Fewer things are more irritating or more unsightly than the moral vanity of the left.

But if these are its only discernible impressions to your life, consider yourself lucky.

You got off lightly.

The Left, in all their stripes, whether collectivist, statist, socialist, take positions that make them look and feel good, with not a scintilla of interest in the actual consequences for others, even in the face of absolute devastation.

They need moral superiority like oxygen, and they cannot have it cut off by mere facts. This is why honesty and bluntness is their enemy. And why they rely so heavily on political correctness to squash any such forthrightness. It allows them to perpetuate their moral vanity, to cling to their formula of failure, even in spite of irrefutable policy failure.

Haven’t you ever wondered how it is possible that many of the theories and ideas that have been so thoroughly debunked continue to enjoy the passionate advocacy of the Left? How is it they can maintain a straight face in such activism given the collapse of the Soviet Union, the ruin of Greece and the change to capitalism in China? Why are their ideas so sclerotic? Moral vanity.

The reality is that the Left’s devotion to its own ideology far outweighs their concern about the real effects on those parties they claim to seek to protect- that arise directly from this ideology.

By clever design, the Left have created a thriving grievance industry, turning everyone except white, middle-class men, into victims. Honesty is bad for business. It is why the race hustlers and limousine liberals never address the true problems within the black community. It is why they remain committed to ever-stricter gun control, remaining impervious to the proven reality that criminals will always have guns, and only the law-abiding will be disarmed.

But this theory is to give the Left too much moral credit.

Is it not far more likely that they do know the adverse impacts of their policies but deliberately continue to pursue them as it benefits them politically? Not just keep people poor, but make them poorer? Not just reliant on government, but entirely dependent on it? All so that they can look and feel good. And so that they have a platform.

Whenever they lose an election to conservatives, it is never due to the quality of their positions but because we supposedly appealed to the baser instincts of mankind. It could just be that in those rare moments of electoral lucidity, the people saw the moral vanity for what it was.

It is a rich irony that those that profess atheism and secularism display a “moral hubris”; the very thing they accuse those of the Christian faith of having.