logo
Being a progressive activist made me miserable

Being a progressive activist made me miserable

Boston Globea day ago

Advertisement
My anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms were at their worst when I was most invested in the left-wing ideology I'd built my professional and social life around. That all changed in late 2020, when I quit my job after months of growing disillusionment. I 'graduated' from therapy at that point, and over the following years, my mental health kept improving, despite fluctuating income and the eventual loss of formerly close connections.
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
As my political views and social networks shifted, my emotional trajectory tracked with longstanding research showing that the further left a person's political views lean, the more likely they are to be diagnosed with certain kinds of mental or emotional distress.
Researchers have documented a happiness gap between conservatives and liberals for decades. This pattern holds across
Advertisement
Such uncharitable assumptions about conservatives reflect a cultural problem that I believe at least partially drives this happiness gap: leftists' unwillingness to fairly consider other viewpoints or question their own. Though they are often well-intentioned, their culture subverts those intentions. Leftists often embrace negative beliefs and are often unwilling to rethink those beliefs — even when those beliefs distort or contradict reality.
Sabrina Joy Stevens is a communications consultant.
Sam Cruz
For example, the belief that racism, sexism, and other forms of bigotry are the root cause of inequalities and disparate outcomes ignores countless other macroeconomic, cultural, and natural conditions that affect people's choices and circumstances. This causes people on the left to misinterpret reality in divisive, anxiety-inducing ways that undermine their social and emotional well-being.
Leftists' tendency toward self-segregation not only weakens the social support necessary for mental health, it makes it harder for them to encounter information that could help them abandon unhealthy ideas and thought patterns. It also increases the likelihood that they will spend more of their time surrounded by people who share their psychological struggles. By denigrating and dismissing perspectives they disagree with, many leftists forfeit opportunities to cultivate relationships and habits of mind that promote mental health.
Advertisement
My political evolution
If there is anyone who should be a lifer in the lefty political camp, it's me. I am a college-educated Black woman raised by lifelong Democrats.
I am an advocate by nature, with a lifelong passion for civil and human rights. I actually ran my first campaign in elementary school, unseating our safety patrol captain for abusing his power. After my dad survived the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, where he worked, I became an antiwar activist in the hope that peace activism could prevent more terrorism. In college, I joined multiple causes promoting environmentalism and fighting against animal cruelty, human rights abuses, sweatshop labor, mass incarceration, educational injustice, racial injustice, and gender inequality. I added union organizing to the list of my causes after being mistreated as a public school teacher in my early 20s, and eventually I became a professional communications strategist, working at several progressive advocacy organizations.
I should note, though, that there is nothing inherently or exclusively 'progressive' about these causes. Any well-meaning person could take an interest in promoting issues like workers' rights and environmental protection, because there are multiple ways to pursue cultural and policy shifts that support those goals. But after years of learning from left-leaning professors, and especially after enduring ideological purity conflicts where more militant left-wing partisans convert, silence, or push out peers who are less committed to leftist ideology, I conformed. To fully advance civil and human rights, I believed, being a leftist was required.
Advertisement
My disenchantment with left-wing ideology began during the spring of 2020, when the disconnect between progressives' alarming rhetoric — such as the assertion that racism constituted a deadly pandemic of its own — and our unserious actions became too frustrating for me to ignore. Then, as now, professional progressives and left-leaning politicians claimed that our country was all but collapsing under the weight of bigotry and fascism. Yet we continued the same performative protests, petitions, and social media stunts as ever. Meanwhile, more-militant leftists responded to the perceived urgency of the moment by rioting. Hearing our narratives echoed by those destroying ordinary people's livelihoods and property disturbed me.
This began a process of investigating whether the ideas I'd been steeped in were actually based in reality. That prompted me to reexamine and eventually abandon the 'systemic injustice' worldview I learned in college and subsequent activist spaces, along with the accompanying 'oppressors versus victims' narrative.
Though I would never want to relive 2020's public health, political, or economic crises, I am grateful for the way they disrupted the echo chambers I used to inhabit. That enabled me to engage with contradictory evidence and spot logical fallacies in my political beliefs that were harder to notice when I was constantly surrounded by like-minded people.
The enforcers of ideological conformity
Lefty partisans' dominance of many influential professions and institutions makes rethinking harder to do. Though the 'progressive left' and 'establishment liberals' are estimated to account for just
Advertisement
It's important to note, however, that this dominance didn't happen by chance. It's the result of leftist pressure campaigns in various professions, institutions, and organizations. For example, left-wing activists in academia agitate to change curriculum, admissions, and hiring decisions in ways that promote their ideology in the classroom and beyond. They protest to get certain ideas taught and other ideas and speakers suppressed, and they use practices like
Even spaces like online knitting communities and breastfeeding support groups have been beset by leftists
Advertisement
One field where left-wing activism has distorted public knowledge is climate science. Many climate activists believe that carbon emissions are the biggest threat to our future and that government interventions are the most important solution. Accordingly, the activist-approved narrative on climate focuses on dramatic information they hope will scare people into supporting such interventions. Longtime climate scientist
how members of his field are incentivized to oversimplify and overemphasize climate change at the expense of other relevant information: 'I sacrificed contributing the most valuable knowledge for society in order for the research to be compatible with the confirmation bias of the editors and reviewers of the journals I was targeting.'
Neither Pielke nor Brown ever denied the existence or significance of climate change. Nonetheless, left-wing climate activists and academics slandered both men as 'climate deniers,' 'unhinged,' 'irresponsible,' and so on.
By discouraging scientists and journalists from sharing nuanced and practical explanations of our environmental challenges, militant climate activists have fostered an alarmist conversation that causes millions of people unnecessary anxiety. Thankfully, some researchers are finding the courage to stop self-censoring. But hardline activists and academics continue to label those who deviate even slightly from their approved narrative 'climate deniers,' which functions as a thought-stopping tactic.
A more extreme example of this dynamic exists in the field promoting gender drugs and surgeries for youth. Gender activists within academia and prominent medical organizations built the alleged 'expert consensus' on these interventions with deceptive practices like
In the communications training sessions I lead, I regularly warn clients against manipulating audiences through fear and anger — for example, by mislabeling reasonable objections as 'bigotry.' Not only does this poison public discourse, it sabotages campaigners' own mental health. I speak from experience here.
The belief that entrenched, identity-based socioeconomic systems dictate most of our life outcomes fosters what psychologists call an external locus of control,
Reflecting on my journals and medical history during my last few months of therapy, I noticed that my PTSD symptoms, from an experience I had suffered years before, had gotten considerably worse once I started working in progressive organizations. They peaked in 2018 and 2019 while I was working at a feminist legal organization. I spent my days there generating and consuming alarmist rhetoric for our internal and external campaigns, and my free time in a social media bubble full of people mirroring my then-obsessive Trump hatred. I spent multiple hours a day catastrophizing with my friends and colleagues, doing the exact opposite of what I was trying to learn in therapy.
Around that same time, attorney Greg Lukianoff and psychologist Jonathan Haidt published 'The Coddling of the American Mind.' In that book, they share Lukianoff's hypothesis that by reinforcing politically induced cognitive distortions (for example, promoting the idea that controversial speech 'harms' marginalized people), colleges and universities were inadvertently performing reverse cognitive behavioral therapy on students. I ultimately found it very insightful, but only after ignoring it for years simply because my tribe hated Lukianoff and Haidt.
Back when 'Coddling'
debuted, Lukianoff and the organization he leads, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, or FIRE, held villain status in my circles because they opposed cancel culture and weren't aligned with our stance on Title IX regulations.
and
those accused of it' (emphasis added), was reasonable. But in our communications, we accused groups like this of demanding '
If leftists honestly examined the shortcomings of their beliefs, they could improve their mental and political prospects. But their pride often gets in their way. When you spend years vilifying anyone who disagrees with you, it's difficult to notice (much less concede) when they have a point.
Particularly for those in academia and professional advocacy — whose incomes are tied up in their faulty beliefs — there's also a strong financial disincentive against rethinking. Academics whose work offends their most dogmatic colleagues risk not only their reputations but funding and career opportunities. Likewise, activist organizations that attempt to course-correct risk being financially and socially punished by the very supporters they helped to radicalize. That perverse incentive against self-correction is one of the many risks of building a supporter base on exaggerated, emotionally manipulative communications. Yet failing to adjust their approach is costing them credibility, while exacerbating burnout and mental illness among staff and supporters.
I understand that dilemma. It cost me a lot to rethink my beliefs, but those losses hardly compare to the freedom I've gained by divesting from left-wing ideology and culture. Leaving the left allowed me to relax and reclaim the energy I previously spent feeling unjustifiably threatened by disagreement or stressing over how everything I think or do might be perceived by judgmental peers. Losing fake friends freed up space for real ones. Dropping unethical clients freed up space to pursue other passions and work with principled people who care more about solving problems than enforcing ideological conformity.
Instead of vetting clients based on which 'side' they represent on an arbitrary political spectrum, I now consider whether they can show that their ideas and approaches would protect our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property. Rejecting demands for ideological purity freed me to deepen my Christian faith, follow evidence instead of emotional appeals, and develop an outlook on life that doesn't make me anxious or depressed.
I've chosen political independence now. Doing this in a partisan environment is challenging, but reclaiming my reasoning and emotional well-being from unhealthy tribal dynamics has been well worth it.
Doing good in the world doesn't have to feel terrible. Being 'part of the solution' doesn't require being part of a political tribe. It simply requires us to have the humility and curiosity to prioritize truth over personal validation, acknowledging that we're not always right and that those we consider opponents aren't always wrong.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Opinion - Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson: Two Republican profiles in courage
Opinion - Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson: Two Republican profiles in courage

Yahoo

time7 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Thomas Massie and Warren Davidson: Two Republican profiles in courage

The passage of the budget reconciliation bill by the House of Representatives in the early hours of May 22 demonstrated once again President Trump's ability to win the votes of Republican members of Congress. But there were two noteworthy exceptions. Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) were the only Republicans to resist Trump's pressure and vote against his so-called 'big, beautiful bill.' Both men deserve the country's gratitude, even from those on the political left who would struggle to find much in common with these far-right conservatives. Both men are comfortable with Trump's MAGA-world and both have voting records that put them at odds with Democrats. But in voting to oppose the tax bill, they demonstrated that their convictions are real and lived up to the ideal of an independent legislative branch capable of acting without a president's direction. Alongside a Republican party unwilling to balance the power of the presidency, Democrats have demonstrated an equally unproductive tendency to place loyalty to a party leader above their constituents and the country. The aggressive efforts to downplay, dismiss and cover up former President Joe Biden's declining faculties in 2024 offers a prime example of this type of misplaced loyalty. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) went so far as to explain his support for Biden after the June 2024 presidential debate by saying simply, 'I don't do disloyalty.' This sentiment was indicative of a Democratic Party wholly unwilling to call out the obvious — whose leaders and members chose instead to misinform the American people. With their votes in favor of Trump's tax bill, too many Republican members of Congress have done something similar. Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) took a middle path, voting 'present' rather than for or against the bill. But the effect of that meek decision pales in comparison to the clarity offered by Massie and Davidson. Both opposed the bill because they know it massively increases the size of the federal government's annual deficit and relies on future members of Congress to address a problem that needs to be resolved now. Their unwillingness to kick the can further down the road is in keeping with the character it takes to stand up to a president who is willing to threaten the political future of Republicans who oppose his will. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) was courageous enough to admit publicly what most Republicans understand in private: 'We are all afraid.' Republican politicians are intimidated by Trump and his allies. Murkowski has consistently demonstrated uncommon fortitude by her principled opposition to Trump when she disagrees with him or believes his policies will harm her constituents. Massie and Davidson have earned their place as the most principled Republicans in the House by sticking with their beliefs when faced with political consequences. They exemplify the idea that it is better to lose with your principles intact than to win after sacrificing them to political pressure and conformity. In recent decades, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have abdicated their proper constitutional role in favor of powerful chief executives from their respective parties. At the same time, the judiciary has replaced Congress as the primary check on presidential power — a development that perhaps encourages courts to overstep their intended role. The rebalancing of power in the federal government will start only when members of Congress are willing to assert their independence. A more confident legislative branch would take pressure off the courts and allow them to return to a less activist role. Neither Massie nor Davidson is likely to earn plaudits from Democrats, who have demonstrated their own willingness to put party loyalty over country and are quick to dismiss the value of political independence. They showed this by their shoddy treatment of Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.) after he challenged Biden for the nomination in 2024, and by their growing criticism of Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) for deviating slightly from the ideology of the far left. Democrats have done and are doing exactly what they now accuse Republicans of doing by mindlessly supporting the president's tax bill. Massie and Davidson showed us something better. We might make real progress if more of their colleagues were willing to follow. Colin Pascal is a retired Army lieutenant colonel, a registered Democrat and a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Tunnel to Towers Chairman Frank Siller on Tackling Veteran Homelessness: "We Must Do It"
Tunnel to Towers Chairman Frank Siller on Tackling Veteran Homelessness: "We Must Do It"

Fox News

time23 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Tunnel to Towers Chairman Frank Siller on Tackling Veteran Homelessness: "We Must Do It"

In a compelling interview with Fox Nation host Abby Hornacek, Frank Siller, Chairman and CEO of the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, shared his unwavering commitment to eradicating veteran homelessness in America. Siller passionately declared, "This is unacceptable in America to have a homeless veteran on the street... we must do it." Recognizing the immense scale of the problem—an estimated 35,000 to 50,000 homeless veterans—Tunnel to Towers has taken over 10,000 veterans off the streets in the past two years. The foundation employs a national case management program, collaborating with over a thousand local non-profits, HUD, and the VA to provide housing, financial assistance, and crucial comprehensive support, including mental health services. Siller emphasized the profound debt owed to veterans who "put it all on the line" for national security, especially after 9/11. Beyond individual placements, the foundation is building "veteran villages" across the country, converting donated land and hotels into beautiful, dignified apartments with on-site support services for reintegration into society. With 19 such projects underway and a goal of over 300, Siller echoed President Donald Trump's commitment to ending veteran homelessness. He urged viewers to support this vital mission by donating $11 a month at stressing that their contributions make a "tremendous difference."

Governors set to testify on Capitol Hill about immigration policies
Governors set to testify on Capitol Hill about immigration policies

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Governors set to testify on Capitol Hill about immigration policies

WASHINGTON (NEXTSTAR) – Governors from blue states will be called to testify before Congress Thursday morning about sanctuary policies in their states. Republicans say they're to blame for an increase in illegal immigration. The disagreement is over how much local law enforcement cooperates with immigration enforcement. Democrats say immigrants feel safer coming forward if they see or are a victim of a crime, if local law enforcement isn't working with ice. Republicans say these jurisdictions aren't doing enough to help with immigration enforcement, especially for people in jail. Governors Kathy Hochul of New York, J.B. Pritzker from Illinois and the former Democratic candidate for vice president and governor of Minnesota Tim Walz, are expected to testify. 'This is not only, I think illegal, but also a diminution of the readiness and focus of the military,' said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.). On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, was in the hot seat over the Trump administration's use of federal troops in Los Angeles. 'We're very proud that the National Guard and the Marines are on the streets defending the ICE agents and they will continue to do that,' said Hegseth. President Donald Trump ordered 4,000 California National Guard troops into Los Angeles to assist ICE agents with immigration enforcement and protect federal buildings during protests. The president also activated 700 U.S. Marines, but the head of the task force says the Marines are still in training and weren't in L.A. on Wednesday. 'If you didn't have the National Guard and the Marines, you would probably have a city that was burning to the ground,' said Trump. Across the country demonstrators have mobilized against ICE raids. California Governor Gavin Newsom says federal troops have inflamed tensions in Los Angeles. The Migration Policy Institute says about 950,000 people in L.A. County don't have legal immigration status. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store