By Wayne Allensworth
It surprises me that after decades of combating the left, many conservative pundits and commentators still don’t seem to get it — “get it” as in understand the assumptions that underlay leftist ideology. Those assumptions regard something at the core of human experience, something that has been with us as long as humans have existed. The problem we face is not one that can be handled entirely by politics. Before I get to that, allow me to digress a bit.
I’ve been fortunate in my life. I had good parents, a great childhood, good friends, and a lot for which to say thanks. I’ve had my share of failures, mistakes, and misfortunes, but, especially as I grew older and perhaps a bit wiser, I was aware of how good I’d had it. Many I knew were not so lucky. A close relative lost his father to suicide. Some friends’ parents divorced, creating what we once called “a broken family.” Others lost children, some of them as infants. Still others were lost to war, killed or maimed. A number of folks succumbed to the pressures of life and coped with alcohol. We left the garden a long time ago, wandering in what can become a wilderness of pain, sorrow, and disappointment. I recall the anger of a young man of my acquaintance who lost his mother — and the anger, no, the rage, he took out on others. Mistreating family and friends compensated for his misfortune.
And always there was the question, “Why me?,” as if one’s own personal failures, or worse, afflictions or natural shortcomings — disease, little talent, personal injury, addiction, laziness or just misfortune in general — were conscious agents. That’s leaving aside the bitterness that can come with betrayal, missed opportunities, or mistreatment by others. Worst of all is succumbing to the temptation to blame others for all of one’s troubles — to reject having agency in your own life. I myself pondered the “Why me?” question at times. I was taught to pray for myself and for others, but I wondered as I watched the parade of sorrow pass by. Why should my prayers be answered, when those of others were not? I was not any better — sometimes far worse — than the good people who suffered. It was as if a crouching predator was always lying in wait in the shadows, waiting to spring on us. But I think now that I simply misunderstood prayer, emphasizing its petitionary nature, and not its power to take us to a realm of peace and serenity. The ancient Christian mystics were onto something when they practiced prayer as a form of meditation, a contemplation of Being that could open a window to an experience of the Divine.
The “Why me?” question, and the anger, perplexity, and resentment that accompanies it, has always been with us. During the AIDS scare of the 1980s, I remember vividly the resentment from some quarters directed at Ronald Reagan, as if his conservative politics were the source of the disease. As if the disease itself was a spoiler meant to curb sexual license, the entitlement of bathhouse culture. Didn’t we have a right to be “happy,” or indulgent, as the case may be? That’s exactly how many AIDS “activists” saw it. Reagan was a patriarchal figure, a stand-in for God, and in a certain view of the world, whatever negative events took place in our lives were because of the arbitrary whims of an inscrutable power beyond us. It had nothing to do with our decisions, our choices, or with the pitfalls of life which are part and parcel of our existence in a world that is, to a great extent, self-creating, driven by a creative force seeking out niches for life, some forms of which are unpleasant. It’s the price we pay for not being automatons in the hands of a Puppet Master Deity. Nested in life’s ebb and flow, risk always accompanies freedom.
I don’t mean to downplay human suffering. Suffering we all have witnessed, whatever the causes. I’ve loved more than one person who brought misfortune on themselves, whose habits and proclivities were unsustainable, people who ignored the warnings of friends and family. But I loved them and mourned them just the same, as much as others who have suffered. They were only too human. I intend only to highlight an example of a disposition that all of us sometimes adopt. For some, though far from all, it becomes endemic. A habitual stance and attitude to life and its challenges. A disposition that can become an ideology. That stance is as old as Cain’s resentment of his brother, a resentment and anger with God that led to murder, an archetypal story representative of that certain disposition and attitude I mentioned. The rage of the school shooter, of the perpetual victim. We can all think of people who carry that attitude around like a dark shroud. As an ideology, it is the foundation of identity politics, of “critical theory,” of “political correctness,” and the current “woke” madness. In postmodern philosophy, Truth is either non-existent or unknowable. What is “true” is a matter of power, determined by those who have it, and imposed on those who don’t. Without Truth, and without some perspective on life’s realities, the good and the bad, all that remains is the Will to Power.
If those are one’s assumptions about reality, it becomes clear just why the left has, since the French Revolution, targeted societal norms and institutions for destruction. Those assumptions explain why Christianity has been especially vilified, and why the family, the foundation of any stable society, has been attacked via the sexual revolution. Those are the targets of resentment by the left’s allegedly oppressed supporters. It’s important to account for the left’s need for perpetual revolution. Even when the left holds the levers of power in the majority of economic, political, media, and educational institutions, it must never, ever let up on attacking “the Patriarchy,” “The Man,” “the Power Structures,” or what have you. Victimology must always pit alleged victims against alleged oppressors. The oppressors must always and for all time be “The Man,” even if he is hidden by the “structural” forces not readily detectable to the unanointed whose “consciousness” must be raised via the performance-art politics of professional agitators.
I like to think of the vast majority of people who have suffered the slings and arrows of life with dignity, perseverance, and yes, even joy. Those who take up their cross and carry it. Those who do not give in to resentment, those who display and practice gratitude. They are quieter than the angry mob. They do not demand anything from the rest of us. Theirs is a disposition more favorable to a fulfilling life, one that can sometimes shine as an example for the rest of us. They may not be wealthy, or “successful,” in any popular sense. But they know how to live and can show the rest of us the way.
Which brings me back to my surprise with conservatives who still do not understand the assumptions of leftist ideology. I’m often puzzled at the cluelessness of many political pundits on the right. They often remain perplexed by the fanaticism of the “woke” left. Or worse, they might be tempted to view leftist ideology as merely a mask for political cynicism. That may be partly true, but it doesn’t explain the sustained power of Cain’s rage, or better still, Pandemonium’s Rebellion. Even after the 20th Century, a catastrophic era with hateful ideologies on a global march, many conservatives still don’t get it. Discounting the power of rage and resentment as an animating political force, as a destructive and self-destructive drive, is dangerous. The left has intensified its radicalism for the same reasons that their predecessors did. Because they believe it. Because they are animated by it. Because they want their revenge. And because they have been successful in many instances of convincing otherwise decent people to identify with misfits and criminals — with people overcome by their pathologies and obsessions as victims worthy of their “compassion,” a destructive impulse that only encourages more self-destruction. Pity need not become approval, much less the elevation of designated victims to sacred status. But it explains why the left cares more for illegal aliens than their fellow citizens. It explains why the left has consistently portrayed criminals as victims of an oppressive society. It’s been that way since Cain killed Abel.
When we reach this point of division, of a fundamental split that is reflected in one’s disposition to life, we have reached the point of no return. Conventional politics are no longer possible. Barring a miraculous change of heart by the left, the best thing for Blue and Red states is to part ways. But that would mean leaving aside the urge to delight in poking The Other in the eye. We can hope. Meanwhile, we all must choose how we live our lives, about the attitude we adopt. We can stew in resentment or adopt a disposition of gratitude for life, for the chance to make choices in the first place, and to love and get on with living.
Chronicles contributor Wayne Allensworth is the author of The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia, and a novel, Field of Blood.
Please consider supporting American Remnant: A green “Donate Today” button has been added at the end of each article (see below) appearing on the website. If you value what AR is doing, please consider supporting the website financially. $5, $10, or any amount that you can afford. Regular donations would especially be appreciated. Thank you!
