Anger and Rage
Grayson is known for his comment that the Republican plan for health care is "don't get sick. And if you do get sick, die quickly." The HardBall comments refer to Dick Cheney as having blood dripping from his teeth. That these comments are seen as "over the top" for some people on the left is a real problem for me.
There was a good amount of positive reaction to the comment, but too many others were "tut-tutting," in the words of one commenter, about the "inappropriate" tone of the attack and the fact that it might cost him his seat.
This comment from Barry Champlain should be mandatory reading for all Democrats, with a quiz to follow.
Which gives us a fantastic contrarian explanation of R districts, doesn't it?
All those American citizens who followed the the guys on talk radio, voted straight R; described themselves as "conservative"... think about it:
All they were really doing, as natural-born Followers, was looking for a guy with balls that they could follow. And who would protect them. That is why people like Rush always could describe America as "a conservative nation"; their conservative heroes talked like political bikers with fists and weaponry.
Well, along comes an unabashed liberal, carrying his cojones in a wheelbarrow. He stands up in front of his "R" district, and does what he does without batting an eye. When the howls of Outrage [tm] come, he doubles-down on the offense factor. So what happens?
Something like four potential Republican opponents have bowed-out from running against him in his red district, because he's becoming a rock star to all these "red" people.
Fuck "apologizing"... THIS IS HOW WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING IT, ALL ALONG.
And it's the ONLY way dems are going to hang on to Congress and the White House - by emulating Alan Grayson.
I'm tired of the "high road" people who think this guy is merely a clown or the Democratic equivalent of Michelle Malkin. Maybe the MSM will portray it that way, but he is landing REAL blows to these idiots. Calling it like it is and turning the rhetoric back around.
It is the "high road" people I want to address.
I've said it before, but one of the best political quotes I've ever heard (unfortunately I forget where) is that "Democrats use elitist rhetoric to promote populist policies, while Republicans use populist rhetoric to promote elitist policies." Read that again.
Seems to me that using populist rhetoric to promote populist policies is a SLAM DUNK.
So back to the people that want to take the "high road." Obama, you say, ran against Hillary's confrontational approach and he won the nomination and the Presidency by appealing to people's higher instincts. True, but think about Bush for a minute. He did not use the same kind of rhetoric as his "footsoldiers" like Rush and an infinite number of others. (OK, well, besides the "dictator" comment.) The point is Obama is the only one who has to be "presidential" because he is the only one who is the effing President!
It's up to everyone else to take this thing forward by being...what? Reasonable and measured? NO! By being angry.
What does it take? How many uninsured people have to die? How often can the right-wing lies be repeated before someone besides Grayson calls Tweety out on it? And NOT in a polite way? And here we arrive at the crux of the problem.
I assume many left-leaning people have an ideal of "peace" that was arrived at by reading certain mystical Crhistian or even eastern thinkers. If the grown-ups can just get control, they think, we can all have a grown-up discussion and leave the rancor and harsh rhetoric behind.
But I think those people are misreading the philosophers they admire and are using an avoidance strategy to protect themselves from necessary confrontation.
It seems to me there is an important difference between anger and rage. Rage is the Right's stock-in-trade. It is undisciplined and indescriminate. It cares not for details, or even facts. It allows, even celebrates, torture and wholesale slaughter.
But it is not the same as anger.
Anger - the righteous kind - motivates, gives courage, allows beleagured people to stand up to insanity and speak the truth. It dispells fear.
It stands up to the bully so you can keep your lunch money and help out the other kids.
I understand the impulse to "rise above" anger and seek some sort of higher consciousness where anger is unnecessary. And I hope when I die I will find such a place.
But we are on Earth, people. You should know the rules.
Grayson is a fire-breather, all right, and it's good to see him out in public. I have hopes for Al Franken, too, maybe his time will come.
Most people on this site are not followers, of the kind Champlain refers to in his quote above. Rather, we elect people based on how closely we think they fit with our values and purposes, and then we expect them to go to the mat to uphold those values and goals.
If they can make progress, quietly, employing discretion, that's fine. But sometimes you have to take the fight directly to the other side and Grayson is doing that.
I hope more of the representatives we elected will join him.
October 25, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Franken gives me hope, especially when he cracked a joke during the Sotomayor hearings. I was worried that he lost his sense of humor.
And BTW, I do like Rage Against the Machine, but in the context of this discussion, they could be called, "Rage against the Rage."
One other thing. As I heard somewhere, "What are you going to do, 'understand' your enemies to death?"
That sort of sums it up.
October 25, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the New World Order
October 25, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Then who do we shoot?"
How bad does it have to get before we finally resurrect the Ghost of Tom Joad?
Or - and this is the scary part - will we instead drift toward the fascist militarism offered by the likes of Mary Cheney and Bill Kristol, et. al.
I cannot escape the conclusion that we're at a very important crossroads in history. And I cannot pretend to know how it will all end. But the prospects for the continued exploitation of hatred and tribalism and intolerance and rage have never looked so good.
It is definitely time to grow angry, as you say, and to wrest the control of the teabagger mob away from those who would exploit it to preserve the status quo and instead turn it into a movement that insists that this government and this economy must work for us all.
Grayson may be a bit inelegant in the rhetoric he has used. But he should be applauded for at last giving voice to the frustration and the anger of all who have seen their "American Dream" turned upside down these last few decades and who now find it to be in its death throes.
If you want peace, work for justice. It's the only thing that has ever worked in the past, and it begins by raising the voice loudly and firmly in opposition to injustice wherever it is found.
October 25, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is definitely time to grow angry, as you say, and to wrest the control of the teabagger mob away from those who would exploit it to preserve the status quo and instead turn it into a movement that insists that this government and this economy must work for us all."
I had the opportunity to watch news clips and C-Span presentations of teabagger demonstrations and town hall meetings that were obviously organized and orchestrated by the entities promoting the health care industry. In my estimation, many of the wild-eyed clowns were the typical, red-necked followers of the Limbaugh\Beck mob. Many of them shouting against government controlled health appeared to be old enough to qualify for Medicare. Others, judging from there obesity, probably were dependent on Medicaid. I don't "think" that I am an elitist, but those mobs didn't act like the folks that I deal with on a daily basis.
October 25, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
And they are enraged, understandably. And for so long as we let the Becks and the Limbaughs and the Gingrich's and the Cheneys and the Kristols co-opt the legitimate anger these people feel and turn it into rage against "the other," we invite fascism while doing nothing to advance the cause of justice for everyone.
You are right in recognizing that many in this crowd are inherently intolerant, irresponsible and unreachable. But we ignore these people and their legitimate anger at our peril. And we are fools if we stand by quietly as the fascists continue attracting the disenfranchised to their ranks with a promise to "get my country back."
Instead, we need to acknowledge populist anger and express it forcefully, re-introducing it as a question of gaining justice for all as opposed to Mr. Beck's fascist ideal of mob rule by brute force.
October 25, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing about Grayson that works so well for me is that he doesn't appear GENERALLY angry. He was angry (appropriately) when he gave the speeches about health care; he was cool as a cucumber when he tore Senator Brown a new one over the ACORN dispute. When he asked Chris Matthews if Cheney turned into a bat and flew away he was laughing.
If he were constantly pissed off he could be easily dismissed, but he has the right emotion for each situation. He is obviously intelligent, and doesn't suffer fools (which must make his every day a trial!)
The rest of the Dems, for the most part (Franken & Kucinich are exceptions) seem incapable of outrage, as though they have to pretend that they didn't hear what they just heard in order to look unflappable. I'm with you. I want flappable people who react appropriately.
Having a bunch of angry people in charge only works if they channel their anger in productive ways. That is what Grayson seems to be doing, and I really like him. Jim Webb (Virginia) is not a push-over either, but I don't always see eye to eye with him.
October 25, 2009 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exjournalist:
I agree with you completely.
There is an important difference between anger and rage -- anger may be channeled productively while rage, because it is uncontrolled, is almost always destructive.
I'm not sure when "confrontation" became a dirty word, but it has occurred during my lifetime -- perhaps as a by-product of psychology as one popular lens through which to view the world, or perhaps as a by-prooduct of well-intentioned moves towards "no-fault"postures in legal situations (both of which may be intertwined).
I endorsed this neutrality when I was younger, thinking it a shift toward greater civility. But I've changed my mind.
The adoption of arbitrary neutrality fundamentally negates recognition of responsibility which, in turn, fosters willful blindness to timely and appropriate remedy.
I'm glad, as C'Ville suggests, that thus far Grayson seems to demonstrate an understanding of when to hold, versus fold.
October 25, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The self-immolation of Buddhists in Vietnam or the refusal to renounce a set of beliefs in Rome were both acts of war. Gandhi took this idea to a certain extreme.
I don't bring this up to refute your point about anger, just to complicate the idea of peace.
October 25, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Grayson may not seem to share the same temperament, but they are not as different as might first seem. Both know when to keep cool, when to be angry - as well as how to be angry. (Both, by the way, won 52 percent of the vote in Florida's 8th district in 2008).
Healthcare is a good example. Grayson realized that his anger would resonate with a large segment of the public who already saw the Republicans as obstructionist. He was not flailing away, but had the instinct to know when a very short, powerful punch could floor his opponent. Obama has been very "reasonable" throughout the healthcare debate for all sorts of political as well as temperamental reasons, but notice what happened after the insurance industry shot themselves in the foot with their criticisms of the proposed bills a few weeks ago. The public saw them as a threat, and Obama pounced, denouncing them in very uncool terms in his Saturday radio address.
What neither of these has done, as far as I know, is exhibit the anger that signifies helplessness. In fact, although I don't know Grayson's history that well, Obama has been careful to sound very reasonable indeed when his positions have been under strong assault. We have to wait and see, but I suspect his calmness will work to advantage in the long run, as it did during his presidential campaign. The public admires strength, and the righteous anger of the strong appeals to them, but the anger that expresses the frustration of someone who is not getting his or her way is often seen as the unappealing whining of weaklings.
The audience also matters. Anger is a great tool to fire up the faithful. It can also gather support from those who see aggressiveness as an admirable qualtiy, and who may not analyze issues on their merits but rather respond to the intensity of feeling of the advocates. It certainly can succeed in reinforcing anger already present in an audience resentful over a perceived unfairness, and thereby help to mobilize them on one's side.
For the mainstream and independent voters - the critical center of the electorate - anger is more often counterproductive unless used very sparingly. It's a good way to lose mainstream support, and losing their support is not an effective means of achieving national objectives. In particular, when adversaries debate, the intemperate debater suffers in comparison with the one who remains calm, and the trick in that circumstance is to appear both calm and strong. It also helps to have the facts on your side, and to respond to insults with evidence. Obama looked "presidential" in that sense in his debates with McCain, but was not reluctant to engage in populist rhetoric during campaign rallies. The importance to calm resolve is magnified in debates with an intimate quality to them - e.g., TV debates, which create the appearance of a discussion within one's own living room, where loud accusations don't come across well.
October 25, 2009 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most important reader post on TPM in a while.
You go girl/guy!
MDA
October 25, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
(hands exjourno a pitchfork)
Bravo!
October 25, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right on this, but no matter how you point out that passion verbalized, anger demonstrated, and committment made known attract people to a leader you will always have the namby pamby, pantwaist cowardly Democrats who wish for politics to be a controlled and proper contest for class valedictorian instead of a clash of idea and leadership. That's why we have had to endure spineless creatures like Tom Foley, Harry Reid, Tom Daschle and other weaklings running the Democratic Party in Washington. That is also why, when we have nominated those kind of people for President they have been defeated in numerous instances when they should have won: because they showed themselves to be such pussies that the people ended up believing they didn't have the balls to lead. And the people had good reason to believe this watching the Republicans flog these guys publicly while they stood there and did not lift a finger to defend themselves or their reputations. Obama was the exception because the economy collapsed only weeks before the election at the tail end of the most corrupt and ruinous 8 years in our national history. He got the nomination primarily based upon the fact that he wasn't Hillary and he was the only one in the field that really inspired anyone despite his corporate/DLC approach and demeanor.
October 25, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you exjournalist. I tend to agree with the notion that anger directed at the cruelty and injustices we've somehow come to accept as "normal" is the more "appropriate" response. In such instances as when murder for profit becomes an acceptable business model (referring to the health care industry's practice of rescission in this particular case) the abnormal response, to my mind, is the dead calm approach. Anger need not necessarily equate to unreason. It so happens that there exist innumerable circumstances of late that require reasonable people to become reasonably angry. You’re not the first person to wonder what it’s going to take. CVille Dem echoed my thoughts on the subject perfectly in commenting, “I want flappable people who react appropriately.”
(Been away for a while and have apparently missed much. Am still catching up, but overjoyed to note that the tide of populist sentiment appears to be turning in the right direction).
October 25, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I might even use a different term instead of anger. I want elected Reps to have some street smarts; to be able to know when to wait and size things up, and when to fight back; when not to take the bait, but to be ready for a zinger. I don't know that it can be learned late, you may have learned it early, or it's instinctual. It shouldn't come from a lie or hyperbole, and for me, that's what Grayson's initial airstrikes were. Yes, they were tit for tat answers to Obama-care will kill Granny (poor Gramps, nobody cared about his ass), and Holocaust was pissy hyperbole. It did focus attention on him, which was what he wanted, and his answer about not issuing an apology was grand. He had to walk a few things back, but he could have started with accusations that were made from whole cloth: there's plenty of material.
Worst ever example of fighting back: John Kerry, over and over in the debates: 'And did you know that Dick Cheney's lovely daughter is a lesbian?' Thinking anyone was fooled by that made him look like a buffoon.
Which Dem is using the Fat Ads to diss his Republican opponent? BZZZZZZZT! Crap ad, way below the belt.
Is Barack Obama a Muslim? "No...........not as far as I know...." BZZZZZZZT! Horseshit.
I've liked some of Dennis Kucinich's zingers; they come naturally; he's a Cleveland boy!
What you want from the Dems, I think, is someone who is passionate enough to street fight once in awhile for you, for us. Here's the problem: Most of them don't care enough about what we care about to get riled up. They are jockeying to ensure their future re-elections, and not compromise their mega-contributions from the Heavy-hitter Donors.
Republicans get the memo, and they stay on the talking points of the day or the week. Most of the Dems are to busy equivocating, and saying one thing at a presser, and another behind closed doors. That's why there sre so many leaks, and anonymous sources. Ugh.
Sorry to rant; I am cranky right now. Too pissed about Financial Reform to do anything but turn lemonade into lemons.
October 25, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Wendy - Good comment. I was initially ambivalent about Grayson's accusation that the Republican vision of healthcare was "if you do get sick, die quickly", but I have subsequently decided that it was both effective and justifiable. It was effective because it utilized anger in the one circumstance where it's most likely to work rather than backfire - i.e., when it reinforces a perception already widely held by the public, in this case that the Republicans cared more about saving costs for insurers than for the health of ordinary Americans. Justifiable? That caused me more concern, because doing something wrong isn't justified because an adversary did it. In this case, I've concluded that unlike the "granny killing" or "death panel" claims, everyone - Grayson, the Republicans, and the public understood that his accusation was metaphorical, and that he didn't really think Republicans wanted sick people to die quickly. If, as I believe, everyone understood that he was talking about Republican indifference rather than their desire for people to die, his shorthand was justified by the evidence implicit in their obstructionist efforts.
October 25, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear what you're say; I think there was so much that was undeniably, absolutely, verifyably (;-) )
true, that he didn't have to quite go there. It's like when I listen to 'The Ed Show,' (not often), I would rather that he know more, so he doesn't sound like just another hysterical pundit. He has passion, but not so much on the knowledge front!
And like I ssaid, I liked it when Grayson said he would apologize to the families ot the 43,000 people who died due to lack of insurance. Though I have a few doubts about that statistic, but that's just me.
October 25, 2009 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
What you describe so accurately is, of course, the essence of corruption.
October 26, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, too, am ready for some "fight" in our leaders. I am sick to death of the repubs "in your face" behavior, with no push back from us.
Remember? We won the election. I can understand why the President is trying to stay above the fray, but the Congress should have his back, and they don't. I want to know why.
There is a reason why it is beneficial to have the White House, the House and the Senate, but you'd never know it by looking.
Where is the justification for allowing the minority party to call the shots. Why is the fate of health care reform apparently in the hands of a lone repub?
Are you folks in blue dog states on your reps butts to support reform? Are you offering up names of people who you will support to replace them if they side with the repubs on this?
I think a good case of the ass is called for. I hope more reps and senators will follow Grayson's lead. And if Pelosi isn't twisting arms in a big way behind the scenes, she'd better start, because she can be replaced, too. They all can.
October 25, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what you mean. It looks there are a number of Congressmen who are taking progressive stands on issues and the President doesn't have their back. He's outflanking them on the right.
I, too, wish our Democratic pols showed the occasional flash of vitriol, taking the fight to the Republicans and even Blue Dogs. Which is another way of calling it like it is. I think Dean had that. I love watching him flatly contradict the way interviewers frame questions and issues.
October 25, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having committed the occasional act of journalism myself, I say: Bravo!
October 25, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
When anger by a segment of the electorate is expressed towards a political figure or political party, I see it as a powerful force only when it's focused. The dissatisfaction of some liberals towards President Obama or Congressional Democrats is a case in point. If an angry voice says, "You're all a bunch of corrupt, weak-willed liars who've betrayed the public trust", that sentiment is likely to be ignored. If instead, the same voice says, "We are angry because you are not pushing hard for [fill in the blanks - a public option, investigation of torture allegations, elimination of corporate abuses, etc.], the focus on a specified grievance is much more likely to be taken seriously, because it implies that the politician or party being targeted has the potential to earn the support of the complainer by taking specific actions.
In particular, it seems to me that one way almost guaranteed to be ignored is to state or imply that one has given up on the person or party who is being targeted. Why should I change my ways to satisfy someone who tells me that it would no longer make any difference to them? Of course, politicians understand that some of these global denunciations are not intended literally, but they still signify individuals who are likely to lose out in competition with those who express both their underlying support for the politician as well as their displeasure on selected issues.
To me, this means that it's sometimes necessary to distinguish in one's own mind whether anger is intended to produce a desired result in someone else or simply vent powerful feelings as a form of emotional release. Sometimes, expressing anger can do both, but if it's unfocused, it's likely to accomplish only one of the above two outcomes - or maybe neither.
October 25, 2009 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another smart comment, Fred. You always lend an air of common sense to what could be an emotionally charged discussion.
October 25, 2009 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
To me, this means that it's sometimes necessary to distinguish in one's own mind whether anger is intended to produce a desired result in someone else or simply vent powerful feelings as a form of emotional release. Sometimes, expressing anger can do both, but if it's unfocused, it's likely to accomplish only one of the above two outcomes - or maybe neither.
Excellent analysis. This post and subsequent comments have been thoughtful and on target.
The fact that we are emotional animals is something we can't get away from and shouldn't. And expressing anger (or fanning it) appropriately is rare for the average human.
There is a huge difference, as you say, between unfocused anger, which usually serves no constructive end and offers no solution/resolution to the underlying issue/feelings, and a recognized focused anger that is both passionate and keenly critical of the substance of an idea and/or a person's behavior. It is the difference between who someone is and how someone is acting. The former stokes fear and demands opposition to the person, the latter demands opposition to the behaviors while recognizing the common interest (Isn't there a Christian thingy about sins and sinners?).
October 26, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Nice surprise after being away from the computer for the day. Thanks for all the rec's and comments. I hope this is a discussion that will continue in others' posts.
October 26, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink