The Politics of Anger

George Will writes in the Washington Post today about the nature of anger in American life and its effect on politics.  Excerpt:

Wood notes that there is a "vagueness and elasticity of the grievances" that supposedly justify today's almost exuberant anger. And anger is more pervasive than merely political grievances would explain. Today's anger is a coping device for everyday life. It also is the defining attribute of an increasingly common personality type: the person who "unless he is angry, feels he is nothing at all."

That type, infatuated with anger, uses it to express identity. Anger as an expression of selfhood is its own vindication. Wood argues, however, that as anger becomes a gas polluting the social atmosphere, it becomes not a sign of personal uniqueness but of a herd impulse. ...

Today, many people preen about their anger as a badge of authenticity: I snarl, therefore I am. Such people make one's blood boil.

Historian Richard Hofstadter once wrote that "American politics has often been an arena for angry minds."  No doubt this remains true today.  Will notes that anger serves as an identity for some people -- even to the point that it creates a shared identity based solely on anger and the object of that anger.  In short, it's a form of tribalism that purges compromise and reason from politics.

The tribalism of anger creates an atmosphere where all standards of decent behavior and compromise disappear.  When Howard Dean announces that he hates Republicans and everything they stand for or Ann Coulter makes lewd remarks about John Edwards, this isn't reasoned politics.  In such a world view facts make little difference, and it's something I think both sides of the political aisle need to be aware of.

One off-shoot to the politics of anger is the nature of scapegoating.  As Mary Eberstadt explains:

. . . a flight from political reality has indeed been underway on both the left and the right in America in the years since that event, as well as accelerating into more advanced forms in much of Europe. To switch metaphors, in the wake of the 9/11 attack -- and later, related Islamist attacks on civilians, most notably in Spain and Britain -- many Western observers have responded not by absorbing what we now know to be true about our world, but rather by transposing those brute facts into other, safer, more familiar keys.

Yes, instead of facing the force of radical Islam, many are turning to familiar scapegoats to explain away the problems.   To be sure, both sides of the political spectrum are guilty of this.  As Eberstadt explains, some on the Right have turned to blaming immigrants for all of America's ills, while some on the Left have adopted the view that "Christianists" are converting America into a theocracy.   The most popular scapegoat, by far, is President Bush, which many in the general public and intellectual class find appealing.  The problem with this is it tries to explain too much, ignoring the complexities of reality.  Simply, people are more comfortable with scapegoats because they can understand them.  They are solvable "problems."  Toss out the illegals, demonize the motives of religious people, blame Bush or America for everything, or bury our head in the sand.  All are easier than dealing with reality, especially an entity like Muslim radicalism that doesn't view life and society the way the West does.

The anonymity that the world of the New Media offers has only served to amplify this anger.  As much as I love the blogosphere, it certainly has its issues.  One source of this invective discourse is the nature of the online community.  The lack of civility in debate stems from the remoteness of the keyboard and monitor that provides insulation that doesn't exist when debating face-to-face.  That remoteness often results in uncharacteristic boldness and rudeness.  Much of our political discourse and intelligent debate today has been supplanted by ideological quarrels, name-calling, and ad hominem attacks.  This isn't to suggest I'm opposed to rigorous debate and questioning of facts and theories, but we should give each other the benefit of the doubt and accept the sincerity of those involved in a dialog.  The point of politics is not to scream at one another but to find the best policies for our nation, our states, and our communities.  Anger should not be allowed to define our politics and ethics.

UPDATE:  For the South Dakota connection, remember Tom Daschle and his decrying of "startling meanness" in American politics?  Unfortunately, Daschle's political legacy has been cemented in the permanent campaign and scorched earth.