Anger But No Management
We need effective solutions to many important issues, and such problem solving does not come from ideology or from anger
One definition of anger is an emotional response to displeasure, and there are certainly circumstances and situations in which it is justified. But one also doesn’t want to be subjected to or have to deal with the results of frequent or even continuous anger. Anger is easily irrational, and is the cause of words and actions that are likely to be regrettable — sometimes with unintended consequences. Pragmatically, anger is also responsible for what can reasonably be termed the broken politics that has reduced responsible, effective governance in this county to the point of dysfunction.
This anger started some 30 years ago when Democrats blocked a Republican president’s supreme court nomination, and Republicans have allowed their displeasure and desire for retribution to grow since then. It reached open, defiant anger when the current Democratic president was elected and then reelected. They pledged to ensure his failure and have done everything they could toward this goal. The so-called “loyal” opposition that had always been an assurance that governance took precedence over politics has become just the opposition, with no interest in governing if it means giving credit to the sitting president. This anger has done more than anything to undermine democracy and governance when these have been needed most.
The provocations that were and are part of this ongoing anger have, of course, resulted in push-back from Democrats, but there is no sense of equivalence in terms of where anger is most obvious. Indeed, the Democratic party is now largely centrist while the Republican party has drifted well to the right of center toward extremism (another form of anger). Ironically, conservatives who are typically white males, never graduated from college and are in working class jobs have their own seething anger toward those who are the elite of the Republican party, believing their votes as Republicans have not resulted in benefits to themselves but rather to the wealthy and the corporations/financial services that control the party. This anger attracts them to Republican nominee wannabes who offer the least centrist, least coherent and least intelligent rhetoric.
Thus the problem of anger without management. I have a friend who thinks the way to get around this is with what he refers to as baby steps. If those in congress can’t manage to govern the country on big pressing issues, they can practice learning to give and take on really small ones. Success in small ways opens the possibility of replicating the same with larger, more important issues. But the problem with this approach is it won’t work because governing has been replaced by politics 24/7. It’s now ideology versus pragmatism, but without the facts, data and information in the former that are essential to actually solving problems. Solving problems doesn’t come from ideology — with answers first before examining the questions. It’s more about political scorekeeping and far less about actually dealing with issues in meaningful ways.
Angry voters are right in recognizing that government isn’t working, but they miss the substance of why. Business could never get away with what passes for holding elected legislative office. Intelligent management requires practical application of information in ways that are effective. Politics for many in office consists of talking points and sound bytes but little factual discourse. Voters also say the country is headed in the wrong direction, but that ignores how we live in a very different world consisting of many countries acting on their own behalf. Things are different that we cannot simply control because we want to. Even defining what it means to be a great country has changed.
The “problem” for the current president is that he brings intellectual pragmatism to the task of moving the country forward, and that is viewed as polarizing to those who want to recreate the U.S. of 50+ years ago. It can’t be done, of course — that was then and this is now. Many wonder where the change he promised is, but change requires the participation of those who actually dislike change when it doesn’t suit their beliefs and sense of place. Instead there is anger that their country is being taken from them. They can see who is going to be more influential in the future and it isn’t them. Anger, however, won’t change this.
The next president could very well be a white female. I see this as a good thing, regardless of her imperfections. She is mostly a centrist who has vast experience and a willingness to get things done. She will be met with the same anger from the same people. In a sense, a black male president followed by a white female one is disruptive, and symbolic of how disruptive transitions point to the future and away from the past. Fear, anxiety, uncertainty and doubt for some will lead to yet more anger. Anger is not pragmatic. It allows emotion to dictate the experience and the conversation. It doesn’t make things “better” because it can’t.
I told my baby steps friend that we need effective solutions to many important issues, and such problem solving does not come from ideology or from anger. Those who least understand this are trying to impose old ideas on issues that need new ideas. They complain about all that is wrong that used to be right, seemingly unaware or unwilling to recognize that in many ways things are more right and less wrong than they were — but still with a long way to go.
So much anger but so little insight. Being displeased could lead to open minds seeking answers, but instead it often leads to closed minds that already have answers…but the wrong ones for the questions we face.
