To level set, the left has made significant leaps and bounds in the normalization of non-heterosexuality, bringing women into the spotlight where they were diminished, and raising awareness to the rampant struggles that have befallen (or always existed for) minority peoples within our country. These are all amazing things and I do not hope to diminish them in the slightest. But a question must be asked: At what cost? And that answer? The cost was Trump himself. They created him and "voted" for him with their unwavering actions despite the warnings. Allow me to explain.
The rise of Trump must be understood by acknowledging the role progressive ideology played in shaping the culture which ultimately led to him. While the left claims to champion inclusion and compassion, it generally does so at the perilous cost of excluding and vilifying another group in particular: straight white men—especially those who don’t fully align with progressive orthodoxy.
Now, some will immediately bristle at the notion: “No one’s vilifying white men! That’s a stupid right-wing talking point!” But that response misses and yet proves the point entirely. It’s not explicitly stated that white man is the villain (not most of the time, anyway), but just like the struggles of minorities, it’s in the cultural tone: the asymmetry of empathy and compassion, the way white men are allowed only to listen, nod, and apologize but never to speak with nuance or heaven forbid disagreement. It’s in the way any pushback, however respectful, is read and decried as fragility or bigotry.
This doesn’t happen to just bigots or trolls. It happens to those of us in the middle—open to dialogue, willing to question ourselves, but not willing to blindly conform. We asked honest questions, voiced discomfort with double standards, shared our own pain and struggles. And yet, we were not met with discussion, but contempt. Not empathy, but hatred. We weren’t debated—we were labeled. Canceled. Mocked.
Is anyone really surprised that this ideological rigidity didn’t foster unity? It pushed people away. It silenced them. And you can say it's worth it all you want, but when people feel silenced, they don’t look for leaders who will bridge the gap, and they certainly don't look inward—they look for someone who will bulldoze the gap and give them a voice. Trump didn’t appeal because of his policy ideas; he appealed because he stood in defiance of a culture that shut people out for failing to toe the line. He became the megaphone for the unheard. And every time you tried to silence him and claim all his followers were racist bigots? It just made them all the more angry and loud. Since when did name-calling make anyone see your point of view? Of course, those of us pointing this out then got labeled with the masses and were accused of tone policing. But there's a legitimate logic here and now you can see the repercussions.
Any pushback at the left wing agenda was met with insult and accusation (typically toward straight white men) while simultaneously proclaiming that they aren't being vilified or left out because "all lives" was "obvious." Some of the accusations were certainly true--some white men absolutely reacted poorly or out of racism or bigotry. But why? That question almost never gets asked in good faith. We act as if bigotry emerges in a vacuum. Well it doesn’t. It festers in neglect, resentment, humiliation, and trauma—just like any other wounded group.
If you ignore that, if you mock or silence it, if you deny people’s right to process their pain just because they happen to be born into a group with perceived privilege or the least amount of trauma from dividing lines that never should have been lines in the first place, then you are fueling radicalization. You are manufacturing Trump. And that is exactly what happened.
The left created Trump by refusing to listen to the pain of those who didn’t fit their victim narrative. They wrote off everyone who wasn't nodding along as fragile, complicit, or regressive. And people who felt unseen didn’t just disappear—they got more wounded and much much louder.
The alternative isn't to excuse hate--absolutely not--but to understand the root of it psychologically. It's trauma all around. Not big-T Trauma, but little-t trauma. Microaggressions, culture, expectations, parents, health, schools, bullies, etc. And trauma demands empathy to be healed both internally and externally. Without that, every maladjusted person becomes an infected wound that spreads through society like a plague. They must be healed, not infected. Even the white man suffers.
And it should never be about who suffers more. We don't need a pain measuring stick to see who deserves some compassion or empathy. There's enough pain in the world to go around and everyone needs it. The worst offenders are often the ones who need it the most. If we only extend empathy to the groups we deem oppressed "enough," we’re no longer practicing compassion—we’re practicing exclusion and segregation--the very things the left claims to despise. They can think it doesn't matter if they segregate the majority--the oppressors--but they are wrong. And they are then lying that they are not excluding or vilifying those from whom they are clearly withholding compassion, empathy, and understanding. You can't withhold these things while claiming you're not vilifying. And the cost of this exclusion and vilification is a continued and escalated culture war.
So if you want to stop creating demagogues, then stop creating desperate people who feel they have no voice. Because people who feel that way will always find one. And if the only voice that will speak for them is a monster bent on the destruction of our country, they will absolutely vote for that monster—just to feel heard.
No comments:
Post a Comment