Childhood programming makes it hard to believe I’m ‘good enough’

By David McElroy · April 3, 2022

My life has been getting better lately — and that’s hard for me to accept.

About 12 or 13 years ago, everything seemed to go off the rails. My financial position fell apart as I walked away from a lucrative career in political consulting. I gained a hundred pounds as I ate loads of sugar to “medicate” my depression after a failed romantic relationship. I felt lost and alone and off-course.

In the following years, I worked at jobs I hated. I didn’t make enough money. I was depressed and lonely most of the time. I no longer had heath insurance. Then I had gall bladder surgery and was left with medical bills I couldn’t pay. My credit was destroyed. Every day seemed like a struggle.

But things are slowly getting better. I’m still not living the affluent life which I had 15 years ago, but I’m doing better financially than I was. I have my damaged credit back up to something decent. I’ve shed nearly 50 pounds since the first of the year. And I finally got some resolution to a long-running romantic drama. I didn’t get what I had wanted for so long, but I finally got a decision on the issue — something which allowed me to finally close that door for good. I’ve needed a final resolution on the relationship and I got it.

I was thinking this afternoon about how much better things have gotten for me. Part of me felt relieved. Part of me wanted to pat myself on the back and tell me I’ve done a good job fighting my way out of that hole. But there was still a part of me which growled that I wasn’t perfect — and that I would never be good enough.

And in that moment, I felt the horrible feeling that I was still in trouble with my father. I felt his judgment. I felt his ever-present programming telling me I had to be perfect. And despite all the good things going on for me, I had trouble believing I could ever be “good enough.”

Almost four years after his death, I frequently have brief moments of panic during which I fear that I’m still “in trouble” with my father. In those irrational moments, I fear he’s about to walk into wherever I am and start yelling at me for something.

I never have a specific offense in mind when I feel that way. I just feel that he’s going to be angry and start screaming at me. Those are the only times in my life when I still feel like a scared child who has no path of escape. In the split seconds when I feel this way, I am a cowering little boy once again.

I met a fascinating (and beautiful) woman last weekend who immediately seemed like someone I’d known all my life. It was a very random meeting, but within five minutes, we were sharing childhood stories of family dysfunction. She asked me how my experience still affected me.

Since there was so much to tell, I wasn’t sure how to summarize, but I eventually realized that the place to start was my recurring fear of being “in trouble” — and how my father’s programming for perfection has left me feeling as though I could never be “good enough.”

There are many stories to tell about what I went through. There are many lessons to learn. But they all flow from the fear of not doing precisely what he wanted me to do — in the tiniest detail — and having him angry about it.

When I was thinking about this tonight, I ran across a series of short emails between the two of us almost 12 years ago. This was only a few months before I finally cut off contact with him when he refused to go to counseling with me. And even though this exchange strikes me as insane, reading it makes me remember what it was like to stand before him as a confused child — when he would scream and yell when I wouldn’t say whatever precise words he wanted me to say about something.

Here is that series of emails in its entirety:

On May 25, 2010, at 4:01 PM, Ed McElroy wrote:

I hope you’ll respond in some manner to the email today about Panama.

On May 25, 2010, at 4:03 PM, David McElroy wrote:

I don’t know of anything you’ve said about Panama.

On May 25, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Ed McElroy wrote:

Did you read my email today in which I talked about Panama?

On May 25, 2010, at 4:13 PM, David McElroy wrote:

As I said, I don’t know anything about what you’re talking about.

On May 25, 2010, at 4:16 PM, Ed McElroy wrote:

As I asked you — did you read my email in which I talked about Panama?

On May 25, 2010, at 4:22 PM, David McElroy wrote:

I don’t know how to say any more plainly that I don’t know ANYTHING about what you’re talking about.

On May 25, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Ed McElroy wrote:

Can you not respond to a simple question: Did you read my email to you today at 12:47 on the subject of Panama?

On May 25, 2010, at 4:29 PM, David McElroy wrote:

I’ve told you twice that I know NOTHING about anything you’re talking about related to your questioning here. Is there some way that that answer doesn’t cover what you’re asking about? I don’t know about any such e-mail. I don’t know about any such question. I’ve answered your question as plainly and as broadly as I know how to, so I don’t have any idea what you’re trying to force me to say.

On May 25, 2010, at 4:33 PM, Ed McElroy wrote:

Just yes or no: Did you receive an email from me today at 12:47, subject Panama?

I never responded any further. He knew that I didn’t know about whatever he was talking about, but he was insistent that I say, “No, I didn’t read that email,” instead of, “I don’t know about any email you might have sent.”

Why? I don’t know. He had been that way all my life. If I didn’t respond to him exactly as he wanted me to respond, he would accuse me of intentionally being “disrespectful” to him. I had constant terror of being in trouble for things which I said — or didn’t say — which he had twisted into another example of “insubordination.” I was punished many times for “disrespect” — when I simply hadn’t worded something as he preferred.

The constant fear of being in trouble — and getting punished — for things which made no sense to me caused me to live in terror. No matter how hard I tried, I couldn’t be what he wanted me to be. I couldn’t figure out how to be perfect.

If you beat that into a child — and leave him terrified all the time — you’re bound to cause lasting issues. That’s what it did for me. And I haven’t yet figured out a way to “deprogram” myself. I haven’t learned how to believe that my life is getting better — that I can give myself credit for something good.

By my standards of 15 years ago, my life is still pretty lousy. But I dug myself such a deep hole from which to climb. I rationally know things are better. I’m consciously happy with how far I’ve come in reversing the damage I brought upon myself.

But there’s still that little voice inside — not as powerful as it used to be — which tells me I can never be good enough. It’s hard to let that voice die, even though he’s been gone for almost four years.

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