Malcontents...Chip on Shoulder squared by an Axe to Grind....The BIG get even!

---

Malcontent Democrats: A Chip on the Shoulder and an Axe to Grind — Beware

There is a growing problem when resentment becomes a political identity.

A chip on the shoulder can quickly become an axe to grind. And when the desire to get even replaces the desire to govern fairly, politics becomes less about principles and more about revenge.

My concern is that people who have spent years feeling alienated, rejected, or resentful can sometimes carry those grievances into positions of power. Rather than simply seeking equal treatment under the law, they may seek to rewrite the definition of normal, demand exceptions, and then turn those exceptions into new rules.

That is the danger I see.

The manipulation of fundamentally decent and virtuous people through appeals to “fairness” and “fair play” can be remarkably effective. Americans generally want to be fair. We want to give people an equal opportunity. We want to correct genuine injustice.

And historically, expanding political and civil rights—such as women's suffrage and Black Americans' voting rights—was about extending equal citizenship and constitutional protections.

But here is the question I believe must always be asked:

At what point does equal treatment become something different—where established definitions, institutions, or rules are changed not simply to protect individual liberty, but to compel everyone else to affirm a new ideological standard?

That is where the argument becomes more troubling.

When society begins treating disagreement itself as evidence of hatred or intolerance, the debate is no longer simply about fairness. When long-standing definitions are discarded and dissent is punished, we should ask whether the principle of equal rights has been replaced by a demand for ideological conformity.

“It’s time for us to get even.”

Think about the implications of that mentality.

Getting even is not the same thing as seeking justice.

Justice is supposed to be blind. It applies the same rules regardless of who benefits. Revenge, resentment, envy, and grievance operate differently. They begin with a conclusion—someone owes me something—and then search for political power to enforce it.

And that is why exceptions to the rule can become dangerous when the exceptions eventually redefine the rule itself.

A society committed to constitutional government must be careful about allowing temporary exceptions, emotional grievances, or political pressure to replace enduring principles.

Because eventually, the people demanding special consideration today may be writing the rules tomorrow.

And once in power, the temptation exists to use the same institutions—and even the goodwill—of a tolerant society against those who built and defended that society.

That is what troubles me most.

Goodwill without vigilance can be manipulated.
Fairness without consistent standards can become selective.
Equality before the law can be distorted when different rules are demanded for different groups.

Jealousy, envy, resentment, and an axe to grind are poor foundations upon which to build public policy.