• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
May 10, 2006
Better Angry Love
In comments here about my ongoing fixation with Richard Cohen, there was this exchange:
If mainstream journalists turn off their email because people use words like "murder," what will politicians do?Do you think the little old lady down the street will vote Democrat because we get angry?
I'm troubled by what's happening here. Jesus said, "Love your enemies." I think America wants more love, less hate.
Posted by: S at May 9, 2006 07:55 PMS., I don't know if you realize how the actual world works, but people hold elective offices and other positions of power between (or even during) elections, and they do various things that affect our lives during that time. When we are e-mailing, say, Richard Cohen, we are obviously not affecting the opinion of the lady down the street one way or another -- we are trying to get our voice heard by the elites who actually run things.
You can say that the obnoxious bile isn't the best way to do that, and you would be right in most cases -- but in no way is "love" (at least that demonstrated by Jesus in the actual gospels) incompatible with anger. Do you think people were telling Jesus, "Listen, the lady down the street is never going to vote Christian when you're running around calling Pharisees white-washed tombs"?
Posted by: Adam Kotsko at May 9, 2006 09:07 PMWe need Better Angry Love.
I'm actually totally serious. We need Better Angry Love. We gotta engineer it, optimize it, keep it angry and forceful, yet loving and true. We don't spend enough time honing our angry love skills.
Posted by: Saheli at May 9, 2006 09:35 PM
I don't have much to say about "S"—apparently one of America's many conservatives deeply concerned about "the angry left"—except that he could profitably read the Sermon on the Mount, specifically Matthew 7:3-7:5.
However, anger is important to understand, both in politics and human life generally. In particular, I believe progressives, especially the middle class caucasian kind who subscribe to Utne Reader, are sometimes wrongly uncomfortable with anger. They feel it's illegitimate, dangerous and should be repressed.
And they're right it's dangerous, like all strong emotions. But despite their danger, strong emotions are not illegitimate, and ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
What I've always found useful here is the perspective of the Industrial Areas Foundation, people who've thought seriously about anger. Here's one of their star organizers, Ernesto Cortes:
"A good organizer must be angry," he says. "Not irritated or enraged, but angry. In the dictionary you'll find that it comes from the Old Norse angr, meaning loss or grief."Cortes says his grief -- his anger, in the Nordic sense -- stems from America's failure to fulfill the promise of democracy, the promise that all citizens can play a meaningful role in their own governance.
(What Cortes says about "anger" being derived from a word meaning "grief" is true. You can look it up.)
In other words, anger is not only NOT counterproductive, it's ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED. People who tell you otherwise do not have your best interests at heart.
Posted at May 10, 2006 06:37 PM | TrackBackTHE REPUBLICRATS CODE:
LOVE YOUR ENEMIES (OSAMA)
FUCK YOUR FRIENDS (AMERICA)
Now that's how angry I am, love.
The way I see it is that the focus needs to be on the way big business has influenced or I should say stolen our democracy. The rot starts at the top with George Bush whose influence has washed down from on high to pervert and control congress and the judicial branch of government. When the big money people say jump Bush asks how high.
It is not that Bush invented this it is the level at which he has conducted it from appointees like Hayden, Brownie, Alphonso, not to mention Rumsfeld to the bribery free-for-all in congress. Look at the recent lobby reform bill, it is a joke by any standard, Lobbyists shall be required to take an eight hour ethics course while members of congress have to report their ill gotten gains quarterly instead of twice a year, ooh how rough for the sticky fingered.
The solutions are simple enough, serious election reform and serious reform of the corruption in congress. The not so simple part is how to carry out the reforms when the people in control are not serious about removing the influence of big money. Sure okay we can write to our congress-oids and tell them what we want but will they take their snouts out of their feedbags long enough to listen?
I would love to hear some good constructive ideas how to change this and I don’t mean just voting the bums out merely to replace them with a new set of bums, the system is broken thanks to Tom DeLay and the rest of the thieves.
Recently we have seen that marches can be effective, congress-oids sit up and take notice when millions of people march and take their message to the streets perhaps this is a good starting point?
Ideas?
Stop paying them.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at May 11, 2006 02:57 AMLame Man -
People are angry; really angry. Watch the TV or listen to the radio (I generally do neither) and you will know that this is true. The real issue is, what's the target of that anger?
The truly amazing thing which has happened is that, somehow, millions of Americans with no wealth and no opportunity are angry, furious, at a group of people (liberals) who basically would like nothing better than to raise their wages and guarantee them health care. Huh?
Like Saheli and Jon said, better angry love. That the anger exists, I think, is possibly very positive.
Posted by: Aaron Datesman at May 11, 2006 11:15 AMI think it is a useful metaphor to consider anger as fire. The balance between usefulness and danger is obvious, of course. I also think it might answer some of Lame Man's question (why aren't more people angry?).
Part of the answer is that we're so well off we don't want to rock the boat, but I think another part is that many of us are burnt out. We had SO MUCH anger so continuously, to so little effect, that it's like a fire raging in a confined space -- soon the fuel is gone.
Productive anger will burn steadily and long, and not out of control. That's awfully hard to do, but perhaps perhaps perhaps there's some value in looking to that metaphor for inspiration?
Posted by: Scotto at May 11, 2006 11:44 AMWhenever I visit my family, and the talk turns to politics, someone will inevitably ask why I'm so angry. I ask, "Why aren't you?"
Posted by: slim at May 11, 2006 01:39 PMI'd have to agree that fear is *sometimes* useful, but I think the danger there is great. It's subject to burnout even more than anger is, and it's one of the biggest tools being used to systematically deprive us all of our rights -- or rather, to convince us to systematically surrender our rights. and when it comes to pandemic planning, poorly-informed fear will cause far more damage than the disease will.
Posted by: Scotto at May 11, 2006 03:49 PMI'm dubious on the whole issue of anger. I agree that people should be passionate, and anger is almost certainly the correct passion to mount in these disgusting times. But just being angry is pretty useless and even somewhat aggravating to others. I've known plenty of angry activists in my time, and I was never impressed by them. It's fine for anger to provide the flame that gets you steamed up, but your anger is never going to be as compelling to someone else, especially if they are unable to comprehend what you're angry about. That's just going to make you seem, well, crazy.
What's impressed me is passion and eloquence. Granted, I'm a nerd, and what appeals to me doesn't necessarily work in general, but if it's clear that someone cares about a subject and has a level of knowledge on the subject sufficient to demonstrate that they are competent to hold an opinion, then I am likely to heed their words and even be moved by them.
So, be angry, I say, but keep it on the inside.
Posted by: saurabh at May 11, 2006 04:56 PMI personaly have nothing against Liberals, in fact, everyone's opinion is useful and valuable in determining AMERICA'S direction and solving her problems. I feel the same way toward Conservatives. Let's be frank for a moment, both sides have ABUSED power while in control of this Government. Both parties swallow vast amounts of the TAXPAYERS money every chance they get to put their hands on it. Vietnam as in Iraq, BOTH parties went against the PEOPLES interest and commonsense in a mad effort to create failure. Examine Congress now, BOTH parties worked very hard on the golf course to bring America to the straits we're in now, and our national debt has accumulated over the span of ALL previous Administrations, it's just that our present Administration seems more proficient at it. FELLOW TAXPAYERS, it's time for us to cease being sheep and start being AMERICAN CITIZENS.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at May 11, 2006 06:02 PMI personaly have nothing against Liberals, in fact, everyone's opinion is useful and valuable in determining AMERICA'S direction and solving her problems. I feel the same way toward Conservatives. Let's be frank for a moment, both sides have ABUSED power while in control of this Government. Both parties swallow vast amounts of the TAXPAYERS money every chance they get to put their hands on it. Vietnam as in Iraq, BOTH parties went against the PEOPLES interest and commonsense in a mad effort to create failure. Examine Congress now, BOTH parties worked very hard on the golf course to bring America to the straits we're in now, and our national debt has accumulated over the span of ALL previous Administrations, it's just that our present Administration seems more proficient at it. FELLOW TAXPAYERS, it's time for us to cease being sheep and start being AMERICAN CITIZENS.
I'm angry at capital letters.
Posted by: John Lenin at May 11, 2006 06:26 PMThe thing is I DO have a plan, not a fast or sexy one, but a Constitutionally reliable one. Voter Inititiative on the BUDGET and TAXES.It needs NO Constitutional changes, just needs to a Majority vote. The only drawback is the population at large has to take RESPONSIBILITY for where their money goes and what it does, what it buys. When I started in Dec. 2001 I did not even concider THAT to be an obsticle, I've since decided otherwise
Posted by: Mike Meyer at May 12, 2006 11:41 AMI was watching a local planning commission meeting earlier, watching how the councilmen ran a meeting in such a way that a sleezy developer was favored over the folks who were objecting. What I noticed is that by doing so the elected officials were making their jobs easier. In fact, most of our government is designed to make the jobs of the elected officials easier, not more demanding. This is the American Way. It's part of the American Dream. We all want our jobs to be easier, we want a better, easier, life than our parents did. That's one reason why immigrants are in such demand--they are not imbarassed by working hard.
I think that one reason why anger is so ineffective in our culture is that by addressing it, we make our job more difficult. Those of us who take pride in being as thurough and as ethical as we can be work very hard. Those of you who do know how frustrating it is to watch the do-nothing-but-kiss-assers get the promotions. They are rewarded because they reflect our culture's sought-after lifestyle which is happy-go-lucky and without anger. Just think back to how Bush was packaged. He got the promotion.
To acknowledge anger, whether it is one's own or another's, is to travel to a new dimension of clarity with new responsibilities. Many reject this insight and act out as a form of distraction. The perpetrators (most of our elected officials) who are able to see the anger as a result of what they have done also realize that to address that anger will take a lot of work. A lot of work. And really, who wants to do more work? It's so much easier to smooze with the other perps and look askance at the angry wackos. As a result of this cultural abhorrance of hard work combined with our natural desires to sit around eating and socializing, we are doomed. After all, we have created a world in which hard work is required to keep a lid on all the bullshit that has been developed such as nuclear, chemical and overpopulated chaos.
If we look at some other cultures, anger has been much better addressed. Open hearted anger is powerful. Very powerful. But it takes time and hard work to resolve it and first there must be a willingness on the part of the both sides to take the time and do the hard work to come to a unified understanding that the other is as human and as valid as the other. To be honest, I don't see our elected officials voluntarily changing the system anytime soon. Just listen to the derision our culture places on those governments who do address the anger of the their electorate: the foolishness of the Germans and their long vacations, the backwardness of the French and their dietary concerns, the strangeness of the Swedes and their, well, where do we begin?
Anger is only useful if the perp is in a system that holds them responsible. Our system does not. Try and use your energy differently.
Posted by: Turtlebox at May 13, 2006 06:45 PMTurtlebox: Had not ever thoutht of that way but you're right. That's deep.
Posted by: Mike Meyer at May 13, 2006 10:33 PM