Romanticizing versus Demonizing the Other: How the Left Was Lost and Where it Got Us

Coming off two interesting back-to-back days in February, namely Valentine’s Day on February 14^th and National Day of the Canadian Flag on February 15^th, I have felt motivated (or rather driven/compelled) to write about certain issues that have been on my mind for quite some time while these two dates provide a good reason and convenient excuse to share them with you here.

They will be presented in two parts: The first one deals with the dangers and threats of romanticizing the past and others and it is something that is contributing tremendously to division and polarization in our common era, while the second will give an honest and unflinching look at Canadian patriotism (or lack thereof) as well as issues and potential threats around it, especially when viewed under the current political lens and climate.

As a self-professed (incurable?) romantic, love and romance have been close to my heart starting since early adolescence. Even my thesis has dealt with this topic, in fact, the potential threats, heartbreak, and disillusionment that can come with a distorted view on love and longing stemming from reading (and believing) romance and chivalrous novels whereas my most recent novella that I am putting the finishing touches upon is about the quest for true lasting love.

Yet the romantic ideal and the act of romanticization are not limited to love and romance alone; it can be part of a distorted perspective on reality, what is often referred to as seeing the world through rose-colored glasses. This may be in relationships where we only focus on what we want or wish to see within ourselves and others by only focusing on the positive aspects alongside the tendency of putting the other person on a pedestal and turning them into a goddess or a knight in shiny armor. Often, this dream or fantasy will clash with reality and turn to dust when we realize that these wishes have not been grounded in reality but are an offshoot of wishful or even toxic positive thinking.

Yet these rose-colored glasses can be applied to anything including a perspective that romanticizes the past, different lifestyles or even certain people. We talk about the “good old days”, but the view is often selective and distorted. Although certain things may have been better in comparison, there are still challenges that we would conveniently ignore, downplay, or disregard. It is a case of rearview confirmation bias where we only highlight points that correspond to our current view by shunning or ignoring anything that runs counter to that narrative.

It is true that life used to be different without technology and there are certain things we have lost along the way. Yet, at the same time, there is so much we have gained and so the discussion of the impact of technology on our lives must be taken in a balanced way and not be seen as a polarized or polarizing issue. We would like to have clear-cut answers, but things and life are messier and more complicated than that.

I have previously written about this romantic view not so much in the sense of romance but rather the romantic period where nature and the simple and "primitive" life was glorified to an unrealistic and even dangerous degree and level. It is essentially a naive and distorted view because in the case of wildlife, it can be utterly dangerous to assume that the animals are well-meaning, docile, and humane as was the tragic experience of the Grizzly Man and an implicit error in transcendentalism as a rule.

This distorted view is most prevalent and dangerous in the current mentality and approach regarding morality. In the past, religious groups would claim to have privileged access to the truth and assume that their morality was superior to anyone else’s. Essentially, those who were acting not only in “good faith” but also within the parameters of their chosen faith were expecting and counting on being rewarded in this life as well as the afterlife by gaining and fully deserving their entry ticket to paradise. On the other hand, everyone else would burn in hell, spend time in purgatory, desperately roam the heavens and the earth, or its equivalent.

As a result, whether consciously or not, these adherents of their chosen religion and dogma would adopt and embrace a holier-than-thou attitude in relation to others and everyone else not within their group and community. They would perceive themselves as having special status and being lifted in the eyes of their God or their divinity of choice. Although many religions preach tolerance and equality, in terms of morality, the other would still be seen and regarded as a heathen or an ignorant and primitive person.

This superiority complex or bigotry would be pronounced in those who embraced their belief with the most fervor and who would not allow for any compromise or concessions, firmly believing that their way was not only the right way but also the only way to be and live. In other words, in this extreme view, everyone else was considered wrong and there would be no middle ground or half-way compromise to speak of.

Now what used to be the purview and domain of religious fundamentals has been adopted by the secular far-left. It is the same playbook, minus religion or divinity. The perception that the view of this radical faction is the only and "correct" way of seeing things and that everyone else who opposes or even dares to criticize it is ipso facto a “heathen” (i.e. transphobic, racist etc.) and deserves to be excluded and shunned has been exemplified in what is commonly referred to as cancel culture. Again, no compromises, no concessions, no middle ground, not even a debate; it is our way or the highway and with it the death of your career, reputation or even your claim to personhood.

The most hardened religious and self-proclaimed social activists (aka warriors or heroes) would claim to know the truth and convert others by any means at their disposal to their uncompromising view; they would even use force, bullying, and physical, mental, and emotional violence to conquer others and to make them see for their own good that the zealous proclaimers of social justice are and always will be in the right.

Debate or open dialogue would not be engaged in and would be even shunned and discouraged as these self-evident facts and truths would not be open for debate. Yet the truth is, deep inside, the ardent zealots fear and suspect that it would expose the fallacy of their logic and expose the shaky foundation their dogma and subsequent actions are built upon, and hence, you would have to accept it or else be ex-communicated and essentially become a pariah.

Although community and inclusivity are underscored, neither of them is practiced in these cases. In fact, the group is an exclusively inclusive community of sorts, only those who agree on all the points are allowed to become a member and everyone else is denied entry or cancelled in the first place.

In fact, no one is immune to this, and every single individual goes through constant surveillance and a vetting process whether they are aware of it or not. It is like using a magnifying glass to find the most minor word or phrase that could be twisted around and taken out of context and be used against the given person. Anything you say could be used against you used to be applicable only to those who got arrested yet in the left-o-sphere it applies even retroactively to anything you have said and done starting from your childhood years. Ironically, those who claim to be tolerant tend to be the most intolerant of the lot, and they jump to conclusions and do not embrace innocent until proven guilty.

This is the perfect environment and breeding ground to eliminate any doubt or critical thinking and to foster and increase groupthink. It is not different from how totalitarian governments operate, be they communist or fascist in their outlook.

In this process, certain people are romanticized and by extension others would be demonized. The poor are entirely blameless and innocent and seen as the oppressed and victims of greed and injustice while the wealthy are the enemies as they are perceived as oppressors. Communism in fact is driven less by love for the poor but hatred against the rich and this is exemplified by the popular phrase of (wanting to) Eat the Rich, which also contains elements of envy towards them since the have-nots deep inside would love to have what they do not have.

On the other hand, fascism sees their own race as superior to all others and with the right to decide over them, scapegoat and blame ethnic groups and to mistreat or even kill them if deemed necessary. It is essentially a black and white issue as this view operates under the implicit assumption and belief that every single person from a given race is good or bad.

The Nazis themselves embraced and committed to their view and framework and believed not only that they were superior but also that everyone else was inferior. It is the holier-than-thou belief in action. As a result, the fascists in their twisted and distorted mind and way of thinking did not see themselves or their actions as evil; in fact, they thought that they were doing good and acting for the common good.

This relative morality supposedly gives them and other extreme groups the right to strip, limit or take away people’s humanity and rights with a potential “license to kill” under the guise of moral justice and superiority. This includes communists attacking the wealthy, colonists attacking indigenous people, terrorists from the right and the left as well as jihadists targeting infidels or traitors to the cause, the nation, and the environment, or vigilantes killing off people that they believe and deem to be undeserving of life.

Violence seems justified for one’s cause and beliefs and this is dangerous territory no matter how morally justified the action may seem in the mind of its proponents. The end just does not justify the means, and people’s rights, and humanity should never be stripped of them regardless of their gender, race, belief, or sexuality. It is unethical to treat women unfavorably, the same way, it is unethical to be biased against men, the poor, the wealthy, Jews, Muslims, Christians, heterosexuals, transsexuals, and anyone else. No one is better nor ought to be above anyone else or above the law. This is something we tend to overlook, downplay, or excuse when it is our side doing it but it is and should be universally applied.

We say love is blind but so is hatred. This hypervigilant, uber-romanticized and ultra-sanitized vision does not only stain the present but goes back in time while also moving into the future. Apart from seeing things merely in black and white through the lens of good and evil, it is myopic and very limited in scope and vision.

It is with sadness that I must note that the left has lost not only its path but also its collective mind. As someone who used to be supportive of their ideals and principles, and you can find it expressed here in this blog over the span of many years, I can only shake my head vis-à-vis the developments over the past years and like André Gide realize that it is not what it claims to be, and that its remedy may be even worse than the disease.

It is a misnomer that the left is progressive. It is not so no longer as it has renounced progress, advancement and technology and has stumbled over its own feet and become stagnant, rigid, set, and fixed in their views. Trying to erase the past, to change it, to mold it according to their likes and dislikes or even worse, to ignore it all together will only add to the problem and not solve a single thing. Often, this is done not to shed light, knowledge, and understanding but out of resentment with the aim to stoke and to fan hatred against certain targets, which tend to be the usual suspects, white, male, racist, Christian colonizers or women by the name Karen.

True diversity means including others you may not see eye to eye or agree with. And if everyone in your book is a racist, then the parameters of your definition must be flawed, or there may be blind spots you are not consciously aware of. This is not about the romantic view of good versus evil but rather of different groups that are at odds and even culturally at war with each other and the need to accept a compromise that is acceptable to both sides and which does not merely represent the desire of one group over the other.

It is in fact one thing that the left has lost, to work towards a world where everyone is truly seen as equal, and everyone is judged, according to Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream and vision, by the contents of their character while no one is judged (favorably or unfavorably) by the color of their skin.