Foolish pride often keeps us from having what we need most in life

By David McElroy · December 14, 2020

For the last 10 days or so, I’ve been obsessed with Leo Tolstoy’s 1878 novel, “Anna Karenina.” I haven’t yet finished the massive book, but it’s been keeping me up late and giving me new things to think about. It’s a literary masterpiece that lives up to its reputation.

For most people — and certainly for movie adaptations — the book is primarily about the affair between the married Anna Karenina of the title and her lover, Count Vronsky. Although that story is filled with drama and pathos, I’ve been taken instead by the subplot involving the relationship between the characters of Konstantin Levin and Princess Katerina (Kitty) Shcherbatsky.

At every turn, I’ve found myself identifying with Levin, so much that it sometimes makes me feel as though the long-dead Tolstoy has been reading my private thoughts and feelings.

In the earliest parts of the book, we discover Levin’s love for Kitty in a scene which evokes my thoughts and feelings when I’m in love to an uncanny degree. Levin is drunk on the ecstasy of his love for Kitty but he’s also sick and terrified that she might reject his offer of marriage.

When a confused Kitty refuses him — believing that Vronsky is planning to propose to her as well — Levin is devastated and humiliated. In hurt and shame, Levin returns to his estate in the country to try to suppress his love for Kitty — and this is when the real story of the book starts for me.

I don’t want to tell you too much of the plot — because I’d encourage you to read it for yourself — but we spend time with a miserable Levin and a miserable Kitty for hundreds of pages. Since this is the subplot, the story of Anna and Vronsky develops during that same time, but I was always eager to get back to the brooding and hurt Levin — and the miserably unhappy Kitty, who regrets that she’s lost her only chance at happiness.

In many respects, I identify with the ways in which Levin thinks and feels. I identify with his frustration with the thinking of the people around him, who refuse to see things that seem obvious to him. I can identify with his changing directions several times as he gets excited about one set of ideas and plans — and then discovers himself to have been wrong.

Most of all, though, I can identify with Levin’s difficulty in getting over his love for one woman who has turned him down. I can identify with his inability to allow himself to even consider the other women who others would like him to choose as his wife.

As I watched the development of Levin and Kitty’s lives — as they’re on completely different tracks but both miserable — I couldn’t help but thinking that the entire problem could be solved if just one of them had the willingness to set aside his or her pride — and take a chance at pursuing what each of them secretly still wanted.

The more I’ve thought about this stubbornness — and this willingness to live miserable lives instead of taking a chance by setting aside fear and wounded pride — the more I’ve realized that this is an incredibly common human trait that Tolstoy has captured. And it occurs to me that we remain unhappy and loveless at times, even when there is someone who would like to love us, if we were only willing to get past our foolish pride.

About halfway through the book — when things have gone horribly wrong for Anna and Vronsky — there’s an unhappy scene in which Vronsky keeps asking himself, “How can we be reconciled?”

When I read those words, it suddenly occurred to me that this is one of the central questions of life for all of us. It applies to love and family and friendship and so much more. We make horrible mistakes with each other. We conclude that we can’t be forgiven. Or we conclude that nothing can erase the shame we feel about some real or imagined slight.

And we live apart from the people and things we need. We give up the love or family or friendships we need. All because we have too much pride to say either, “I was wrong and I need to know if you can forgive me,” or, “Can we start all over again?”

One person can’t make reconciliation happen. Both people have to be willing and able to make the necessary changes. Sometimes only one person really wants that. Other times, one party is unwilling to change.

But there are times when both people are secretly like Levin and Kitty.

Levin tried to forget Kitty. He tried to hate her. He tried to talk himself into marrying someone else. But his love for her was real and it was lasting. And when he finally saw her face again — as she went down the road in a carriage, when she had no idea he was there — he couldn’t keep lying to himself about loving her.

Kitty realized her mistake in refusing Levin almost as soon as she did it. She became miserable and then sick, so much so that she was sent for a trip abroad while she tried to recover. She was humiliated and afraid. She started fearing that she would never become a wife, in a society where being married meant everything. And she believed that Levin would never forgive her for refusing him.

Neither Levin nor Kitty was strong enough to set aside his or her pride and seek to be reconciled. Thankfully, someone else finally took steps to bring them together again. The scene at a social event at which they finally see one another again — and timidly get past their fears and their pride — was very emotional for me.

After someone else has finally brought the two past the gulf they wouldn’t cross for themselves, Levin made his offer again. Kitty joyfully accepts. They love each other and they’re married very soon afterward.

There’s still struggle in the rest of the book for them. They both have to mature and they find deeper love together. They have a son together who they love. And Levin resolves his own spiritual doubts in a way that satisfies both of them.

The story of Anna and Vronsky is tragic. It’s supposed to be the main story. I get that. But for me, the story of Kitty and Levin is the soul of the book. I wasn’t the least bit surprised to read that Tolstoy modeled Levin after himself and gave him some of the events of his own life.

Foolish pride often keeps us from pursuing what we really need. We’re too proud to say we might have been wrong. Or that we would like to try again. Or just that we would like to forget the past and find some solution to whatever has split us from those we want to love.

Love stories don’t always have happy endings. There are times when we’re hurt and humiliated even when we try again. But it’s certain that love never has a chance when our pride and our fears stand in the way of even giving love a chance to live.

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