You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat It Too

When I was a kid, that was a pretty common phrase I would hear from the adults in my life. To me, it basically meant you couldn’t have something you wanted without also accepting the consequences that came with it.

Officially, it is a common idiom meaning you can’t enjoy two mutually exclusive benefits or options at the same time—you must choose one or the other.

The official explanation doesn’t fit the context of this article as clearly as my childhood interpretation. You’ll see what I mean in a minute.

Recently, I was engaged in a deep conversation with an ultra-liberal type. I use the word “type” because I no longer know what “liberal” actually means. The term has been twisted and redefined so many times that it has lost all recognizable shape. We’ve had to invent a new label—“woke”—to describe what used to be labelled liberals who have now drifted far beyond reason.

What struck me most during this conversation was how many of these people (assuming this one person represented many) seem unable to grasp a very basic truth: two contradictory ideas cannot exist in the same reality. They can’t have their cake and eat it too. They have to choose. But they typically do not.

You cannot believe that a country should have secure borders and, at the same time, believe that anyone who wants to should be allowed to enter without any legal process. A border is either closed (or controlled) or it is open. Both cannot be true.

You cannot champion women’s rights while simultaneously supporting a culture or ideology (such as strict Sharia Law) that systematically denies women basic rights.

You cannot believe a woman has the absolute right to abort her unborn child and, in the very next breath, insist she should be punished if she drinks or takes drugs while pregnant.

These should be obvious contradictions, yet they aren’t to many people. As our conversation continued, my head began to spin. When we touched on trans issues, I asked, “So you believe an 11-year-old should be allowed to have their genitals surgically removed?”

“Oh no,” she replied, “I don’t believe that!”

Later, when she spoke passionately about wealth being equally distributed, I said, “So you’re a neo-Marxist?”

“Oh no,” she exclaimed, “I don’t believe that either!”

It was the same pattern every time we came upon diverse views on a particular topic. She eagerly embraced Statement #1 (having the cake), but adamantly rejected the logical consequences of Statement #2 (eating it).

This is a serious problem. With this kind of logic, it’s impossible to reach any real conclusion. Having the cake cancels out eating it—and in the end, you’re left with nothing.

I pondered this for some time and realized it is one of the main reasons these “types” are so incorrigible and impossible to reason with.

The fact that you can’t have your cake and eat it too is exactly why a sane person eventually chooses one position or the other. Or, more often in my case, decides to choose neither.

There are many topics where the consequences of choosing either side feel so heinous that I simply refuse to commit. Since I’m not responsible for deciding for anyone else, it’s easy for me to shrug my shoulders and sheepishly (pun intended) mutter, “I don’t know, I haven’t decided.”

Take the moon landing debate, for example. When I listen to someone making the case that we really landed on the moon, I find myself nodding along. When I hear the opposing argument, I agree with quite a bit of that too. I can’t settle firmly on one side because both carry uncomfortable implications, and nothing in my life depends on my decision. So, I waffle.

The typical ultra-liberal, however, will usually stick rigidly with the official narrative (“Yes, we absolutely landed on the moon”) even when presented with strong counter-evidence—such as photographic anomalies, the vanishing of original telemetry data, or the technological limitations of the time that many experts still find difficult to explain. They may even quietly concede some of these points when pressed (if they listen to them at all, which most do not), but they refuse to let them challenge their core belief. You can’t have it both ways.

Let me pick an example I’m much clearer on: the taking down of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. I am certain those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition—or something similar.

The science and physics are very clear.

Most liberals reject this outright because it contradicts the official terrorist attack narrative. Yet if you point out the basic laws of physics—that a steel-framed building cannot collapse at near free-fall speed into its own footprint without the support columns being removed—they sometimes grudgingly agree with the physics…but still won’t accept the obvious conclusion.

You can’t have it both ways.

One of the major factors in making a clear decision is recognizing this particular truth: two opposing ideas cannot exist in the same reality. When faced with this, most critical thinkers are forced to choose. Which principle matters more to you?

In the case of borders, I believe a controlled border is more important than an open one. Therefore, I accept the choice—along with its necessary enforcement—even if I find some aspects of it cruel. (That said, if the enforcement becomes criminal, it must be properly addressed.)

So, my “ultra-liberal” convo ended poorly, as it usually does. And I continue to wonder what mind-altering substance was included in those mRNA vaccines. I don’t put much weight in the comment “liberals have always been like this.” No, they haven’t. They’ve been close, perhaps, but never to this extreme. My arguments landed like something from outer space.

In these situations I always think of a documentary I once saw about deprogramming cult members. No matter how many logical, objective facts were presented, they clung stubbornly to the original cult narrative. Only after very careful, patient work did some of them finally break.

Needless to say, I don’t have time for that. And I am not this person’s therapist. But man, it really is like talking to a cult member.

And maybe that is exactly what they are.

Todd Hayen PhD is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here

Thanks for reading...

You can help us keep doing what we do. Every little helps and is hugely appreciated.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.