Anger and politics
Once again, Glenn Greenwald hits the nail on the head. Today, he has a post up on the value of anger as a political tool. He rejects the argument that it's bad for a politician to sound or be angry:
This argument is false -- dangerously so -- for so many reasons. Most successful political movements need passion. Anger, when constructively directed, is a potent and inspiring passion. It is noble to be angry about dangerous situations and corrupt leaders, and there are few passions which can compete with anger for inspiring oneself and others to meaningful action.Go read the whole thing. It's worth it.
Conversely, those who are entirely devoid of anger are often lifeless, limp, uninspiring figures who seem to be drained of soul and purpose. An anger-less political movement is embodied by a plodding, bespecled, muttering Jay Rockefeller. Or John Kerry's non-response to the Swift Boat attacks. Or the Democrats' often ponderous, half-hearted, overly-rational mutterings on all too many issues or in response to all too many corruption and lawbreaking scandals. Or craven, eager-to-please "liberals" who are more interested in convincing Fox News and other Bush followers how balanced and reasonable they are than they are than in fighting for any actual political ideals -- like Joe Klein, or Richard Cohen, for example.
1 Comments:
As our late neighbor and friend used to say after ranting justifiably against the latest Republican outrage, Jesus was angry with the money-changers in the Temple.
Post a Comment
<< Home