Sunday, January 07, 2007

The New Anger

Betsy has a link to a new book by Peter Wood, A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Today.

Wood compares the difference in anger on the right and the left.

When I discuss the Left’s embrace of New Anger with people across the political spectrum, two not very satisfactory explanations keep coming up. One is that the party that is out of power has more to gripe about. Yes, but that doesn’t explain why the Left gravitated to a form of anger that exacerbated its unpopularity. Nor, why the Right, in similar circumstances kept its New Anger aficionados on the margins.

The other explanation that comes up, almost always from people on the Left, is that the extreme anger has an extreme cause. It is President Bush’s fault, because he has provoked beyond measure everyone outside his own Right-wing extremist base. According to this view, those on the Left who have resorted to flamboyant expressions of anger have done so because they are dealing with a historically unprecedented destruction by President Bush of the governing norms of American political discourse.

I think this explanation is even more dubious, requiring as it does a broad caricature of how President Bush has governed. In my book, I argue that the Left’s embrace of New Anger arises from something deeper: a generations-long shift in American culture and family life that connects much more profoundly with the Left’s worldview than with the conservative outlook.

Personally, I think the New Anger is less about the reasons for the anger and more about just being openly emotional without consequence (there's that word again). Let's face it, there are entire industries built around dealing with obnoxious and out-of-line behavior. We have television with shows like Dr. Phil. We have therapists trying to help people get in touch with their feelings. We have radio talk shows which get their ratings from people calling in with their anger (Rush Limbaugh, Randi Rhoades).

The truth is, the New Anger isn't new. It's just that these days it is perfectly acceptable to vent in public in a way that was condemned a generation ago. Especially in politics, there seems to be no end to the hyperbole. Comparisons between George W. Bush and Adolph Hitler are commonplace. Democrats consider Republicans by turn evil or clueless. Liberals despise "the rich," even as many of their leaders are among the very wealthy.

Of course, the Right has its anger-mongers as well, most notably Rush Limbaugh, who, at times, becomes almost un-listenable (is that a word?) to. For example, last week, Rush went into a long (and seemingly bitter) diatribe against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

While Wood has a point that anger in politics has a long American tradition, it can't be said that much of the New Anger has an historical basis. In fact, it seems largely to appeal to the Jerry Springer in the American electorate.