Collectivism in one lesson

The insightful "recovering liberal," Robin of Berkeley, has a new column up at American Thinker.  In part, it discusses why many of the "tolerant, caring" Left behave like such jackholes.

I have my own tales to tell from my week in Berkeley. I was walking gingerly through a crosswalk (I have bad knees) when an impatient driver shot me the bird. His car was graced with a Coexist bumper sticker.

One more: I was meeting a friend at a cafe, and we needed another chair. A man, sitting alone and surfing the net, had his legs strewn on an extra chair. When I asked him nicely to borrow it, he refused. The guy was wearing a Free Tibet t-shirt.

I imagine that all of these people consider themselves noble and righteous. They support aggrieved nations, world unity, and a greener world. Apparently, this absolves them from having to actually be nice people. As long as they talk the talk, they don't have to walk the walk.  

Robin has a pretty good analysis of what may have contributed to making these folks what they are, but in my opinion, she misses the mark.  Andrew Wilkow gets a bit closer to the real truth when he opines that "...as long as [they're] for The People, [they] don't have to care about The Person."  But he continues in the same vein as Robin--he thinks that the Leftists' conciences are soothed because they work for the "greater good."

I think the real truth is hiding in plain sight.  What, exactly, is collectivism?  It is the dogma that the collective is all.  The individual has no rights if they oppose the collective.  The collective may sacrifice any specific individual, or group of individuals, for any real or imagined benefit to the collective.

Mob rule.  Insect mentality.  The hive mind.

It's not that these rude Progressives Oppressives have some sort of broken-home syndrome, though that may have contributed to their embrace of collectivism(looking for love that can't leave, perhaps?).  It's not that they think their support of what they deem 'noble causes,' gives them a free pass to be dicks.  After all, if they acknowledge that they're being dicks, they have to acknowledge that they're being a dick to someone, and that's not how they think.  The horrible truth is that these people's thought processes are the end result of the collectivist mindset:  You simply don't matter to them.

You are an individual.  To someone who believes that the collective is all, you're nothing.  An impediment, an inconvenience, a distraction, an annoyance.  Just as an infidel is viewed by Jihadists, you aren't even human in their eyes.  Whatever happens to you, whatever they might do to you...these things simply aren't worth noticing.  You, your rights, your feelings, your life; none of these matter.  The Almighty Collective can do just fine without you.  It's not about how they deal with their conciences--being part of the collective gives them free reign to simply not have a concience at all.

These consequences of collectivist thought can also be observed in some people who call themselves 'Christian.'  These types aren't seeking a personal relationship with their God as much as seeing themselves in a relationship with their church group.  Has anyone else noticed a fairly direct correlation between how in-your-face a person is with their 'Christianity' and how little they really observe the teachings of Christ?  (Please note that I do not mean to describe all Christians here, not even those who are enthusiastically evangelical.  I'm talking about those who believe their membership in a group called 'saved' means they can be as self-absorbed and sometimes as outright nasty as they like.)

It's not upbringing, it's not religion, it's not an inner moral trade-off.  It's collectivist thought itself that is the problem.  In my view, it ultimately--literally--destroys empathy and promotes sociopathic behavior.  That's the crowning irony:  "Collectivist" principles actually drive humans apart. 

As a contrast, consider the kind, courteous, accepting, tolerant, civilized behavior displayed by a bunch of those barbaric 'individualists' at the Restore America Rally.  It makes perfect sense to see this from people who look at each other and see only individuals.  Not colors.  Not classes.  Not genders, sexual preferences, ancestries or faiths.  Individuals.

When you see the individual as being important, as having rights and being deserving of respect, you realize that cooperation must be voluntary, not enforced.  When force ceases to be the way you deal with other men, the only way left is persuasion, and persuasion requires manners, morals, respect and empathy.  Therefore, the dogma that truly causes men to treat each other with courtesy and respect does so by appealing, at base, to their own self-interest.  Whether anyone thinks this motivation to be 'noble' or not is immaterial--it works.  Demonstrably so.

I never went to college, and I'm not a psychologist.  I just think about stuff, and I came up with this.  YMMV.