Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.

3 Whisky Happy Hour
The Ricochet Podcast
GLoP Culture
Beyond the Polls with Henry Olsen
Gray Matters
Daily Signal
The Erick Erickson Show
Giving Ventures
Mom Wars
3 Martini Lunch
Chicks on The Right
Parsing Immigration Policy
Federalist Radio Hour
What the Hell Is Going On
Freedom to Learn
The Learning Curve
The Conservative Woman’s Guide
Heritage Explains
Not Dead Yet
Who Funds that?
The Radio Free Hillsdale Hour
The Glenn Show
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
Hillsdale Dialogues
Law Talk with Epstein, Yoo & Cooke
The Libertarian
The Report Card with Nat Malkus
The Kevin Roberts Show with Larry O’Connor
The American Idea
Madison’s Notes
Conservative Crossroads with Henry Olsen
The Back of the Book
Martini Shot
The Dave Carter Show
The Powerline Show
In Dissent
Heard at Heritage
Smart Girl Politics
James Lileks’ The Diner
Case in Point: The Legal Show on the Hottest Legal Cases in Politics and Culture
JobMakers
One on One with Robert Doar
Homeschooling Journeys with Curious MikeRicochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Tired of the toxicity of social media? Why not join Ricochet for just $5/month? Think of it as an online bar. Come in, have a drink, hang out, say whatever you want. But don’t badger, bully, or berate the other drinkers. That's our only rule.
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.
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.
This post was promoted to the Main Feed at the recommendation of Ricochet's members.
Discussion (127)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I recommend Deprogramming Educational Intervention (DEI) centers (pretty sure no one has used that acronym) designed on the old-fashioned idea of a place that encourages critical thinking and the entertaining of a number of points of view in robust debate without censorship. I would call these DEI centers "colleges" or "universities" but those labels now mean something diametrically opposed to what I'm proposing.
After these radicalized leftists can be shown to think critically and not call for the death or persecution of those they disagree with, then we can get all neighborly with them.
I am just trying to help.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I think you are correct. Look at how Bernie Sanders plays his followers for absolute fools from his multiple homes. Ditto Elizabeth Warren and the Obamas. Oprah rages about injustice from behind her billions. The truly crafty know that in socialist systems the apparatchiki always live the good life.
But I think there is some sincere belief involved. The BA in women’s studies working as a barista thinks she checked off the correct boxes; why isn’t her life as she expected?
Besides, the divide isn’t left/right any more. It’s establishment versus everyone else. The Trump/Kennedy alignment will in retrospect be a huge inflection point. Where we go from here I don’t know, but it will be huuuuuge.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
That would be nice, but I don't think RFK Jr had that much influence of his own to make that big of a difference. Even if it might be enough to make a marginal difference to get Trump over the line, assuming Trump wouldn't have made it anyway which may not be true.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I’m not talking the effect on this election. I’m talking about longer term political alignment, which is why I said in retrospect.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I understood that, but my point was that I don't see it making a big difference in the political alignment - either now, or in retrospect - even if it DOES make a difference in this current election by getting Trump over the line assuming he wasn't going to make it anyway. Because RFK Jr just isn't - and won't be seen in the future to have been - that influential.
It seems far more likely - to me, anyway - that Trump (or more accurately, the movement supporting him etc) will be the "huge inflection point" all by himself.
There is also the possibility that if RFK's support came more from the otherwise-Democrat voters than the otherwise-Republican voters, and/or if most of those people go back to voting for their "original" side, or at least more than the others do, it could end up getting Kamala elected.
Like what probably would have happened in reverse, if Perot had dropped out.
You're seeing five of 127 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.