The Need for Victims

Some time ago Camille Paglia wrote about the Democrats' (I would say Leftists') singular world view - that every situation (as I recall her saying) had to be boiled down to a three-sided morality play, containing an oppressed victim, an oppressor, and the brave (Leftist) savior who saves the victim.

Every single major Leftist hot button is couched in this form, it seems. And it carries with it a strange set of imperatives.

For one, if your world view requires victims, you're always looking for someone to play that role, whether they really fit the role or not.

If a person or group starts to become strong and self-reliant, that violates the world view - they must be pushed back into their victim role. A black person who is too successful "isn't really black". Women perpetually earn less than men because of "discrimination" not career choices.

The need for a victim is so strong that it overrides common sense and can lead to an infantilizing or dehumanizing of the target - as when Palestinians disastrously vote for Hamas, and Leftists blame it on the Israelis and President Bush.

Sometimes a particular person or group can play both roles at once, as when US soldiers in Iraq are wickedly oppressing the victimized Iraqi people, but become victims as soon as they return home and lapse into PTSD-driven alcoholism.

Why else is it that Leftists only love US soldiers when they are the drug addled, dysfunctional Vietnam veteran of so many Hollywood stories? A brave soldier who serves well - is strong and might be a threat. Such a soldier can only serve as an oppressor, or perhaps a hero (if part of a Leftist armed group).

Any US soldier - one who is strong, competent, and not furthering a Leftist cause - is a threat to the Leftist cartoon universe. So is any person or group in a victim role who starts to show signs of growing or maturing into a non-victim.