For the angry right, and the angry left...

[molson_golden2002]

I've never been a George Will fan but he makes a great point in this article. People on every side of the political spectrum these days (especially the most extreme sides but not limited to them) substitute righteous or self-righteous anger in favor of rationale discourse and open-minded inclusion of the whole context of a situation. This is to appeal to their base constituency, zealot partisans in general that are noted for their emotional responses to issues rather than their intellectual weighing of the pertinent details.

See, I can't get past the "these days" part of your your's and Will's argument. Why do you think things are worse now than the 1950's? I choose 1950's because Robinson and Dimaggio were from that time [and 40's also] and Will mentions them in his piece.

 

What I think Will is doing is feeding off the ignornace of people who believe in some imaginary past where everything was wonderful. A past that never existed.

[erynthered]

Discard the fact that George Will wrote the column. Let's distill the pertinent idea that he touches on and use this idea to bring the conversation above the partisan bickering level that it is so easy to get bogged down in. The idea that anger from the "very real psyche of the people" should be channeled in the most appropriate way to achieve mutually beneficial results not only for our nation but for our two-party political process in general is an idea than any sane, rational, and not completely biased partisan should and must get behind if you truly have best interests at heart. Be you democrat, republican, liberal, or conservative, you have an extremely vested interest in engaging each other in the right kind of dialogue and debate so that the best ideas and policies can emerge from a more efficient and productive process.

 

So when you think to castigate Will for this article based upon his conservative predilections, think for a moment about the possibility that inside this column might be a kernel of a good idea ready to emerge if partisans on both sides of the aisle would only temper their obscene rhetoric and channel their anger and passion into something other than blowing up their already grotesque, childish, and amazingly short-sighted egos.

 

 

Apparently, that's to much for some to grasp.

 

Nice post.

[Johnny Coli]

Discard the fact that George Will wrote the column. Let's distill the pertinent idea that he touches on and use this idea to bring the conversation above the partisan bickering level that it is so easy to get bogged down in. The idea that anger from the "very real psyche of the people" should be channeled in the most appropriate way to achieve mutually beneficial results not only for our nation but for our two-party political process in general is an idea than any sane, rational, and not completely biased partisan should and must get behind if you truly have best interests at heart. Be you democrat, republican, liberal, or conservative, you have an extremely vested interest in engaging each other in the right kind of dialogue and debate so that the best ideas and policies can emerge from a more efficient and productive process.

 

So when you think to castigate Will for this article based upon his conservative predilections, think for a moment about the possibility that inside this column might be a kernel of a good idea ready to emerge if partisans on both sides of the aisle would only temper their obscene rhetoric and channel their anger and passion into something other than blowing up their already grotesque, childish, and amazingly short-sighted egos.

 

 

We clearly didn't read the same column (actually I read it in another paper and it had a different title "The fashionably furious wear their rage with pride"...still the same crap, though). In the George Will column I read, he begins in the first paragraph suggesting that the anger people feel today is "fury as fashion."

 

...today's theatrical anger is not without precedent. But now there is a new style in anger — fury as a fashion accessory, indignation as evidence of good character.

Excuse me? That's not entering into a debate on public discourse with the premise of toning down rhetoric. Right out of the gate he's attempting to belittle the passion of that segment of the electorate that he doesn't agree with. I've got news for you George, the electorate isn't putting on a show...they're really mad.

 

And with that notion, he's off into the over-mined territory of trashing San Fran (talk about mailing it in). Way to stay above it all, Will.

 

Of course. San Francisco, a showcase for expressive individualism, is full of people bristling with rights and eager to rebel against oppressive authority, but having a hard time finding any. The only rules concern parking.

 

Got to get in the subliminal shot at the Dems...

 

No wonder Americans are infatuated with anger: It is democratic.

 

 

The man has nothing left on his fastball...nothing.

 

Must. Attack. The. Hippies.

 

There is road rage (and parking lot rage when the Whole Foods Market parking lot is congested with expressive individualists driving Volvos and Priuses).

Now, having established that the crazy hippies are only spoiling for a fight because they're bored and shallow, he's on to the crux of his column...the dirty hippies are attacking George Bush. Not becasue they might feel that the country is going in the wrong direction. Not because they might have real questions as to the legality of what this administration is trying to do. Nope, they're just looking to express themselves using the new fashionable lexicon based on anger.

 

Wood, an anthropologist and author of "A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Now," says the new anger "often has the look-at-me character of performance art." His book is a convincing, hence depressing, explanation of "anger chic" — of why anger has become an all-purpose emotional stance. It has achieved prestige and become "a credential for group membership." As a result, "Americans have been flattening their emotional range into an angry monotone."

 

I'm sure all those independents that flocked to the polls and overwhelmingly pulled the blue levers were just trying to belong...just trying to fit in and gain some "anger prestige."

 

Thankfully, we have people like George Will to reign us in and remind us of the good old days when all that anger boiled under the surface and we could channel it against the Commies, flouridated water and anybody that didn't look like us.

 

Once upon a time, Americans admired models of self-control, people such as George Washington and Jackie Robinson, who mastered their anger rather than relishing being mastered by it. America's fictional heroes could be angry, but theirs was a reluctant anger — Alan Ladd as the gunfighter in "Shane," Gary Cooper as the marshal in "High Noon."

What, no Ronald Reagan references...no Hellcats of the Navy? No The Green Berets?

 

The only way to finish a column like that is to go straight for the standard conservative meat-and-potatos swipe at Clinton (yawn), and today's "politics of disdain" (making sure to mention the Chairman of the Democratic party ).

 

The politics of disdain — e.g., Howard Dean's judgment that Republicans are "brain dead" and "a lot of them never made an honest living in their lives" — derails politics by defining opponents as beyond the reach of reason. The anger directed at Bush today, like that directed at Clinton during his presidency, luxuriates in its own vehemence.

 

Poor Bush. A victim of the lefties' anger and the politics of disdain. Who can we turn to to raise the public discourse?

 

Today, many people preen about their anger as a badge of authenticity: I snarl therefore I am. Such people make one's blood boil.

 

[D_House]

IMO this Op-Ed was pretty biased and unsubstantive. Johnny Coli did a good job breaking it down.

[Sketch Soland]

Apparently, that's to much for some to grasp.

 

Nice post.

 

Thanks

[molson_golden2002]

Discard the fact that George Will wrote the column. Let's distill the pertinent idea that he touches on and use this idea to bring the conversation above the partisan bickering level that it is so easy to get bogged down in. The idea that anger from the "very real psyche of the people" should be channeled in the most appropriate way to achieve mutually beneficial results not only for our nation but for our two-party political process in general is an idea than any sane, rational, and not completely biased partisan should and must get behind if you truly have best interests at heart. Be you democrat, republican, liberal, or conservative, you have an extremely vested interest in engaging each other in the right kind of dialogue and debate so that the best ideas and policies can emerge from a more efficient and productive process.

 

So when you think to castigate Will for this article based upon his conservative predilections, think for a moment about the possibility that inside this column might be a kernel of a good idea ready to emerge if partisans on both sides of the aisle would only temper their obscene rhetoric and channel their anger and passion into something other than blowing up their already grotesque, childish, and amazingly short-sighted egos.

 

 

I don't know how I missed this priceless post before!

 

Two things

 

1) We don't need George Will telling us should all be nice to each other. I very much got the idea behind cooperation when I watched Seasame Street as a child. There isn't anything really new about that idea. You see, when many of us fundamentally disagree on policy and such, we are not going to work together, we are going to try and win votes to see our side prevail. Welcome to democracy! I have no love for Alaska Darin, but when he makes fun of the "Can't we all just get along" crowd, by saying he wants to buy the world a coke, I get a chuckle. Maybe George Will should buy Amereia a Coke?

 

2) When you say we can't get past Will writing the column you are totally ignoring our criticism of what he wrote. Did you read our posts you are replying to? Try reading them again and get back to us. It's not that Will wrote the piece its's what he wrote.

[Sketch Soland]

I don't know how I missed this priceless post before!

 

Two things

 

1) We don't need George Will telling us should all be nice to each other. I very much got the idea behind cooperation when I watched Seasame Street as a child. There isn't anything really new about that idea. You see, when many of us fundamentally disagree on policy and such, we are not going to work together, we are going to try and win votes to see our side prevail. Welcome to democracy! I have no love for Alaska Darin, but when he makes fun of the "Can't we all just get along" crowd, by saying he wants to buy the world a coke, I get a chuckle. Maybe George Will should buy Amereia a Coke?

 

2) When you say we can't get past Will writing the column you are totally ignoring our criticism of what he wrote. Did you read our posts you are replying to? Try reading them again and get back to us. It's not that Will wrote the piece its's what he wrote.

 

You are a narrow minded individual, imho. Partisans like yourself are so hung up on your own egos that you can't see the forest for the trees because you are in love with your own outrage more than you are concerned with working for the common good. One day hopefully you all will realize that it's not about smacking down the opposition or winning or prevailing for your own side; it's about working together to build a better world for future generations. That is all that matters.

[molson_golden2002]

You are a narrow minded individual, imho. Partisans like yourself are so hung up on your own egos that you can't see the forest for the trees because you are in love with your own outrage more than you are concerned with working for the common good. One day hopefully you all will realize that it's not about smacking down the opposition or winning or prevailing for your own side; it's about working together to build a better world for future generations. That is all that matters.

I disagree. I think its obvious that you have taken your own argument so to heart that you can't even see what we are arguing. You completely dismiss my argument out of hand by saying I can't get past who wrote it. That's false. You took his argument at face value and I--and another poster-looked a little deeper and criticized it, no big deal dude.

 

And your "working together" stuff, that's all fine and well, but I try to live in the real world where people have real disagreements. There is no "will of the volk." Partisanship is natural and healthy. Can't stand the heat?...well, you know