Anger and Politics

I started to post this as a reply to one of the innumberable Michael Moore threads but thought that perhaps it deserves its own thread. The comment that started me thinking was Doogie’s comment,

“Moore is so angry and full of hate in contrast.”

There are a number of liberals on the board who present reasonable well thought out arguments and seem to be reasonable people. However there are also a fair number of angry hostile liberals (or at least liberals who make angry and hostile comments). If you go through the political threads you will find hateful and intolerant comments, much more one one side then the other. I think there is something about people with channeled up anger that leads them into the liberal camp. I think Jane Fonda once made some comment that the real thing she was rebelling against (we’re talking 60s here) was daddy. Likewise I think it is in the nature of many people heavily into any cause [e.g. ELF, PETA,vegetarians (sorry Mike Mahler)] that they are often very angry and they use that cause as a channel for their anger.

Thoughts?

People spew hate and invective when they have no plausible way to argue. It’s when people run out of ideas that the arguments turn ugly.

There’s irrational anger on both sides, but it does seem liberals have the lion’s share of rage. Why? Liberalism has always been about being rebellious to the status quo, but when the staus quo is pretty damn good, one has to reach to really get riled up about something. But both sides are guilty. Being revolutionary makes people think they are cool, so they’ll always create something to rage against.

But you see it everywhere. I’ll get into a discussion about Bush’s foreign policy (a complicated matter no matter what side you’re on) and inevitably some moron will drop in with a comment on Bush’s intelligence or something useless.

Imo, it’s a function of what our generation stands for nowadays - people are rewarded more for sarcasm, cynicism, and mockery than for well-reasoned thinking and debate. It’s easy to sit back and chuckle with like-minded friends on satires mocking Bush than actually doing some homework and making a real argument against his policies.

Ask one of these dipsticks about a UN Resolution and they go deer-in-the-headlights, but ask them where BushorChimp.com is on the Web and you’ll find they have it bookmarked.

Laziness.

And I don’t mean to pick on Lefties - lots of so-called conservatives did the same thing when Clinton was in office: lots of snarky jokes and satire on Slick Willie, no real ideas.

That’s where the anger comes from, imo - intellectual bankruptcy.

“A radical is someone who sticks to their guns whether they are loaded or not.”

Liberals Suck Ass! I mean that in the most non-angry, non-theatening sort of way…I just couldn’t resist :slight_smile:

Here are a few random thoughts I have about this…

I think that causes are often attached to a belief, religious or otherwise. It seems to follow that when a person has a strong belief they often have a strong sense of righteousness and I think that is the root of alot of the anger. It is really hard to have a meaningful discourse with someone who believes absolutely that they are right. People who think they are right don’t generally take kindly to being questioned.

I also think that people will attach themselves to a cause in the heat of the moment, defend said cause with fervor, then down the road begin to question or doubt it but not want to admit to a change of heart.

I think alot of people just want to be heard and attaching themselves to a cause gives them a forum.

Along those lines some people are very good at manipulating others to their own benefit. There are predatory people who recognize lonliness, disillusion, disenfranchisment, etc. and are able to recruit such people to their cause by giving them an outlet for their rage. Skinheads, for example. In that sense I sort of agree with you.

At the same time there are just as many good people who are commited to whatever cause for genuine reasons they will happily discuss with you in a logical, respectful way, so I hate to say that “most” are angry.

In giving my the most honest answer I can regarding my own feelings. Which I will admit may be wrong, but are my feelings. Along time ago I learned that this earth and life is not always a fair place. Justice doesn’t always prevail and sometimes bad things happen to good people. I still believe we can strive for justice and I cannot sit idle when I feel a gross injustice is taking place. That is why I sometimes get heated or angry in my responses on the political forums.

Whenever I see a group of people tell me or someone else you are either with us or against us! Do not use your brain to think the issue through! It is not going to sit well with me. I also do not like someone coming off on a self-righteous holier then thou attitude. I see all of us as beings with strengths and weakness’s positive traits and faults. That being said I see many on the right as being intolerant, judgmental, self-righteous, close-minded. Unwilling to see anyone else’s point of view. I kind of my way or the highway approach! Me being the non-conforming kind of guy that I am that kind of approach or attitude will sit the hackles high on my back. I don’t feel enough democrats stand up to the bullies on the right. That is my take on it.

Elk why not take it one step further and say that you are neither a Dem or a Rep. The stance you stated above is that you can use your own brain to make your own decisions. The truth is neither party likes those types of followers. Both sides would much rather have loyal parrots who sit all day and trust what the leaders of the party tell them to be true or right.

I say both political parties can kiss my ass, I will agree with who I want to and if anybody tells me I’m wrong… they are fucking wrong because how do they know what I am feeling, How do they know where I am coming from. They don’t. What is right for me might not be right for them but it doesn’t make it wrong. And if what is right for me turns out to be in the minority and changes happen that I don’t like or that affect me negatively, I guess I’ll just have to learn to deal with it.

From the majority of your posts I can’t understand why you defend the party and it’s members so much, Maybe the Ideas they stand for, but both parties are full of dick politicians.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

Elk,

“That being said I see many on the right as being intolerant, judgmental, self-righteous, close-minded.”

I don’t disagree with this, but a couple of thoughts.

  1. People of the Right generally believe in the rightness and wrongness of ideas - and are quite comfortable saying it one idea, society, or set of beliefs is superior to another. Members of the Left are typically more prone to being relativists - there is no better idea, society, or set of beliefs, only different versions. This is, in my view, one of the biggest differences.

But, there is intolerance and closed-mindedness on both sides. Go to San Francisco - a great place, but one of the most intolerant places I’ve ever traveled. Members of the Left aren’t quite as open-minded as they like to pretend - San Francisco uses the same harsh judgmentalism as the smallest of Bible Belt towns.

Finally, I have a real problem with ‘tolerance’ being the virtue that apparently trumps all nowadays. Our emphasis on non-judgmentalism and tolerance is lapsing into nihilism.

Thunderbolt-
Agreed, I don’t like any extreme to the right or the left. I agree that those on the extreme left can be just as repugnant as those on the right. That being said my ideals and views fall on the democratic side of the fence. I see from your posts you are committed to your view on the war. I can respect that and I respect for the most part the way you express them.

All I ask is that you try to see it through my prism. Not that you do, but just try to!
I believe this administration has perpatrated many dishonesty’s just as much as you believe they have acted honorably. This is not partisan for me either. If a democrat administration pulled this off I would be just as vocal with my dissatisfaction.

Ultimately as others have already stated. Come November we will have to deal with where the cards fall. Whether they fall in our favor or not. Thunderbolt even though I don’t agree with you I will say that out of many of the right who post on this forum. I like the way you put forth your opinions. I find it hard to believe how most of us I believe are honest, decent, healthy, hardworking people, but we can almost go to war with each other over our views on this fucking war!

[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
… I find it hard to believe how most of us I believe are honest, decent, healthy, hardworking people, but we can almost go to war with each other over our views on this fucking war![/quote]

I ain’t trying to get all kum-by-yahish, but I was thinking about that very thing today.

If we were to see each other in the gym, or at the coffee shop, or anyplace else - would we be this vitriolic to each other?

If each of us were to come out from behind the mask that the internet provides for us - would we be friends?

God I feel like hugging someone…

Anonymity always seems to create courage in many who would be much more subdued in person.

I know that on a few occasions some of my own commentary has been less than pleasant, when there was no need for it.

The excuse that many give for their attacks: “He started it.” Seems a bit hollow.

While I do notice that the left is angry right now. Are they any angrier than the right was when Bill Clinton was President? I don’t think so.

Personally, I think we all need to take a step back and think twice before firing off various attacks.

Dammit ZEB, quite posting shit like that. I hate having to agree with you.

Very good post, though.

I agree with just about everything recently posted.

One thing that I think is important is that often in politics we have opponenents, not enemies, to steal from Reagan. My best pal is practically a Green, but I’d lay down in traffic for him if he asked me to. Some people are filled with unresolvable dislike, so discard them I say - the rest of us can argue over politics over a beer and still walk away friends.

I will say I think the Left has gotten to an extreme that the right-of-center never achieved in their dislike of Clinton - many on the Right thought Clinton a slick loser, an immoral hack, but never would he get compared to Adolph Hitler with a straight face. I think it actually hurts Kerry because he has to pretend these kinds of yambags are in his camp.

And agreed on anonymity emboldening some of these yahoos. I try to live by one rule when I post in discussion boards - the old ‘if I wouldn’t say it to your face, I won’t type it’. Not always easy, but a good guideline for respectful discourse.

Perhaps a little hijack, but here goes, anyway. I think the sad thing is that the scope of political debate in this country has become so narrow as to be absurd. I feel like I’m listening to Lefty and Leftier most of the time. From the outside looking in (which is sometimes the vantage point I prefer) it looks like everyone is standing up to the death for all they have been told to think. I mean no insult to my esteemed T-peeps, by the way, because there are some excellently articulated positions from all sides of the fence (pop quiz: how many sides does a fence have? :)), and therefore maybe some of you will take into consideration what I’m saying. But the public at large gets most of its information from CNN, Fox and Newsweek, and then pats itself on the flabby back for being so well informed. The mainstream media provides a very limited frame of reference (i.e. Bush vs. Kerry to the exclusion of any others), or as TC might put it, a cave. If the Libertarian or Constitution Party platform were given the same media face time, those establishment clowns would be throwing themselves in front of the nearest bus. Why? Because people would GET IT. And that just won’t do. No, no, no. I exclude of course those individuals who have taken to heart all the Marxist drivel they were fed in their college Women’s Studies courses. They’re never going away (and probably never getting jobs, either).

I think, overall, in modern American political discourse, the questions being examined are all wrong! For example, it’s not “just where the hell in the Constitution do we find that it’s the government’s job to educate our children or redistribute wealth to someone who didn’t earn it,” but rather “how much more money should we throw at the insert failed system here and hope it gets better”? Ever notice it’s never enough? There’s a reason I generally stay out of these political threads. IM(well, maybe not so)HO, it makes no difference whatsoever whether Bush or Kerry is elected this November, since they are both traitorous, globalist, UN toadies. Kerry’s just more open about it. I proudly voted for Bush, and have been sadly disappointed. Whether or not you support the war in Iraq is irrelevant at this point; we’re there! I do support the elimination of the threat of fanatical Muslim terror from our shores. I don’t care much for Allah and his 7th century barbarism, thank you very much. But if you catch the little hints inadvertently dropped by the politicians and media (who assume our ignorance), it will become obvious that there is an ulterior agenda beyond freeing Iraq and stopping terror (and no, it’s not lining Bush’s pockets with oil money). The thing is, you have to be able to recognize those hints, and most people don’t. Disarming the law-abiding? A surefire recipe for a new dictatorship! UNESCO textbooks in the schools? Pure global socialist propaganda! Next thing you know we’ll have Iraqi men in dresses and pink boas staging pride marches in the streets of Baghdad demanding to be told, by the force of law, how wonderful they are, mothers with 4 kids by 4 fathers that are nowhere to be found screaming for their “fair share,” and Iraq signing on to the latest global warming treaty! Democracy my freakin heinie!

Oh, enough, now I’M getting angry! (Sorry for the long one, but you know, sometimes…)

Thank you and good day. I’m Michael Moore.

“I will say I think the Left has gotten to an extreme that the right-of-center never achieved in their dislike of Clinton - many on the Right thought Clinton a slick loser, an immoral hack, but never would he get compared to Adolph Hitler with a straight face.”

Clinton was called a rapist, a murderer (Vince Foster and others), he trafficked in cocaine, and he was a crook (Whitewater). The GOP spent 8 years and hundreds of millions of dollars harassing the Clinton (after all that time and money spent investigating Whitewater, which was a business deal that occurred before Clinton was even elected, the Clintons were absolved of any wrong-doing).

Ask yourself if we as Americans might have made more progress on important foriegn and domestic issues, if Clinton hadn’t had to spend so much time and energy fending off attacks from hateful idealogues on the extreme right?

When I compare that to the situation we have under Bush, I have to think that the Right Wing can dish it out, but they can’t take it.

Yada yada yada, both sides are spewing the same level of nonsense, except as usual you have the right claiming the left is in the wrong.

Give me a break. If you want to be concilliatory and complain that things are too heated, then grow a pair and admit you or your compatriots are just as much to blame as that other group.

Lumpy,

There were folks claiming Clinton was all kinds of things - but they didn’t get traction with the mainstream or the elite. Look at Hollywood - some of the most visible people in our culture are buying into left-wing conspiracies. And that’s not even counting academia.

I’m pretty critical of conservatives that went off the deep end against Clinton - but how many people filled American streets and burned effigies of Clinton while he was under investigation? When Clinton dropped bombs in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq - all illegal by the current standard of the Left - where were the protests in San Francisco, London, and Paris?

Back to the subject.

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Clinton was called a rapist, a murderer (Vince Foster and others), he trafficked in cocaine, and he was a crook (Whitewater). The GOP spent 8 years and hundreds of millions of dollars harassing the Clinton (after all that time and money spent investigating Whitewater, which was a business deal that occurred before Clinton was even elected, the Clintons were absolved of any wrong-doing).
[/quote]
Hello, Lumpy! I don’t believe we’ve met (gentlemanly handshake). Without making a subjective assessment of the eight years of “harassment” endured by the Clintons while in office, I might recommend a book I happen to be reading called “The Secret Life of Bill Clinton” by a British journalist whose name escapes me at the moment (hardly a right wing hack though). It is a very well documented account based on intensive investigative reporting into what appear to be blatant, large-scale cover-ups at the highest levels of government, rigged trials, and tampered evidence, as well as on discussions with key figures from their days in Washington and Arkansas whose lives were ruined for trying to bring these things public. Without going into too much detail, it is quite credibly arguable that Clinton is, did, or was involved in many if not all of those things. I make no habit of being a Clinton-basher, but it is hard not to objectively consider the veracity of those accusations based on the evidence presented. Not quite the same as calling someone a Nazi.

[quote]Sabrina wrote:

Along those lines some people are very good at manipulating others to their own benefit. There are predatory people who recognize lonliness, disillusion, disenfranchisment, etc. and are able to recruit such people to their cause by giving them an outlet for their rage. Skinheads, for example. to say that “most” are angry.

Sabrina, I just wanted to make you aware, not all skinheads fit the description you are talking about. Like any other groups there are those few, (the whitepower ones in this case), that create the stereotype for the rest. There is another type of skinhead, maybe Geraldo’s talk show didn’t mention, called the Sharp’s this stands for Skinheads Against Racial Predjudice.

“There were folks claiming Clinton was all kinds of things - but they didn’t get traction with the mainstream or the elite.”

Oh yes they did. The New York Times was the main news source behind the Whitewater allegations, all of which resulted in no charges against Clinton.

The editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal repeated rumors that Clinton was a murderer, drug dealer, and rapist, and then said (paraphrasing) that “all these rumors have to mean something”.

These are just 2 quick examples.

Lumpy is exactly right!

Clinton was attacked viciously from not just the right, but from many news sources as well. Yes, some were sympathetic to his cause, but most were after him. When the press smells a story they go after it, for the most part.

It is hard for some republicans to admit that Clinton had it every bit as tough as Bush, but I honestly believe that he did!

(Don’t forget the 70 million dollars spent by the Ken Starr investigation-and for what?)

I really wish that politics would change in this country. While it may never change we (for the purposes of this forum) can at least be honest and civil!