I don't disagree with the overall point necessarily, but I think in many of these examples you don't follow through with a clear connection between the figure's childhood experiences and their actual political posture. For Ben Shapiro, your first example, you don't actually mention how the trauma of being a loser nerd kid might affect his positions, and you should have, because its easy to rationalize it both ways. We can easily imagine that two people with his experience might change in opposite directions - one might try to remake himself to be popular and make himself not a target of his bullies, another might become reclusive, to stay safe by removing himself physically from those situations. Its hard to believe Shapiro took either of those paths - if he took the former, he would likely take more people-pleasing, consistently MAGA-aligned positions instead of sometimes having contrarian positions, and if he took the later path he likely would not have become a leader of a large media company. Shapiro himself seems to have probably not changed much, and just remained an archetypal dork.
There’s so much one can assume/predict when trying to analyze someone’s life motives. To probe any deeper involves family tradition, parental values. I don’t think he really had to make a clearer connection for that, makes sense to me. What I see is that Conservatism can stem from a want to expound and instill decency and control into society, because of an ingrained fear of the chaotic and boisterous (borderline psychopathic) nature of liberal societies and culture.
Excellent post, and very much in line with a lot of my work. Some things are psychodynamic. Ignoring the influence of childhood trauma ensures that it will forever remain unsolved. We are defined by trauma, even though we can still strive to manage it. Trauma is no excuse for bad behavior, but it is an explanation. We aim not to absolve but to identify causation, and to thus avoid repetition.
I agree that we are, to a great extent, determined by interior psychological forces. The problem is that, in this case, it's a bit irrelevant. Ben Shapiro could be a psychological wreck and still be right. The same is true of everyone else on this list.
Moreover, early trauma can have a positive effect on one's politics. George Orwell was clearly traumatized by his Dickensian experiences at school, but that trauma gave him the ability to recognize and oppose tyranny. Abraham Lincoln was basically treated like a farm animal by his father, but that gave him a sense of how horrible it must be to be a slave.
Psychoanalyzing pundits and politicians is always interesting, but it tells us nothing about whether or not their views are correct.
Indeed those figures have childhood trauma. Unfortunately they project that pain out to naieve and malleable young males at the expense of young women. Regardless of their childhood they endured, they have not addressed it and continue to stretch their pain out to the masses. I feel no sorrow for them and still view them as scum worthy only of intense scorn.
You know, I had very similar experiences as Shapiro, but I think one needs to look at both sides. I think I am partially to blame, because my autism spectrum behaviours could have came across as rude and condescending.
Look, this is not the same as with adults. With adults, we can say blame the perp, not the victim. With children it is different, as we cannot hold children perps entirely morally responsible, that is why they are children. So one has to look at both sides of the dynamic, how and why some kids just cannot stand each other.
But I understand how this works. Briefly, having been hurt a lot, one wants to be safe. And for a boy or young man the most obvious way to be safe is to be so tough an scary that no one dares to bully you. This is the logic behind the “redpill alpha” stuff and it did appeal to my for a while, until I matured enough that I realize I am just acting, and I am not actually tough.
You know, like Nietzsche, who acted strong until it turned out he is so weak he went flat out insane.
I appreciate the use of radical empathy in this analysis. Tracing behavior back to early psychological wounds can definitely offer meaningful insights into how people come to embody certain ideologies. However, I think this kind of framework also requires a parallel emphasis on accountability.
Understanding the roots of someone’s actions does not absolve them of the harm they cause, particularly when that harm is systemic, ongoing, and disproportionately affects marginalized communities. When influential figures promote or reinforce structures of violence and oppression, it is essential to hold them responsible for those consequences, regardless of their personal histories.
Empathy is valuable, but if it is not grounded in a commitment to justice, it can quickly become a way of minimizing harm. Analyses like this are most powerful when they hold both truths: the presence of personal trauma and the necessity of accountability.
“If your goal is to defeat ideological extremism and bring about a better world, you cannot do so unless you accept the fact that the people you regard as ideological opponents are as human as you are.” I think we get stalled out because we think efforts to understand behaviour are the same thing as condoning it. Thank you for this. I found it very valuable.
absolutely beautiful analysis mate, the reach these broken men have due to social media is heart breaking, also for me as a father of a man in his young 20s, to watch him fall into the rabbit holes of these psychopaths, i feel helpless, with all i thought i did well as a father when he was a boy got destroyed in the storms of this crazy alt right or whatever it is.. i hope at least, with intelligent understandings by people like you, their 5 minutes of infamy is coming to an end
I like the idea of connecting YouTube and Substack it provides a more concrete bedrock for discussion.
The article has a great premise but might require a bit more development like others said in terms of how exactly the different traumas lead to certain ideologies. Seems like a very granular and time consuming task to do that so maybe a better approach would be a wider psychological lense generally relating aspects of each individuals personality to their respective political movements and then partially honing in on individual experiences that formed their personality. Maybe a through line at the end to balance how much and to what extent personal psychology can be held accountable for political views?
Of course… That’s what we’re reconciling with today. The woundedness of those in positions of power and privilege. We don't need to concern ourselves with ‘everyday’ pedestrian woundedness. We need to ‘elevate’ it. How else would we be able to recognize or reconcile it. It feels like without seeing the extremes, we’re not able to come to terms with traumatic narratives.
I don't disagree with the overall point necessarily, but I think in many of these examples you don't follow through with a clear connection between the figure's childhood experiences and their actual political posture. For Ben Shapiro, your first example, you don't actually mention how the trauma of being a loser nerd kid might affect his positions, and you should have, because its easy to rationalize it both ways. We can easily imagine that two people with his experience might change in opposite directions - one might try to remake himself to be popular and make himself not a target of his bullies, another might become reclusive, to stay safe by removing himself physically from those situations. Its hard to believe Shapiro took either of those paths - if he took the former, he would likely take more people-pleasing, consistently MAGA-aligned positions instead of sometimes having contrarian positions, and if he took the later path he likely would not have become a leader of a large media company. Shapiro himself seems to have probably not changed much, and just remained an archetypal dork.
There’s so much one can assume/predict when trying to analyze someone’s life motives. To probe any deeper involves family tradition, parental values. I don’t think he really had to make a clearer connection for that, makes sense to me. What I see is that Conservatism can stem from a want to expound and instill decency and control into society, because of an ingrained fear of the chaotic and boisterous (borderline psychopathic) nature of liberal societies and culture.
Excellent post, and very much in line with a lot of my work. Some things are psychodynamic. Ignoring the influence of childhood trauma ensures that it will forever remain unsolved. We are defined by trauma, even though we can still strive to manage it. Trauma is no excuse for bad behavior, but it is an explanation. We aim not to absolve but to identify causation, and to thus avoid repetition.
Well said. Understanding behavior is not excusing it; and as humans we strive to understand.
Indeed. Thank you for your spot-on comment. I expand more on your point here. https://sotiris.substack.com/p/excuses-vs-explanations-part-2
I agree that we are, to a great extent, determined by interior psychological forces. The problem is that, in this case, it's a bit irrelevant. Ben Shapiro could be a psychological wreck and still be right. The same is true of everyone else on this list.
Moreover, early trauma can have a positive effect on one's politics. George Orwell was clearly traumatized by his Dickensian experiences at school, but that trauma gave him the ability to recognize and oppose tyranny. Abraham Lincoln was basically treated like a farm animal by his father, but that gave him a sense of how horrible it must be to be a slave.
Psychoanalyzing pundits and politicians is always interesting, but it tells us nothing about whether or not their views are correct.
Indeed those figures have childhood trauma. Unfortunately they project that pain out to naieve and malleable young males at the expense of young women. Regardless of their childhood they endured, they have not addressed it and continue to stretch their pain out to the masses. I feel no sorrow for them and still view them as scum worthy only of intense scorn.
Clowns selected to further divide & distract the masses.
WE (or others) unconsciously choose them, hero’s/scapegoats, we inflate them and then deflate them, and project our insecurities onto them.
Wow. Did not expect to find out Ben Shapiro was tortured as a child. Crazy
This broken human family of ours has been through some shit
You know, I had very similar experiences as Shapiro, but I think one needs to look at both sides. I think I am partially to blame, because my autism spectrum behaviours could have came across as rude and condescending.
Look, this is not the same as with adults. With adults, we can say blame the perp, not the victim. With children it is different, as we cannot hold children perps entirely morally responsible, that is why they are children. So one has to look at both sides of the dynamic, how and why some kids just cannot stand each other.
But I understand how this works. Briefly, having been hurt a lot, one wants to be safe. And for a boy or young man the most obvious way to be safe is to be so tough an scary that no one dares to bully you. This is the logic behind the “redpill alpha” stuff and it did appeal to my for a while, until I matured enough that I realize I am just acting, and I am not actually tough.
You know, like Nietzsche, who acted strong until it turned out he is so weak he went flat out insane.
I appreciate the use of radical empathy in this analysis. Tracing behavior back to early psychological wounds can definitely offer meaningful insights into how people come to embody certain ideologies. However, I think this kind of framework also requires a parallel emphasis on accountability.
Understanding the roots of someone’s actions does not absolve them of the harm they cause, particularly when that harm is systemic, ongoing, and disproportionately affects marginalized communities. When influential figures promote or reinforce structures of violence and oppression, it is essential to hold them responsible for those consequences, regardless of their personal histories.
Empathy is valuable, but if it is not grounded in a commitment to justice, it can quickly become a way of minimizing harm. Analyses like this are most powerful when they hold both truths: the presence of personal trauma and the necessity of accountability.
“If your goal is to defeat ideological extremism and bring about a better world, you cannot do so unless you accept the fact that the people you regard as ideological opponents are as human as you are.” I think we get stalled out because we think efforts to understand behaviour are the same thing as condoning it. Thank you for this. I found it very valuable.
absolutely beautiful analysis mate, the reach these broken men have due to social media is heart breaking, also for me as a father of a man in his young 20s, to watch him fall into the rabbit holes of these psychopaths, i feel helpless, with all i thought i did well as a father when he was a boy got destroyed in the storms of this crazy alt right or whatever it is.. i hope at least, with intelligent understandings by people like you, their 5 minutes of infamy is coming to an end
platonic ideal substack article
Clutching at straws. Everyone had a trauma or six in childhood but don't go around using outrage to satisfy their egos.
I like the idea of connecting YouTube and Substack it provides a more concrete bedrock for discussion.
The article has a great premise but might require a bit more development like others said in terms of how exactly the different traumas lead to certain ideologies. Seems like a very granular and time consuming task to do that so maybe a better approach would be a wider psychological lense generally relating aspects of each individuals personality to their respective political movements and then partially honing in on individual experiences that formed their personality. Maybe a through line at the end to balance how much and to what extent personal psychology can be held accountable for political views?
Of course… That’s what we’re reconciling with today. The woundedness of those in positions of power and privilege. We don't need to concern ourselves with ‘everyday’ pedestrian woundedness. We need to ‘elevate’ it. How else would we be able to recognize or reconcile it. It feels like without seeing the extremes, we’re not able to come to terms with traumatic narratives.
Alice Miller wrote entire books on this decades ago. Highly recommend them all!