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
The radicals are parasitic.
And too many GOPe make it easy for them.
And I think one of Rush’s messages was that it may very well be impossible to communicate with the left, at least in terms of getting them to change; it’s simply necessary to defeat them.
It’s especially bad when that’s all there is: a desire to run something.
Or in the case of people like FJB, not really wanting the job at all, just the title. I suspect Hillary might actually be one of those too.
I’ve wondered if all that combined ability (of the institutions mentioned) to swing and brainwash people, although partly explained by the “want to be in the herd for security and approval” factor, means that there is a third group that conservatives appeal is less effective in winning over. Rush called them “low information” types who don’t really ponder much of anything even to the level of groupie level radicals. Somehow the media plug into both their need for “belonging,” and make a false appeal to their instinctive conservatism/patriotism, usually with bogus myths like Trump being another Stalin and religious people a domestic Taliban.
And maybe, add in fear of loss of vague (and unrelated to politics) modern personal favorite things (ie. the Kamala ads promising “We are not GOING BACKWARDS.”)
I think it’s fair to ask whether the media actually connect with (“plug into”) the relatively disinterested, low-information voter, or if it’s simply that the only message such people ever hear is the boilerplate leftist cant.
If you don’t actively seek news from a right-leaning perspective, you’ll get the default, which is news from a left-leaning perspective. More important than any specific message the latter delivers is, I think, its ubiquity. People simply assume that of course the left’s line must be correct, since it’s never challenged, never debated, never contradicted by normal people. It doesn’t have to make much sense, it just has to be what everyone is hearing all the time.
That’s a huge advantage for the left, the domination of popular media. The downside for the left is that there’s little incentive to improve the message, since there’s no mainstream debate. So they end up with bad ideas (e.g., “trans,” DEI, etc.) that can’t stand exposure to the light of day.
Which is why Harris is in hiding, of course.