The Nastiness of Malicious Optimism
An Article of the Modern Survival Guide, Vol. II
Optimism is generally great, I think we can mostly agree. It gets us out of bed in the morning and helps us to see the positive side of things. I’m all for optimism, as a rule. However, optimism has a dark side. This is a concept that I’ve alluded to in other articles in this long-running series: there is a thing called “Malicious Optimism,” and it is nasty. The people who practice it intentionally are douchebags, there are way too many of them, and a lot of them are in positions of power. Watch out for it, squash it whenever you can, and whatever you do, do not indulge in it.
So what is this thing?
Malicious optimism is pretty simple to describe. All we’re talking about here is a person who has a plan that (a) has the possibility of doing something good but (b) has some potential effects that are really bad, and (c) does not, in any way, mitigate the risk of those negative effects while (d) absolutely having the potential to affect other people.
Ok, fine, maybe it’s not so simple to describe. But it’s important to understand anyway, because again, there are people out there who are malicious optimists and you do not want to get caught up in their shit.
Let’s break this down in detail. Malicious optimism kicks in when someone has a plan to do something. It doesn’t have to be anything particularly noteworthy, just something that has some effect on the world. And critically, to be counted as malicious optimism, the plan must first have the chance of doing something good… but also have a very real chance of doing something bad.
For a common example, let’s look at a gambler. The gambler has a plan — they’re going to go to a casino, play a few hands of high-stakes poker, and make a lot of money. That’s the plan. It’s optimistic. If the gambler puts too much cash into their wagers, though, there’s a very real chance that they blow their life savings and can’t make rent.
Now, what makes this malicious optimism is the critical point that the person with this plan is making absolutely no effort to reduce, remove, or otherwise blunt the effects of their plan going wrong. If everything goes great, everything is great. But if something goes wrong, which it very well might — because no plan survives contact with reality — then someone gets screwed. And the malicious optimist does not care.
Going back to the gambler, let’s say they put all their family’s money on red at the roulette table. If they win, they’re walking away with some money. But if they lose… not only are they not able to make rent, but their family is now on the street and hungry right along with them. The gambler spins the wheel anyway. This is malicious optimism in action (and also probably a gambling addiction, but they are not mutually exclusive).
Now that you know what this is, you’ll probably see it all around you, all the time. There are all kinds of other examples that routinely pop up — people who quit their job without a fallback plan for their families, Congress passing tax breaks without reducing spending, laws that seek to reduce one behavior at the expense of another, corporations launching products they know are going to cause bad down-stream effects (literally, in the case of pollution), things like that.
My personal favorite example, because I’m a politics junkie, is the Trump-era EPA cuts. This was malicious optimism all wrapped up in a bow (also arguably just straight-up incompetence, but sometimes it’s hard to tell the difference). The Trump administration was claiming that environmental regulations were harming the ability of American companies to make a profit, and to be fair, they’re absolutely right. The idea was that rolling back the regulations would lead to a boom in productivity and lots of good things happening for American workers, business owners, and of course, shareholders. And theoretically companies would police themselves on the environmental side.
The reality of the situation, of course, is that those regulations exist to protect the public from the demonstrated abuses of corporations which see little profit in maintaining expensive filtration and disposal systems to make their products more environmentally friendly. Some of those regulations also do things like prevent mining companies from dumping spoil over creek beds, thereby preventing water sources from getting contaminated by toxic substances like mercury. It is true that meeting these regs is often expensive. It is true that companies could, theoretically, of their own volition do all the things the EPA requires. But it is malicious optimism of the worst sort to assume that they will in the absence of regulatory pressure.
Let’s get on to the true nastiness of malicious optimism: people buy into it. Not just the malicious optimist, but others around them, particularly the ones who stand to benefit, will egg them on. Sometimes those are the same people who stand to lose the most if things go pear-shaped. Sometimes they don’t notice this catch.
Accordingly, malicious optimism isn’t nasty just because it represents risks waiting to happen. It’s nasty because a maliciously optimistic action could be something good. This makes it fodder for propaganda and gaslighting. Particularly on the large scale, a malicious optimist is likely to use the Big Lie strategy, and gain a significant following of people who want the optimistic result of their actions to be true. Malicious optimism spreads. And, as previously noted, it can spread to the highest offices quite easily.
This series is titled the “Modern Survival Guide,” and this is one of those things that you need to watch out for if you want to survive the modern world. When people present plans to you, make sure you think about possible outcomes of those plans. If one of those outcomes is bad, and no one is doing anything to prevent it… congratulations, you’ve found yourself a malicious optimist. This gets really dangerous when the malicious optimist is someone who doesn’t know you personally — if my optimistic plan hurts my spouse, I’m liable to care more than if it hurts some random stranger I’ve never met.
In this type of situation, it’s worth your while to at least try to bring these potentially negative consequences to the attention of others, with the intention of adapting or canceling the plan. This probably won’t work, but it’s worth a shot. If (when) that fails, take heart that at least you tried, and then do your best to protect yourself and your dependents.
In the example of the gambler, their spouse might notice their habit and plead with them to change their ways. And then, when they don’t, their spouse might insist on separate bank accounts (or a divorce) to protect a portion of the family’s money. This is a valid defense in the face of malicious optimism — if the optimist won’t come back to reality, or doesn’t care about your problems, even extreme actions can be necessary.
When dealing with a malicious optimist in your personal life, you have some justification for being selfish. They’re not looking out for your best interests; that’s your job. The fact that they don’t seem to care about you means that you can feel free to return the favor with interest.
When dealing with a malicious optimist on a larger scale, you have to get political or engage in expensive litigation. It’s usually cheaper to get political, but sometimes litigation works better. In the case of the EPA, for example, several environmental groups experienced some success in suing the EPA to force them to keep some regulations in place.¹
Otherwise, the normal range of political options always exist: call your congressman, or your township representative; write in to the local newspaper; get on social media and try to go viral; organize a group to oppose the plan; give money to opposition groups, or opposing candidates; VOTE. All of these things are always options to you, as a citizen. Do not hesitate to use your options.
A final point — just because someone is displaying malicious optimism doesn’t necessarily mean they are acting with evil intent (although sometimes it absolutely does). Sometimes people just haven’t thought about the potential consequences of their actions. When in doubt, err on the assumption that someone has made an honest mistake. When that is disproven, err on the assumption of incompetence. Only when that is disproven should we assume evil intentions.²
Malicious optimism isn’t one of those things that has an “end.” It’s been around forever, and it will always be around. It’s part of the human condition. It should be part of your survival strategy to recognize it when it pops up, and do your best to counter it when necessary. If you can avoid becoming a malicious optimist yourself, so much the better.
¹https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/trump_lawsuits/
²Which is to say, actions taken with the explicit intention of harming someone for the personal gain of the actor, or taken without any care for the wellbeing of another.
