Fear of terrifying future makes heart look to the past for clarity

By David McElroy · April 18, 2020

What if the one who got away came back?

Most of us have a love who got away — someone who our feelings turn to in secret moments — someone we still love, who will forever make us quietly ask, “What if…?”

At first, I thought it was just me. Over the last six or eight weeks, I can’t stop my heart from reviewing the past. I can’t stop some internal mechanism from reviewing every old love and giving me revised conclusions.

It’s as though my heart has a brain of its own. It takes all the inputs from the past and then adds the changes going on in the world and renders an updated conclusion about different loves from the past.

Then I realized it isn’t just me. People I know personally are talking with me about making changes to their relationships — ditching something that doesn’t work or reaching out to someone they wish had turned out differently — in ways they wouldn’t have imagined a few months ago.

For some, it’s a time to fix things which have gone wrong or a time to escape relationships which have died or to reach out in vulnerability to love which was lost.

So it’s not just me, but it’s also not just the people I know. There’s something broader going on. I’ve seen several articles about people wanting to rekindle or heal old relationships, some romantic and some friendships — such as this piece.

I’ve even read articles speculating about why some people are apparently more sexually needy right now, which I attribute to a broader need for real emotional intimacy but our sex-crazed society has trouble interpreting.

Every time a relationship door is closed, there’s a reason. That reason might not be honestly acknowledged by both parties, but there’s always a reason. And there are times when rekindling an old flame just gives you a chance to get burned again. So some relationships are best left in the past. But can you trust your heart to know the difference about which is worth pursuing again and which should be left alone?

In the last week, I’ve had brief emails from two women who I once dated. Both were short and neither message betrayed an indication of any other motive. One of them just said, “I just needed to reach out to you and see if you’re OK. I’ve missed you.” The other one had a similar message in different words.

My heart and my brain were in agreement about both of these. There was nothing to save and nothing worth resurrecting. I would have once been overjoyed to hear from one of them again, but I now saw it only as an emotional risk not worth the trouble. The other is someone who is sweet and who I wish well, but I haven’t really wanted to see since the day I broke up with her.

Why did they reach out to me?

In both cases, things didn’t end especially well between us. Maybe the recent change in society left each of them wanting closure for something that never had a proper ending. Or maybe something in one or both of them still sees me as “the one who got away.”

Oddly, I’m not interested in knowing why, because neither of them is right for me at this stage of my life, so even if a simple contact represented more — which it might or might not — there’s nothing to pursue.

When I’ve talked with others or read these stories about recent experiences of strangers, I find myself feeling as though people are reaching out to do what they wish they had already done — maybe even what they knew before this that they should have done.

In other words, it doesn’t seem as though the recent crisis has changed the way people felt. It seems as though people’s fear about the future — or fear of being so emotionally alone — has given people courage to do what they had wanted to do before.

I haven’t made any secret of the fact that the crisis we’ve been going through has strengthened the longings I’ve already had for companionship and love and understanding. (I’ve written about it here and here.) But as I look at my real feelings, I find that nothing has really changed for me.

I have a love who got away.

Unlike some of the other people I’ve talked with, though, it’s not something I can reach out and attempt to change. I did everything in my power to share a future with someone — a future she claimed she wanted — but she made different choices. There was nothing I could do about it. She never even explained, and that hurt very deeply.

Unless someone else comes along, I suppose I’m doomed to die with strongly mixed feelings for her — love, mistrust and resentment. I don’t trust her at this point, of course, because I was burned once by trusting her love and her words — and that gives me a lot of angry resentment in the short term.

I’ll always know vividly, though, that an emotionally mature version of both of us could have been a once-in-a-lifetime partnership. My vision of that seems to be stubbornly consistent through the resentment and mistrust.

So my heart does its elaborate calculations — the good and the bad — and the little paper tape spits out the revised answer.

More than ever, I know she would have been an excellent partner — with the right amount of difficult emotional work together. I actually suspect she would make an excellent “crisis partner” after she readjusted herself to the new reality we face. It would have taken a lot of emotional work — because she is apparently oblivious to many of her own feelings — but it’s work I would have welcomed.

I am envious of those who know who they wish they could choose to return to, because they have the freedom to change things if they want to. If I had been the one who had said no to a relationship which I now know I must have, I would gladly swallow my pride and reach out to change things — just like the dramatic conclusion to a Hollywood romance. But I’m not in such a position.

I’m just someone who still longs for the love who got away.

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