leftism, given its horrifying record of humanitarian catastrophes around the globe.
- Henry responded with a brilliant post in which he suggested that leftism resonates with unhappy people: “My theory is that miserable people often can’t accept that they are miserable for internal reasons, so they externalize.” He suggested that if the left was motivated by compassion for the poor, they would promote capitalism, so the poor could become rich. But instead, they lash out at those they think are making them miserable – the wealthy, the producers, and even society itself. Thus, he says, “Among the hard leftists is a hatred of what is good and beautiful is more of a motivation than compassion.”
- In the comments of Henry’s post, Bryan tossed in this nugget of wisdom: “I think you touch on something very true here, in that miserable people cannot appreciate beauty or joy. I see this more on an individual level in my practice. People do not want to focus on the things they can control and instead spend their energy and attention on things they cannot control. As an example, being a victim absolves one of responsibility, but also agency. It is a miserable way to live.”
- Then iWe suggested in a post (which I don’t think was intended to be part of this discussion) that he didn’t believe that people wanted to really live. He wrote that most people simply want to get through life with a minimum of difficulty, and are reluctant to live life with vigor and passion.
All of this got my propeller spinning a bit. Let’s see if I can make sense of all this.
First, in defense of my simplistic question, I think this is a very important point. In national elections, Democrats consistently win around half the popular vote. That’s incredible. The party of slavery, the party that promotes the same leftism that led to the deaths of 100 million people in the 1900s, the party that is led by inspiring, youthful, charismatic figures like Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer – that party wins about half the popular vote. Regardless of who their candidate is at the time.
And most of the people that vote for Democrats are nice, caring, intelligent, pleasant people. I find that astounding.
Henry’s response was brilliant, I thought. Leftists claim to want a Utopia. And maybe they do, on a certain level. But their primary motivation is punishing whoever they blame for their problems.
Now, we all have problems. But not all of us blame others for our problems. P.J. O’Rourke wrote something like, “One problem with becoming a conservative was that I had more difficulty finding someone to blame for my problems.”
Taking responsibility for our problems is unpleasant. The painful soul-searching needed to find and correct our own flaws is even more unpleasant. It’s easier to just blame rich people. Or Jews. Or Christians. Or heterosexual white males. Or whoever. Anybody but you. You’re a helpless victim of forces beyond your control. That makes you virtuous and that makes government your only hope. Which gives you, and your government, more power than you deserve. And more power than is safe.
Then, to Bryan’s point, I’ve also noticed over the course of my career that people much prefer to have problems that they can’t do anything about.
If someone develops diabetes, I’ll say, “You know, it might help if you don’t live on donuts, sweet tea, Little Debbies, and Fritos.”
The patient will immediately become defensive: “It’s genetic! My brother has diabetes too!”
Me: “He’s my patient, too. And you’re right, he also has diabetes. Because he lives on donuts, sweet tea, Little Debbies, and Fritos.”
I’ve had patients transfer to another doctor after conversations like that. But if I tell them that they have pancreatic cancer and they’re going to be dead in three months, they’re strangely reassured by the fact that it was just bad luck. Not their fault. Which makes it more tolerable, somehow.
Which brings up iWe’s (possibly unintentional) contribution to this discussion. If people wanted to live their best life, they would want to take control of their lives. But taking control would mean also taking responsibility for their lives. Which is difficult. So they voluntarily give up control over their lives, to be absolved of responsibility over their lives.
Either way, things will go wrong. There will be disappointments in your life, no matter who’s responsible.
But if they are responsible for their own disappointments, that leads to unpleasant periods of self-doubt and agonizing efforts at self-improvement. Very difficult stuff. No fun whatsoever.
But if government is responsible for their disappointments, then it’s not their fault. Less pressure on them, I suppose.
What they don’t understand is that lack of control over one’s life also leads to bitter resentments. For example, I prescribe a medicine to a patient. It’s expensive. He asks if there are cheaper options. I say yes, but they’re not quite as effective. He says fine, give me the cheaper one, I’ll call you if it doesn’t work, and he’s pleased to have saved some money. But if he were on a government health care plan that refused to pay for the good stuff and instead gave him the second-rate drug, he’d be furious.
Either way, he gets the second-rate drug. But in one case he’s happy, and in the other case he’s furious.
Allowing others to control your life leads to anger and resentment. But still, to iWe’s point, many still prefer to avoid taking responsibility for themselves. So they become the miserable recruits for the Democrat party that Henry described in his post.
We tell children, from the age of 3 to their early 20s: Ok, you’re a good person. You don’t have to change – you’re as good as it gets, right now. What a horrifying concept. You’ve just extinguished any hope they have for the future.
By telling them that they are winners – and they can’t fail – you’re also telling them that they can’t succeed. It’s hopeless. No wonder they’re miserable. No wonder they look for someone to blame for their misery.
Ok, so let me try to tie all this together:
Society is fairly prosperous and stable, so many people lead happy, wealthy lives.
But some do not. And those people don’t wonder why they have failed while others have succeeded. Instead, those people look for others to blame. They blame family, religion, societal norms, and other restrictive systems which limit their behavior.
The successful people feel bad for the less successful, so they also criticize and attack the family, religion, and societal norms that led to their own success, out of sympathy for the less fortunate.
Once enough people turn against family, religion, and societal norms, then those things start to lose influence. We start to raise children without those things. After all, we don’t want to oppress them.
Those children, lacking the wisdom of the ages and lacking structure, understandably become miserable adults.
If you’re raised on nihilism, and you believe that your life has no greater purpose than the pursuit of immediate pleasures, and you believe it’s up to someone else to provide them for you, then nothing is ever good enough. And you’re bound to be miserable. Happiness becomes impossible.
Those miserable adults are naturally hesitant to believe that their misery is their own fault (and you could argue that it’s not). So they blame those who are more fortunate. Miserable people hate happy people.
The miserable people feel vindicated and virtuous. They literally can do no wrong – crimes are not criminal if they’re done for the greater good. So their attacks on family, religion, and societal norms become progressively more vicious.
The successful become evil, the less successful become good. Kids start smoking pot and playing video games. Why would they work their tails off simply to become successful, and thus, evil? So we get progressively more unsuccessful, miserable people who want government control, and progressively less successful, happy people who want personal independence.
And eventually we reach a critical mass of miserable people. So government power becomes overwhelming. For everyone.
Now family, religion, and societal norms go from supporting a stable society to having no supporters whatsoever. They shrivel and die, and nobody cares. Government will take care of us. That’s more fair.
The culture that supported that previously stable & prosperous society collapses completely, and everyone wonders why. It must be the Republicans’ fault…
Hmmm…
I don’t know. This made more sense in my head than it does now, after I tried to write it out. I still find it astounding that Democrats win half the national vote every time. And I’m amazed that my nice, intelligent, compassionate friends vote for them.
I just don’t get it. I guess because my brain just doesn’t work like that.
But maybe this is at least a partial explanation. Fear of failure leads to willing forfeiture of one’s autonomy, which leads to resentment and misery, which leads to the hatred of happiness and beauty and opportunity, which leads to attacks on the independence of others, which leads to more government power, which leads to misery, and around and around we go.
I guess.
I don’t know.
What do you think?
NOTE: I very much appreciate the contributions of @henrycastaigne, @bryangstephens, and @iwe to this essay. If I misrepresented your views in any way, please let me know and I’ll make corrections. Thanks.
Published in General
When you adopt kids, this is one of the risks you take. Attachment issues. Somebody tried to tell me you can fix this in church basements. Yeah, I don’t think so, and they are going to be social rejects that, well, people are going to reject regardless of their views on abortion.
Of course they are. It probably can’t be controlled centrally anyway. You’ll have doctors that will help you do it. That’s how bizarre everything is getting.
I forget where I read this, but I heard a really good explanation about why everybody needs to put their foot down on this stupid drag queen story hour thing. I think it was a Federalist radio hour about cultural issues. There was a really good one lately. Both of those guys are really smart.
deleted
I should say specifically, if the mother is angry or anxious about being pregnant, basically, they have proved this can happen. If everything goes smoothly from the third trimester to age 3 that solves a lot of problems. If you’re going to outlaw abortion, this is one of the considerations, and I see a lot of shallow thinking about it.
Of course they do, Zafar. Responsibility is a buzz-kill. The reason that traditional societies put such heavy constraints around sexuality is because sex is such a powerful driver of behavior. Say what you will about what God wants, but nature definitely wants babies, and is happy (apparently) to roll the dice with the timing, the “perfection” and all the rest of it: Evolution is the anvil, but the hammer is death.
And, by the way, nature provides “choice architecture” too: We are all about sharing and kindness until there’s a famine and then, as shamefaced survivors will afterwards attest, we’ll snatch the bread from a child’s mouth, maybe even our own.
And we will do awful, appalling things not merely to avoid starving, but to avoid social discomfort, let alone ostracism.
It is my conviction that the abortion regime that I advocated for, back when I was young—that I actively participated in creating—has, first and foremost, normalized and sanitized the cruel killing of sentient human children. And second, the existence, until recently taken for granted, of abortion as a de facto back up birth control method led to alterations in the choice architecture within which ordinary women make their choices, not just about whether or not to have an abortion, but about whether or not to engage in potentially reproductive behavior. Young women must make their choices about sexual activity—for instance, “hooking up” with young men they do not know well and have no intention of forming a relationship with— within that choice architecture even if they are convinced that they, personally, would never have an abortion.
Much of the way sex is depicted, portrayed, talked about and taught about in our present culture is simply unimaginable without abortion even if abortion is never mentioned. It is taken for granted. Young women are soaked in a culture which, on every level, is telling them that sex-qua-sex is and ought to be their highest priority, that a hook-up, however unlikely to provide a woman with real (let alone lasting) pleasure or happiness, is worth the deliberate killing of a defenseless and even sentient, viable human being.
Or…its worth a few sentient, viable human beings:
Minnesota released its statistics on abortion for 2021. They show a very small decrease in the number of abortions since 2020. There were 10,136 abortions in 2021 and 10,339 in 2020. Planned Parenthood committed roughly 70% of
abortions in the state in both years.
But one of the most striking things in the report is the number of repeat abortions taking place in the state. The numbers indicate that some women may be using abortion as birth control.
In 2021:
In 2020:
My understanding is, senator Tina Smith of Minnesota sucked millions out of Planned Parenthood. I think they pretty much proven that they have a ton of overhead tied to one thing and one thing only.
@grannydude
But isn’t life a kind of torture?
Especially if you end up with attachment issues.
I guess I lucked out because aside from a few rough times along the way, life has been pretty pleasant.
For some but that is not a question other people are normally allowed to make for someone else. Except for in extreme circumstances.
I read a tweet by a woman who said that she thought an unborn black child was better off aborted than adopted into a Christian home.
It is perfectly possible to say that life in prison without the possibility of parole could be worse than execution, but those who are against execution (though often not, oddly, against abortion) will argue that it is nonetheless wrong to deliberately kill a helpless human being.
Like I said we normally won’t let someone, make that decision for someone else. We do allow interested parties to occasionally make that decision, but it is usually done with a great deal of care and there is a lot of law behind it. I think that the problem currently with abortion is the law hasn’t had time to catch up because we haven’t had to/ been allowed to discuss it for 50 years. We are going to need to have thoughtful conversations to figure out where we as a society go from here.
I tend to be on the opposite side of that debate in that I am a firm believer in the Death Penalty. That having been said we normally don’t allow that either without a very length process to ensure the result was arrived at fairly. It is certainly a much more involved process than an abortion even a late term abortion ever is.
When I say this to pro-choice friends, they apparently think we’ve done nothing BUT discuss abortion for 50 years, but because there could be no change in law, it wasn’t a genuine debate. When not actually arguing against abortion, I’ll remind (inform?!) people that Dobbs did not outlaw abortion but sent the issue back to the states for the people to decide, and that this is a good thing because the people now have the right and responsibility to engage a vexed and important subject in a real, and realistic way.
And make the really mess compromises that are part of living together in a republic. I suspect that in the end we will have a set of laws that look very similar to Europe. We need to get back to a Federal Republic and compromising with our neighbors on normal political questions.
Not controlled. Cured. Why not cure it? It’s clearly detrimental in so many ways. Or are you one of those who – like when Rush Limbaugh first contemplated getting cochlear implants to deal with his hearing problems – would condemn the curing of deafness (in particular among those who are “born that way”) because it would end “deaf culture?” What garbage.
Believe me, I am excited to watch you pitch this all over the world. lol
Please explain how, *IF* homosexuality is somehow at least triggered by, if not caused by, hormonal conditions within the mother, as we now appear to know about spina bifida being avoidable through adequate folate levels of the mother (either normally, or via diet, or supplements), that somehow homosexuality is still entirely different, trust us, we know The Truth?
I am enjoying your leadership in describing the potentiality of homosexuality being proved a birth defect. Repeat this as often as you want. lol
At the risk of getting into something peculiar…
I think it reasonable to say that homosexuality is a difference amounting to a handicap.
Being gay makes life harder, on the whole, and not only because of homophobia (though of course, this can present itself as a lethal threat, for example in Muslim countries).
There are intrinsic difficulties. For instance, because only a small percentage of men are gay, the pool of available potential partners is far smaller, making family formation more difficult and, of course, making fatherhood much harder, if not actually impossible, to achieve.
Because male bodies are not designed to fit together, sexual expression (never as easy, painless or naturally un-problematic as the sex positivists would have us believe) has its burdens, and while it was common, back when I was young, for gay men to claim that not having to worry about pregnancy was a huge advantage, the reality remains that a gay man has no chance of conceiving a baby with the person he loves, a miracle that many (if not all) heterosexual men and women find deeply satisfying.
To maximize their chances of finding partners (and yes, that includes the promiscuous) gay men and lesbians often congregate in enclaves (San Francisco’s Castro district, Dupont Circle in DC, the West Village in New York). This creates subcultures that have much to enjoy and value, but which does often separate its members (physically and culturally) from their families of origin, with all that implies in terms of alienation, loneliness and the loss of a safety net.
(Before you say it: Yes, homosexual men are more prone to a variety of sexually transmitted diseases. Lesbians, on the other hand, are at much lower risk. If your highest priority is avoiding germs, lesbianism would seem to be the way to go.)
Having said all of that, at least as of 2022 in the USA, homosexuality isn’t a severe handicap. Social acceptance certainly helps. Like all the differences and disabilities human beings are prone to, homosexuality confers interesting experiences, permits unique opportunities and perspectives, and provides its own valuable moments of particular insight and wisdom, at the cost of relatively little pain and suffering.
NOTE: Transgenderism is a very different thing. No mere mild handicap, gender dysphoria is a painful condition requiring intensive lifelong, aggressive and risky medical intervention (not true of gays and lesbians) in order to be tolerable. Not only need it not be seen as the same sort of thing, it ought not to be. It is not a kindness to pretend that a serious medical problem is a mere “difference.”
Exactly. Well said. This thing is so out of control.
Having said all of that (in #260) I think it is probable that homosexuality is caused by a relatively common constellation of factors, including genes, the uterine environment, and for all I know, the alignment of the stars at the moment of birth: Whatever it is, it does not seem to be something that can be extricated from the rest of a person’s personality. There is something to that cliche about “this is who I am.”
But my experience with gay and lesbian loved ones and colleagues tells me that being gay or lesbian is not ALL of who one is, and if I had a kid (or grandkid) who turned out to be gay or lesbian, I’d encourage them to think of themselves as more than this relatively minor aspect of a whole human person. And yes, the same is true of being heterosexual.
(By the way, I know at least three trans people very well. I’d say that two of the three had obvious mental health issues. The third (a trans-man) seems to be holding her/his own and functioning reasonably happily and productively, and seems intent on making himself useful and serving others, qualities I admire in anyone!)
This is my question. What decade are they going to figure out what causes pedophilia? I’m not sure there is enough urgency about this.
Would you consider that a justification for NOT even looking for a potential cure, or not using one if found, since that would seem to mean the end of “gay culture?”
Should we allow – if not encourage – the preventable birth of homosexuals who we know have more difficulties in life even if they’re not as bad as in the past, at least in this country, because we (outsiders, basically) think it’s worth it to have “gay culture” to look at?
What about not curing congenital deafness, or blindness, etc, for the same reasons?
I probably cannot be convinced that medical intervention – that is, surgery – in these cases is ever “required,” or even a good idea. In large part because nobody can really know that they should be the other gender. The most they can know is that they don’t feel right the way they are, but that doesn’t mean they need an addadictomy or lopitoffomy. They need a lot of therapy etc, perhaps anti-depressants. The very high suicides rates even among those “trans” who get surgery, is ample evidence.
I am so looking forward to the day when scientists say, “We have determined that homosexuality is a birth defect, we can fix this with the right supplements, and it is incumbent on Congress to central plan the homosexuality rate. ” lol
In one of Victor Davis Hanson’s last podcasts he had a really good discussion about the transgenderism stuff. Gender dysphoria for decades was under one percent of the population. Transgenderism is way higher than that and it happened really fast.
I always thought of gender dysphoria as a real bitch to suffer through. Dennis Prager’s psychiatrist guest always emphasizes that. What goes on today seems more like confusion and indoctrination.
For a change, on Ricochet….
I think you know a fair number of gay people. Ask them if they perceive being gay as a handicap that they would prefer not to have.
You may know people with physical disabilities, or psychosocial disabilities like Schizophrenia or Depression. Ask them if they perceive their condition as a handicap that they would prefer not to have.
Just a thought about how to approach the ‘question’.
That’s true of straight people too, right? Or bisexuals?
Now that the gay thing is pretty much done I’m honestly waiting to see how Conservatives respond to any future acceptance of widespread bisexuality.
@rufusrjones – I can imagine a dystopia where the number of gay people in society is planned out to balance our environmental footprint :-) – or perhaps only people with super-robust genes can be straight, to improve the gene pool.
Perhaps some cruel clerk would make it so that all the Conservative babies had to be gay and the Progressive babies had to be straight. Now that’s a sit com that would be worth watching!
There are other differences. And people often convince themselves of things too. If blindness etc had been treated the way homosexuality has been for some time now, you may have a difficult time finding people who would say that they would rather not be blind. And as I’ve mentioned before, there are highly vocal groups who insist that deafness, for example, should not be cured because it would be the end of “deaf culture.”
Also, people get into a habit of somehow thinking that a cure for whatever their problems are, means that somehow they would be “dead.” Ridiculous.