One of the 1960s mantras was “the personal is political,” an idea that came from the feminist movement. It meant that every person’s feelings—or, more accurately, every “marginalized” person’s feelings—weren’t just private; they were emblematic of larger social and political issues, for they reflected oppressive systems. It’s all very leftist, of course, but it also continues to define politics today, explaining why mentally ill or deviant men should be on women’s sports teams (and in their locker room) or why mothers elected to Congress should be able to vote from home.
The utter selfishness of modern society began to dawn on me in the early 1980s when I had the pleasure of going to a Peter, Paul & Mary concert. Between sets, Paul Stookey told a little joke. Women’s magazines, he said, had gone through some serious changes. First, there was Cosmopolitan (a fairly sophisticated magazine founded in 1886 before today’s modern, sleazy iteration). Then there was Glamour (a relatively wholesome publication when it was founded in 1939). More recently, by 1980s standards, there was Self Magazine, founded in 1979.
That trajectory—cosmopolitan to glamour to self—said Stookey, was eventually going to end with a magazine called “Me.” And the punchline was that, when you opened it, it would just have a shiny sheet of aluminum inside so that you could see your own face.
That same self-reverence is what Roald Dahl tuned into with the Veruca Salt character, whose entire ethos was dedicated to instant self-gratification. Veruca wanted it all now, and that was wonderfully put to music in the 1971 movie Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory:
Two stories that Matt Walsh covered reminded me of this societal narcissism, with the personal/political mantra from the 1960s being refined down to Veruca’s “I want it now.” The political good is defined by personal desires, without any regard at all for society at large. And while one might say that, in a free society, people should be able to fulfill their needs, the Democrats have added the power of the police state to the satisfaction of their desires.
The first story from Walsh’s podcast is of his appearance in California to speak in favor of a bill to erase from California the law that mandates that people’s mental illness or perverse sexual desires (however you want to define so-called “transgenderism”) must control all activities in California, including women’s sports. The bill lost, despite being an 80/20 issue, with even majorities of Democrats believing that biological men shouldn’t be in women’s sports.
Walsh, as always, is both amusing and compelling, but what really caught my eye was the three arguments—two from citizens and one from a politician—justifying their opposition to the bill, as well as the short comments from others who opposed the bill:
Why I Went To Speak In Front Of The California Assembly Yesterday pic.twitter.com/BEKivREsXl
— The Matt Walsh Show (@MattWalshShow) April 2, 2025
(I hope you appreciated the man at 22:23 speaking out on behalf of “trans” people while wearing a keffiyeh, the uniform of the committed Muslims who throw gay people off buildings or hang them.)
In each case, the argument was entirely emotional. The bill made so-called “trans” people feel good. That others, such as teen girls in locker rooms with perverted men—might not feel good was irrelevant. Between the Marxist “personal is political” (that is, if you’re an “oppressed” person) and the utter narcissism of modern culture, the only “me” who matters is the oppressed me. In 2025, it’s not enough to be allowed to play out your fetish without having the police round you up; everyone must play with you.
The second story Walsh reported on was about the congresswomen who are demanding that they be allowed to vote from home if they have children. This is a joint effort by a Democrat and (shamefully, because she should know better) Republican Anna Paulina Luna:
Today, my son Sam and I showed Speaker Johnson why you don't mess with moms.
— U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen (@RepPettersen) April 1, 2025
Thanks to overwhelming bipartisan support, we stopped the Speaker’s attempt to kill our resolution to allow new parents in Congress to vote remotely.
This is a major step forward in our fight to… pic.twitter.com/A9G6GSwF5J
Both say it’s not fair that they should be called upon to decide between their obligations to their babies and their obligations to show up for work 112 days a year. They want it all now. The institution must bend to their needs. The possibility that they might have to choose because the institution is more important than they are is inconceivable. For these women, when they open up their copy of the Constitution (which mandates in-person appearances in the House), all they see is a piece of aluminum foil reflecting their faces back to them.
Across the Western world, we’re seeing this insistence that liberty doesn’t mean freedom from government; instead, to many, it means that the government sides with them against anyone else. It is impossible to run a free country along these lines. Just ask those countries that are in the process of yielding to Muslim demands that Western institutions cave to their values.
Image: X screen grab.