Any time you have one group
completely in power and another on the outs, you're going to have both anger from the less powerful group and an
image of calm control from the group in power -- suggesting the less powerful guy shouldn't be angry because the
powerful one isn't.
You don't need to be angry if you have power, because you're never frustrated.
That is both human nature, and also the unique lack of checks and balances in the current situation.
But
there is a third factor at play here. The outrage people feel these days is not primarily partisan, as much as
neocons and talkshow hosts suggest otherwise. It is patriotic and human. That is certainly true in my own
case.
We have a special situation in history, with so much death based on lies; state-sanctioned torture,
election fraud, utterly insensitive/narcissistic foreign relations; unprecedented government secrecy; civil
liberties being taken away, corporatism; and unprecedented levels of corruption at the highest levels, misuse of
power, greed and powerlust. Add to that a general incompetence, record deficits, increased terrorism, a failure to
get Bin Laden, and lack of professional integrity for doing the job right.
It's not about traditional
Democratic issues versus traditional Republican issues, or liberal versus conservative ideas. Americans of all
political persuasions are becoming increasingly angry. The "angry left" moniker is just the latest talking point to
come out of the neocon propaganda machine, from a group trying to keep and increase their power.
This situation
cannot be resolved without outrage playing a role, although the main thrust of any true solution has to be
peaceful. Effective outrage must be in the service of peace and understanding.
Having said all that, Hillary
does seem a little cold for my taste. We need a big-hearted, self-aware, person of depth to be in charge. But it
ain't about too much outrage.
Bookmarks