Don’t believe the angry words and self-deception of a wounded heart

By David McElroy · January 3, 2019

I didn’t believe Mark when he told me he was through waiting for Ruth, but he believed it enough to write a song about it.

He sent me a copy of the demo seven years ago. It was a good start for what could have been a popular country song, because it was filled with the angst of saying goodbye to someone who had caused grief and confusion. It expressed feelings that everyone has experienced at some point.

The verses were full of anger and hurt. He was putting his love for Ruth in a hole and burying it. He was done with her “silly games” and her “selfish needs.” And the chorus ended with, “You’re not gonna break my heart; I’m sayin’ goodbye.”

Mark and Ruth went their separate ways. Each one of them made decisions based on the assumption that things were over for good. Each had his or her own reasons. To protect each of them, I won’t say more than that here.

Mark lives a thousand miles away now, but I had dinner with him this week when he came to town. It turns out I was right not to believe his wounded heart when he swore he was finished with Ruth.

Listening to Mark talk about his feelings — which he tries to repress every day in his normal life — was gut-wrenching for me. I felt awful for the two of them and his story resonated with me for personal reasons. But I’ll talk about them first — or at least as much as I can say without saying too much.

I wanted Mark and Ruth to end up together 10 years ago. That’s what he wanted, too, but he never actually asked her to marry him. Ruth had been very critical of some of the ways in which Mark had managed his life. He had himself deeply in debt and he was clueless about how to fix things.

Ruth cared deeply about him but wanted someone who ticked off more of the mental boxes she had in her mind. She wanted someone with more prestige, more money and more prospects. She wasn’t greedy, but she was practical and thought those things would matter.

Mark’s life was a mess — which he knew — and it would take him awhile to turn things around. Ruth wanted someone more impressive and more successful. She wasn’t eager to commit to Mark. And Mark was scared to throw himself into an all-out pursuit of a woman who he felt certain would eventually reject him as not good enough.

Today, they’re both 10 years older and wiser. Each regrets decisions they’ve made. Both of them are more clear about their values. He’s finally the success she wanted him to be, and she finally believes that shouldn’t have mattered so much to her anyway.

But because of decisions they’ve both made — decisions both of them regret — they can’t be together today.

Much of my own experience is very different from Mark’s story, but there are enough similarities to make me a little sick at my stomach.

I fell in love with someone and had to leave her behind, too. It’s complicated to explain without saying more than I should. But the part I identify with is the struggle to bury love and demand that my heart to be done with someone.

If someone has hurt you and rejected you — directly or indirectly or passively or in whatever way — it’s a blow to your pride and it leaves a deep and lasting sting. When you can’t take any more of the hurt, you have to walk away — just for the sake of self-preservation — and it usually comes with the self-deception that the hurt is so great that you can quit loving the person.

But if you really love someone — if you have the rare sort of connection which is worth fighting for — the self-deception can’t last for long.

Mark has gone back to his life a thousand miles away from here. He goes back to a world where nobody knows that Ruth exists. He can’t talk about her. He can’t talk about his feelings. But for one night this week, he was able to talk openly with someone who knew him well enough to know how much he still loves her.

As he flew back home, I was left thinking about how little his angry desire to escape loving Ruth did for him. And I found myself wondering how things might have been different if he had been willing to say — back then — “Look, I want you and I’m willing to do whatever I have to do for you to accept me. Will you marry me?”

Things still might not have worked out for them. I think they would have, but I could be wrong.

And as I mourn for what could have been a happier life for both of them, I’m left feeling remorse for myself. Did I do all I could have done with the woman I loved — and love? Would anything have been different if I hadn’t walked away to preserve my own sanity?

I can’t answer that question. Nobody can. But I do know that when I’ve told myself that I can bury love and force myself to leave it behind, I’ve been lying to myself — just as much as Mark was when he wrote that song.

It’s a cliche, but it’s true: Real love doesn’t die. But real love that won’t die can be a different sort of heartbreak for those whose decisions leave them a thousand miles apart.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts