So, picture it. I'm minding my own business eating my lunch at a local park when I witnessed a Guy wearing what I though was an innocuous T-shirt.
Cue Old Lady who approaches Guy and starts screeching at Guy at how offended she was with his T-shirt. You know, looking back on it, I don't think she really said anything - it was just the tone of the screech that got me. A mix of cat drowning in a burlap bag and Baba Yaga on a mid-night run.
Anyway, she really didn't like what Guy was wearing and screeched until her voice gave out....which about the time she got physical and tried to tear Guy's shirt off.
Well, I'm guessing that's what she was trying to do.
Anyway, good thing there was a cop in the area to help de-escalate things before things got too crazy.
This all brought to my mind what some of the things politicians on the left are doing or have been doing to rile up their constiuents. Specifically, playing the victim whilst complaining about what the Right side of the isle is doing (i.e. Republicans).
So, before we get too far into this, let's cook up some definitions.
As you'll note, we have two words/concepts that we're dealing with this month (and it's important to note the differences). Actually, there are 4 terms here which I'll define in sequence and show their importance as it relates to both the political and judicial environments in which we now live.
A GRIEVANCE is a specific complaint about something perceived as unfair, harmful, or unjust. A grievance mentality is a persistent way of seeing oneself or one’s group as having been treated unfairly and staying focused on that injustice, often with a mix of resentment, moral outrage, and a desire for payback rather than resolution. It becomes a stable lens: new events are interpreted as further proof that “they are against me/us,” and positive or neutral information is discounted.
Key traits of a grievance mentality:
-
Situational and contextual (“X happened that was unfair”)
-
Can motivate action, advocacy, or problem-solving
-
Does not define the person’s identity
-
Can be verified or addressed
Example:
-
A person believes a company denied them a promotion unfairly and formally files a complaint or seeks mediation.
In contrast, a VICTIM is a person who suffers harm, loss, or injury as a result of someone else’s actions, negligence, or circumstances beyond their control (whether actual or presumed). Where a victim is someone who has genuinely suffered harm, a victim mentality is a psychological pattern in which a person perceives themselves as perpetually wronged, whether or not actual harm exists, and interprets all challenges as personal injury.
Victim claims are persuasive because they tap into automatic emotional, moral, and group-based processes in the brain that evolved to respond quickly to threats and unfairness. They also exploit common persuasion dynamics: trust in the speaker, vivid emotional stories, and repetition.
Key traits of a victim mentality:
-
Persistent external blame: Others or systems are always at fault
-
Powerlessness: Belief that one cannot meaningfully influence outcomes
-
Identity fusion: Being a victim becomes a core part of self-concept
-
Resistance to solutions: Any advice, compromise, or effort is dismissed
-
Moral leverage: Suffering is used to claim authority or righteousness
Example:
-
That same employee now believes all promotions are rigged, everyone is out to get them, and any attempt to fix things is hopeless. They may never try again, instead framing all setbacks as proof of universal injustice.
In politics, these mentalities shows up as:
-
Constant outrage over opposition actions, even minor ones.
-
Treating all criticism as illegitimate or harmful.
-
Framing your party, ideology, or movement as systematically under attack, with little acknowledgment of agency or responsibility.
A grievance mentality is built around three psychological core beliefs which are narrower, more situation than a victim mentality but still reality-anchored. The three core beliefs of a grievance mentality are:
Something specific happened that was unfair or wrong.
Responsibility for this wrong is limited and identifiable.
Redress should be proportional and rule-based.
A grievance mentality still allows evidence to matter, intent to matter, proportionality to matter, and self-reflection to occur.
It says:
“This was wrong, and it should be addressed.”
—not—
“I am wronged, therefore I am right about everything.”
From a legal perspective, a grievance mentality says: “That law unfairly limits voting in my district — let’s challenge it through courts or advocacy.”
A victim mentality, on the other hand, causes people to interpret the world through a lens of permanent threat and moral innocence, which turns neutral actions into attacks, disagreement into evil, and ultimately makes aggression feel like justified self-defense rather than wrongdoing.
A victim mentality isn’t just “feeling wronged,” it’s a stable identity built around three beliefs:
-
I am fundamentally innocent / morally superior.
-
Others are agents of harm (even when neutral).
-
My suffering justifies my reactions.
Once those beliefs lock in, the person’s brain stops asking “What is actually happening?” and starts asking “How is this happening to me?”
Essentially, the person's perception shifts to themselves as the victim for everything around them allowing them to then blame everyone (else) and not take any blame themselves for anything they do.
From a legal perspective, a victim mentality says: “The system is rigged, nothing we do matters, and anyone who disagrees with us is part of the oppression.
Looking back at Baba Yaga in the park, what are some behaviors that were exhibited indicating a victim mentality?
As I was looking all this, I got to wonder at what point does a grievance twist into a victim mentality?
You know, I can't help but feel that Maxine Waters is partly responsible for people like this. Back in 2018, she actually encouraged people to out and out attack persons who did not believe as they do/did saying, "If you see anybody in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere...protest and harass them..."
Really? Harass people into doing what you want? What a boring world it would be if everyone did and thought the same thing.
The thing is, once someone sees themselves as a victim in principle, they feel entitled to break norms, justified in punishing others, and are immune from moral scrutiny.
In psychology, this is called moral licensing. Essentially, what a person is saying in such a situation is:
“Because I am harmed (whether or not they actually were), I am allowed to harm.”
That’s how aggression becomes “self-defense,” harassment becomes “accountability,” and violence becomes “justice.”
A victim mentality can manifest in public by treating symbolic opposition as real harm. The pattern is recognizable:
Perceived offense → personal moral obligation → confrontation or shaming → justification through self/identity as victim.
You know, I seem to recall a few times over the last couple of years where politicians have lashed out pushing a victim rhetoric, to wit:
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009).
A West Virginia Supreme Court justice refused to recuse himself from a case involving a company whose CEO had spent millions supporting his election. The Supreme Court of the United States held that due process required recusal because of a serious risk of bias.
While the judge's actions wasn’t out and out called a “victim mentality,” it shows how perceived alignment or favoritism can undermine judicial neutrality.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on the Jan. 6 Capitol attack
Quote/Context:
After the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described fearing for her life and equated calls to “move on” with minimizing harm. She said those urging others to forget the event were using “the same tactics of abusers,” and connected her emotional response to her experience as a survivor of abuse.
Interpretation:
Critics have interpreted this as invoking personal victimhood and psychological harm to frame political opponents’ disagreement or pushback as abusive — a victim-framed narrative rather than simply political disagreement.
Democrats in Congress blaming Republicans for political violence
Quote/Context:
After the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in 2025, Rep. Seth Moulton (D-MA) accused Republicans and right-wing rhetoric of being chiefly responsible for politically motivated violence in America: “Let’s be serious… extremist murders 76% are from right wing extremists.” He emphasized that while left-wing extremists are also condemned, the responsibility lies primarily with the other side.
Interpretation:
Here Democratic criticism shifts from condemning violence to blaming the opposing party’s rhetoric for harm to themselves and others. Some view this as presenting themselves and their allies as victims of polarizing rhetoric rather than focusing solely on broader solutions.
House Democrats calling GOP investigations politically motivated
Quote/Context:
Democrats on the House Oversight Committee labeled a Republican-led investigation into D.C. policing as a “political stunt” and “biased,” rejecting the legitimacy of the probe and framing the effort as aimed improperly at local leaders rather than based on evidence.
Interpretation:
Framing the investigation as biased and harmful can, for critics, signal a narrative of being targeted and unjustly treated — even when the investigative topic itself is not inherently about personal harm.
AOC’s emotional recounting of Capitol events as trauma
Quote/Context:
In televised or social media posts, Ocasio-Cortez described the Capitol attack as traumatizing and recounted saying “I woke up and I thought I was dying” while sheltering during the siege. She has invoked trauma language when discussing the event and Republicans’ role.
Interpretation:
While describing trauma is valid, critics have at times argued that linking it rhetorically to political opposition blurs personal threat experiences with political messaging — potentially encouraging narratives that the entire political context is an ongoing attack on them.
The problem with all this mud-slinging and victim mentalizing is that it always spills over into real life, encouraging people to act out and become victims themselves. Dang but the courts are full of people who took what their favorite politicians have said and chose to become political victims.
Cody Balmer — attempted arson/murder of a governor’s residence (Pennsylvania)
What happened:
In April 2025, Cody Balmer pleaded guilty to attempting to murder Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro by throwing gasoline‑filled bottles at the governor’s mansion while Shapiro and his family were inside.
Prosecutors described the attack as politically motivated, linked to Balmer’s grievances around political issues, including the war in Gaza and his hatred for Shapiro’s policies. Balmer was sentenced to 25–50 years in prison on multiple charges, including terrorism, arson, reckless endangerment, and aggravated assault.
Why it’s relevant:
Balmer believed his ideological/political grievances justified an attempt on a political opponent’s life — and the court convicted him accordingly.
2025 Minnesota Legislators Shooting (Vance Luther Boelter)
What happened:
In June 2025, Vance Luther Boelter was arrested and charged after a shooting attack that killed former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, and severely wounded others. Investigators found he had a hit list of ~70 political figures and expressed hatred against Democratic lawmakers, with motivation tied to political ideology.
Why it’s relevant:
This is a clear case where political grievances fueled targeted violence against public officials. It was widely condemned and charged as politically motivated murder.
Riley Jane English — Arrest on Mall with Weapons
What happened:
In January 2025, Riley Jane English, 24, was arrested on the National Mall carrying a folding knife and Molotov cocktails with stated intent to kill high‑level U.S. officials she described with political epithets (e.g., calling one a “Nazi”). Federal authorities arrested her before any attack occurred.
Why it’s relevant:
Although she hadn’t harmed anyone yet, English explicitly connected political beliefs and threats of violence — illustrating how grievance and perceived ideology can lead people to arm themselves for political reasons.
2025 Texas ICE Facility Shooting (Antifa‑linked suspects)
What happened:
In the summer of 2025, authorities charged 11 people after a violent attack on a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facility in Alvarado, Texas, involving gunfire and other violent conduct. Prosecutors described the group as tied to left‑wing activist circles and intent on opposing immigration enforcement by force.
Why it’s relevant:
Participants claimed political beliefs (opposition to immigration policy and law enforcement) motivated their actions. This case became controversial over how much political grievance justified the violence in prosecutors’ eyes.
Solomon Peña’s Shooting Campaign (New Mexico)
What happened:
In 2022–23, Solomon Peña, a failed political candidate in New Mexico, allegedly retaliated after losing election by recruiting others to fire shots into the homes of Democratic officials. No injuries were reported, but the attacks were violent and politically motivated.
Why it’s relevant:
This shows a progression from grievance (losing an election) to violent acts directed at specific political opponents.
Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl (Portland, 2020)
What happened:
During the protests in Portland in 2020, Michael Reinoehl, a far‑left activist, shot and killed Aaron Danielson, a supporter of a right‑wing group, claiming self‑defense. Reinoehl told media he acted because he believed Danielson posed a threat.
Why it’s relevant:
Although self‑defense was legally contentious, the motive was rooted in believing the political environment made violence necessary — a fusion of grievance and worldview that led to lethal harm.
So, what do these cases all have in common? Across these examples, the pattern is:
-
Perceived grievance or threat (political, social, ideological)
-
Internal belief that traditional channels are inadequate
-
Action taken — often violent — supposedly to counter that perceived threat
-
Legal consequences where courts treat violence as a crime regardless of motive
What is important to note is that in most legal systems (including the United States), perceived political grievances do not legally justify violence. The law generally holds that a subjective belief you are a victim of political circumstances does not provide moral or legal license to harm others.
What this leads to (or, at least leads me to) is how important it is for politicians to curb their rhetoric. Yeah, yeah, I realize the reason politicians spout what the spout is to get people worked up. However, and I suspect the bottom line to all this is that people should ignore 99% of what media and politicians say and take the other 1% with a grain of salt.
If that doesn't work, then maybe go to a park and yell at the squirrels. They don't care what you say and they're probably laughing at us, anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment