The West Still Confuses Weakness with Virtue

The moral worth of a person, movement, or nation is not determined by how little power it appears to possess. It is determined by what it does with whatever power it has.

David E. Firester | July 2, 2026

Years ago, Michael Prell gave a name to one of the West's most dangerous moral reflexes: underdogma. He saw that Americans, and Westerners more broadly, often treat the weaker party as morally superior simply because it is weaker, while treating the stronger party as morally suspect simply because it is stronger.

He was right. But the problem has become deeper than a political habit or a sentimental preference for the little guy. It has hardened into a cognitive shortcut. I have come to think of it as the underdog heuristic: the tendency to convert perceived weakness into innocence and perceived strength into guilt before the evidence has even been examined.

A heuristic is a mental shortcut. It saves time. It can also distort judgment. In this case, the shortcut works like this: less power equals more virtue; more power equals more blame. The weaker side is presumed to be the victim. The stronger side is presumed to be the aggressor. Conduct becomes secondary. Position on the power axis becomes the moral fact.

That is not compassion. Compassion says, "I see your suffering." The underdog heuristic says, "Your suffering makes you right." Those are not the same thing.

The difference matters because the world contains many kinds of underdogs. Some are genuinely innocent. Some are merely weaker than their enemies. Some are weak and vicious at the same time. There is such a thing as an evil underdog. A group can be outmatched militarily and still choose murder, rape, hostage-taking, and the deliberate targeting of civilians. Weakness does not confer virtue. Suffering does not confer wisdom. Powerlessness does not excuse evil.

October 7 should........

© American Thinker