Optimism Vs. Anger

My one reader (my mother) may have noticed there was no blog yesterday, and after reading through the paper today, again, nothing hits me as particularly biased. Two days in a row with no A section bias? Perhaps I'm becoming more liberal and not noticing the bias. Nah.

So I wanted to write something today in the remote chance someone (accidentally) links to my site, and thinks that perhaps I've lost interest in this endeavor. I assure you, I have not.

Since I started this blog, I haven't really editorialized myself, but rather critiqued what I see as
liberal bias in the Times. However, in the process of analyzing this bias, my own perceptions and values have certainly come through. But today, I'm going to throw caution to the wind and
talk about what I want to talk about, and today's topic is anger. It must be said that the idea came from a piece in today's Op/Ed by Ellen Goodman, "Hail to the Optimist". She contends that "optimism" has itself become a political platform and that each presidential candidate is trying to position himself as the "Optimistic choice". While there is some truth in what she says, I believe it is anger that defines politics today, not optimism.

What do I mean by this? Well, though I am only 36, it seems to me that years ago, conservatives were the angry folks. In the fifties we had Joseph McCarthy, angry at Communists. In the 60's, Richard Nixon seemed angry at everyone, and by the 70's, the quintessential conservative was Archie Bunker, incredibly angry at the social upheaval he perceived all around him.

The Archie Bunker model continued through the eighties as many conservatives longed for a more simple time and blamed gays, feminists, blacks, immigrants, the homeless, etc. for the social problems of the day. Indeed, the eighties saw the rebirth of white supremacy with the rise of skinheads and the birth of organizations such as The Order. This period also marked the emergence of extreme right-wing, anti-government "survivalists", Timothy McViegh being
perhaps the most famous example of this type of angry conservative. With books like "The Turner Diaries", these people foresaw an inevitable race-war and were determined to be ready.

Liberals (or the political left), on the other hand, for the last forty years have been typically
characterized by peace, love and understanding. As we all know, this movement has it's roots in the freewheeling 60's, where baby-boomers became socially aware in the era of Vietnam, a war they percieved to be the construct of irrationale hate, fear, and anger. The hippie movement and protest spirit of the late 60's became the seminal event for a huge number of Americans. For
these people, anger (like hate) was evil and the cause of most the world's ills.

But something very strange has occured in the last few years. The situation is now completely reversed. Today, it is the likes of Michael Moore and liberal actors like Sean Penn who use the most angry, hate filled rhetoric. Let's face it, comparing anyone to Hitler is pretty much THE WORST thing you can say about a person. Internet searches of the phrase "I hate Bush" turn up thousands of sites.

On the conservative side, well sure, there are still angry bigots in this world. But mainstream
conservative leaders such as Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly preach messages of empowerment, and self reliance. When they look at the social problems America faces, they don't point their fingers at any individual or group. Instead, they criticize a way of thinking that
places too much reliance on the government, and they reject the notion that certain segments of society cannot achieve their dreams without help. I personally find this a powerful, uplifting message.

So what's happened to cause this reversal in attitudes? I believe there are many reasons for this. Part of it, I'm sure, is certainly frustration on the part of the liberal left that conservative ideas have proven so successful in the last 20 years. Or, perhaps more precisely, that liberal ideas such as racial quotas and the welfare state have proven so disastrous. Classic bread and butter issues such as women's rights and racial equality are no longer relevant today. Liberals today seem to be grasping at straws in an attempt to find issues that define their ideology. In the meantime, their angry rhetoric becomes more shrill and hateful, as if to fill thevoid.

I believe anger is really just a mask for other emotions that lie just below the surface, such as frustration, jealousy and fear. Sure, the "vision" thing is important, and there has been a lot of talk lately about "values" and "optimism". But the anger level of any given candidate, to me, speaks volumes about who they really are.