Anger and its political uses

We earlier quoted Rod Dreher on Republican pollster Frank Luntz’s finding that “about one in four Americans he’s focus-grouped are hard-core anti-war types, are much more committed to their position than Bush supporters, and are incandescently angry.” In response, Gedahlia Braun, author of Racism, Guilt, and Self-Deceit, sent us the following remarks on anger and its political uses:

Now look at these italicized words, “incandescently angry.” I had heard someone on the radio today say that his sampling of American public opinion showed that there was more and much stronger opposition to this (Iraq) war than there had ever been to any previous war. And my immediate thought was: “Yes, anger is the flavour of our times!” Being “angry” pays: it pays for blacks who are “angry” at whites, for women (who are “angry” at men), for African politicians (who are “angry” at “colonialism” etc), and most certainly for Arabs and Palestinians who are “angry” at Israelis and Jews. And now this “fashionable emotion” has a new arena: half the world, including much of Europe, is “angry” at America.

Think for a moment about the logic of anger. To be angry is to be angry at some perceived wrong. Hence, if you are justified in your anger that means that the object of your anger must have done something wrong to you – which is why you are angry. But if you have this justified anger towards someone (or some group etc), then it follows that that person or group owes you some recompense, has to apologize, etc., etc., etc.

In short, once the object of the “anger” accepts the legitimacy of the “anger,” he has ipso facto accepted that he himself is in the wrong and his “accuser” in the right! In other words, by displaying this “anger” the “attacker” has instantly wrong-footed his “opponent” and has him at a severe psychological, emotional and moral disadvantage.

And that, I think, not only explains black “anger” and the other “popular angers,” but also this “incandescent anger” of these anti-war protestors. Besides the fact that this trumped up and essentially phony anger is just so fashionable that “everybody is doing it,” it also is a means for these protestors to gain psychological advantage by instantly wrong-footing the other party, since by being angry all of the implications I just cited are presumed to apply: if someone is so angry, he presumably has a good reason to be so; hence, the other side must have done and be doing something terribly wrong, and the “angrier” the better, and the more intense and emotional the anger the better. It’s almost an example of “where there”s smoke there must be fire”: Such intense anger must be genuine and have a real basis.

I am not saying that these antiwar protesters have thought any of this through, but that just like “angry” blacks, they have unconsciously picked up on the power of this kind of “stance.” And the more they succeed in convincing themselves of their anger the better their “performance” will be and hence the more successful it will be. It goes without saying that such behaviour involves just about the most deep-seated self-deception possible.

It should almost go without saying that the acceptance of the legitimacy of this “anger” and attempts to appease it reflects a profound weakness and that it is precisely this weakness to which the “protesters” are responding with their largely unfounded “anger”; indeed, it is this weakness which triggers the “anger.” One need only look at cases where real anger would be justified but is not manifested to see why this is so. For example, the Tibetans have all the reasons in the world to be angry at the Chinese but they are not “demonstrating” for the simple reason that the Chinese are not weak and would not respond to their anger with apologies.

Gedahlia Braun, the author of Racism, Guilt and Self-Deceit, is an American who has lived for many years in Africa. He can be reached at gene@global.co.za.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 24, 2003 11:51 AM | Send