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 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Leftists aren’t socialists. They’re just radicals. And it’s important to understand why.
I’ve always presumed that leftists were those who believed in socialism, communism, or other centralized control systems. Because they understood that collectivism was completely at odds with America’s founding documents, majority beliefs, and national ethos, these leftists then became radicals. They figured out that they would first need to destroy Western Civilization, so they could then replace it with a socialist Utopia. This explanation of leftist radicalism, intolerance, and violence makes perfect sense.
But I’m starting to think that it’s wrong. Completely backwards, in fact. I don’t think leftists are socialists who became radicals. I think leftists are radicals who became socialists. It’s a critical point, in my view, because we won’t be able to communicate with them until we understand them.
With the long and consistent history of every socialist state in the world leading to misery and suffering, I just can’t bring myself to believe that leftists really think that socialism works. So I think they’re just radicals, looking for a home. I could be wrong, but I really don’t think so. Let me try to explain. See if you agree.
In decade after decade, in poll after poll, in study after study, one consistent finding is that leftists are more unhappy than conservatives. John Hinderaker and many others have cited a recent study that shows that among young women, leftists suffer from psychiatric disease at approximately three times the rate of conservatives. Such studies are not outliers.
Anything that widespread and consistent likely has many different causes. But I believe that one is due to a toxic combination of individual liberty and an educational system promoting beliefs in social injustice. If you really believe that “the system” is set against you, it reduces your motivation to excel.
Then, those who are less restrained and more optimistic (and less depressed) will tend to be successful. More successful than those who had less faith in their abilities and the fairness of “the system.” Perhaps MUCH more successful. This leads to jealousy and resentment. It also leads to making their depression even worse, so lots of these people who believed the message from the educational establishment will end up on psych meds.
They’re angry at “the system”, angry at the unfairness of it all, and angry that their classmate from high school now has a vacation home in the mountains, while they still live in a crummy apartment. They might briefly consider the possibility that their classmate worked harder, took more risks, and was more resourceful than they were.
But it’s much easier for them to avoid blaming themselves, and instead to blame “the system.”
Even though “the system” allowed their classmate to be successful, they still find a way to blame it for their failures. This may seem somewhat irrational, but it’s just human nature. This may be one reason that leftists hate Donald Trump so much – he is a convenient symbol of an unlikable person succeeding through free markets. “I have a PhD! He’s an idiot! Why is he a billionaire, while I’m still driving a 15-year-old Subaru?” Well, there are many reasons for that. But the most tempting one is that “the system” is flawed somehow.
It’s important to note that it’s not just those who are dissatisfied with their lives who are drawn to radicalism. It is also very tempting to those who feel guilty about being more successful than others, and seek to demonstrate their virtue by attacking the very culture that allowed them to succeed. Thus, the voting bloc for the Democrat party tends to be an odd combination of the very wealthy and the very poor.
Anyway, they now view “the system” as their enemy. They want to destroy “the system.” That person is now a radical, who seeks to destroy American capitalism.
Of course, what can one person do? Not much. Unless they join a movement, or at least support a movement, that also seeks to destroy American capitalism. A movement like socialism. Or communism. Or Marxism. Or whatever. By default, they find themselves to be fellow travelers with communists, even if they don’t completely believe in communism. Even if that’s not what led them to their allegiance.
Mashpritzot hold a die-in protest against Israeli “pinkwashing”
This also explains left-wing gays carrying signs supporting Palestine or other Islamist causes. Islamists would torture those gay people to death, if they were in Syria or someplace. But the leftist gay people support Islam anyway. Because Islamists share Islamists’ hatred of America.
Leftists attempt to discredit America any way they can, for the same reason as Hitler tried to replace the family unit with many and varied government-managed organizations. They seek to weaken us by destroying that which unites us. Weak people seek the protection of powerful forces. That’s a fast way to gain power.
And a fast way to destroy that which the dissatisfied blame for their unhappiness.
So leftists are people who are dissatisfied with their lives (which is becoming more common due to social media and our educational system). They are reluctant to blame themselves, so they blame “the system.” Their hatred of “the system” leads them to support others who also hate American society. So our left-wing political party (the Democrats) becomes the anti-American party, led by those who are extraordinarily sympathetic to our adversaries, like Russia, China, etc.
So leftists are not socialists who became radicals. Leftists are radicals who became socialists. Not by ideology. Sort of by default.
The reason that I think this is such a critical point is that any misunderstanding on this fundamental principle will lead to misunderstandings on just about every other topic we discuss, to the point that we won’t be able to communicate at all.
A typical criticism of a leftist from a Conservative person sounds like this: “Socialism has never worked, you moron! Do you really want to live in Venezuela?” I think that type of thinking is unhelpful, because the leftist of course understands that true socialism doesn’t work, and of course, they have no desire to live in Venezuela. They’re just unhappy, and they find American capitalism to be a convenient target for their rage.
If we want to have meaningful dialogues with leftists, we may need to find a way to address the source of their unhappiness, help them understand the power of gratitude, and somehow change their jealousies and resentments into motivation to work harder. Just attacking their fellow travelers is unlikely to be helpful.
But if we get this wrong, and continue to focus on stuff that leftists don’t really care about anyway, then America will gradually tear itself apart, with increasingly partisan and divisive politics.
What do you think? Am I on to something? Or am I misguided on this point?
I thank you in advance for your input.
Published in Politics
Back when I was a kid, I attended a vocational/technical school studying to be an electronics technician. The instructor practically worshipped Ken Uston. That’s where the instructor learned card-counting techniques. He had become so good at it that he developed some techniques that optimized the process. He went to Las Vegas regularly and always came back around $800 ahead after expenses. When I asked why he never played the “big tables”, he said that winning too big was a way to get banned from the table and the casino. He laughed about it saying that “when two guys in dark suits with 50-inch chests ask you to leave, you don’t argue.” He also said that it was a good idea, at least in the 1970s, to occasionally place a side bet for the dealer.
Sadly, for at least one person I know, it was an addiction. He lost his home last year. I found out last month.
Supposedly, you can make money betting on golf if you have a lot of capital, time, and a good pick sheet. I never get around to it. I don’t think I could count cards.
We’re not talking about pay phones. :-)
The government spends all of this money on all of this nonsense, and they still don’t know how to identify a pedophile or someone that has the high potential of getting addicted to gambling. You know, you really ought to get on this before you do something stupid. People go blah blah blah about personal responsibility, but it isn’t always that easy, especially after the Internet. I have no interest in quitting drinking, but I don’t have a problem. I have no urge to gamble. I don’t get excited about little kids. Etc. If the government wants to do something, it can solve that stuff. How can there be so many sick people running the Catholic Church? I just don’t get it. Etc.
Years ago, my roommate in CA learned to do it. The hard part according to my former instructor was remembering the count without drawing attention to yourself. His left hand was everywhere and the position told him the current count. I’ve been told that if you give yourself away as a good card counter, you will be “asked” to leave.
In one of Heinlein’s early novels, he mentioned that one could make money betting the horses . . . IF you followed the business enough to know who the leading apprentice jockey was in a race. They get good mounts, so you bet them to “place”, or maybe it was “show”. The only time I bet on horses was for fun. I bet three horses to show and they finished fourth, fifth, and sixth. I looked up and said, “OK. I can take a hint.”
I took three Demerol over a 24 hour period, and I swear to God, I thought I was the Dalai Lama. It was the happiest I have ever been. It was perfect. You can’t be any happier. Therefore, opioids are a bad idea for me to use recreationally. There are people on this website that dislike opioids. I don’t get it.
People need support in this area. Arguably this is a public good.
Carry on.
That guy’s own family didn’t know. They were in the Bay Area and he was in L. A. They bailed him out once before and didn’t know he had gone back until he had to move to cheaper area and rent.
Or the public schools?
It really makes me wonder.
Government schools absolutely should be wiped out. There is no utility. It is simply a vehicle for teachers union to commandeer. People get all sad and worked up about it but everything changes. It’s not a government public good.
The only thing the government should do is collect the taxes and give the money to the parents.
You’ve got so many perverts in so many bad places it really does make you wonder if there is a God.
Carry on.
Or the police? When living in Phoenix, reading in the paper it seemed like the most common offenders I read about, were police. In some ways they may have better access – especially to adults, but probably children too – than even priests. Especially for people they wouldn’t expect to encounter again, and they have more immediate “leverage” too.
Then start at the opposite end. Perhaps this is confirmation there is a Satan.
Fair enough. I would rather think that.
Seriously, if you’ve got a big problem, I don’t see why the government isn’t going full bore on identifying the genes or some background thing that is really dependable. It doesn’t look to me like the government is doing that.
You go to trade school and earn a lot of fiat money.
They go to college and learn that inflationist Keynesianism is a good idea, which it patently is not.
Then what?
Run for Congress on the Democrat ticket and get assigned to a finance committee.
This is my solution.
Every college below the 50th percentile needs to wipe out accreditation. Just do whatever you want. Get students that want to make money.
Let the
Ludwig von Mises Institute
take over a bunch of colleges.
Good thing, because they would be looking for the genes that cause “conservatism.”
David Berlinski mentioned a while back that a study was funded to see if there is a genetic predisposition to believe in religion. I’m waiting for the study to see if there is a predisposition to believe in “scientific” studies.
It might be the same gene, if people are using “science” as their religion.
Science and religion aren’t very much alike, really — at least, not to people who understand what distinguishes science from religion. But yes, the underlying will to believe might be similarly motivated in each case.
I don’t think that socialism has led to misery and suffering in Sweden.
As a result, I think that the basic premise of this post is wrong. Factually, demonstrably wrong.
It’s also interesting to see how you, Doc, are so gung-ho on the protection of sodomite perverts. I thought that you were a Christian believer. Maybe I’m mixed up about that.
Supporting the sodomites makes you the radical, by the way. This was a radical position, in our lifetime, Doc. I know that we’re of an age, born about 1 year apart. I’m sure you remember what things used to be like, when the bulk of the people thought that sodomites were disgusting perverts.
There may be a genetic component (and in a way there certainly is) but it’s unlikely to be “a” gene.
Interestingly, Sweden has had a rocky road over the past three decades, leading to a recent significant increases in privatization and criticism about growing income inequality and poverty.
Of course Sweden, a resource-rich nation smaller than the state of Georgia, survives high social spending because it runs a big surplus of trade by dealing with countries that aren’t boutique socialist microstates.
I think the good doctor is exactly right as regards American radicals, which I took to be the subject of his essay. America, unlike Sweden, is not a homogenous country with a strong sense of shared identity and the commitment to resource sharing that comes with it. We’re thirty times the size of Sweden, far less socially interconnected, wildly diverse, and far too large to practice the kind of trade-driven social spending Sweden enjoys.
As for the frequent “sodomy” references, which are certainly jarring, I assume you’re referring to homosexual sexual practices. However, the term refers to specific sexual acts regardless of the sex of the participants –acts that are not unpopular among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Just out of curiosity, are you intending to refer to homosexuals specifically, or are you expressing revulsion at these sexual practices regardless of who engages in them and in what contexts?
Good point. Decades ago in some states “sodomy” referred to any sexual act that would not normally result in pregnancy if practiced between two fertile adults of opposite sex.
Is Sweden really socialist?
https://scandinaviafacts.com/is-sweden-socialist/
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/10/27/nordic-countries-not-socialist-denmark-norway-sweden-centrist/
https://fee.org/articles/is-sweden-socialist-no-but/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-sweden-overcame-socialism-11547078767
https://reason.com/2019/01/02/sweden-isnt-socialist/
But wait…there’s more:
https://www.hhs.se/en/about-us/news/cssc/2022/what-pushed-sweden-away-from-socialism/
Here’s one from NBC News of all places:
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-wrong-democratic-socialism-sweden-everywhere-else-ncna1158636
and…
https://www.lifeinsweden.net/is-sweden-socialist/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2019/03/how-capitalism-saved-sweden-from-the-evils-of-socialism/
https://www.aier.org/article/capitalism-saved-sweden/
And on Ricochet: About Those Socialist Paradises in Scandinavia.
It was. They ditched socialism in the 1980’s, and have been trying to recover ever since. With some success. But socialism just blew up in their faces in the 60’s and 70’s. They had no choice.
The death of Palme was a significant inflection point.
This fragmentation requires the application of an external force in order for it to make any difference before the election.
Kamala has a Venn diagram for that, I assume. Pete Buttigieg probably made one up for her.
I believe the point that some people are making is that RFK Jr has been such an external force. As has Trump. What else are you thinking of, that hasn’t happened yet?