A side note...

Does it mean something when the word verification I had to type in order to comment on another blog was "repent"?

I think I am doomed... :)

Anger, politics and speech...

I was driving to school this morning and heard a really interesting story on NPR about anger. Now, I am not generally an angry person, but as we all do sometimes, it creeps up on you about some issue or another (even Barack Obama recently said he was angry about the AIG bonus mess). As the NPR story reported,

"In fact, the research very clearly shows the opposite is true: The more you get angry, the angrier you get. And, so, researchers across the nation are now on a campaign to recast our view of anger expression. Sadly, even screaming is now out of vogue because arousal just increases your arousal. So no more screaming at your family."

Aside from how we as individuals relate to anger, I have been thinking about whether it has a role in a political sense. Here's what I mean. If we, as citizens, don't express our anger about what policy makers, or corporate America, or whoever in power is doing that is not in sync with our sense of justice, then how do we do it? Is there a place for anger in political discourse? Or, is it more how you express your anger that is the real issue? For example, we all know the phrase "agree to disagree," but how does that sentiment play out in clashes of deeply held beliefs and policy making? If I don't think the state should restrict women's access to abortions, but the Supreme Court decides to overturn Roe v. Wade, and I am angry about the potential implications, what should I do if I am angry about it?

On the other hand, can expression of anger in a political sense rise to the level of threat? I am thinking of how anger expressed at Sarah Palin rallies during this last campaign for President sometimes came in the form of calling Barack Obama a "terrorist," or the infamous expressions calling "to kill him." Is this the kind of political climate we need? Or consider the rise of a new kind of populism recently, expressed most clearly in the aforementioned AIG mess.

In a recent article in the Columbia Journalism Review, Jane Kim chastizes the press and others for not looking beneath this rising anger to see what is going on; otherwise, she claims those in power may just manipulate the anger in the press to achieve their own political goals. As she notes in response to how a New York Times story was covering this new populism,

"We hear that people are angry, but we’re letting the people who might ultimately capitalize on that anger characterize it and describe its reach, and that’s problematic. The story could have done a better job in getting down to what populist anger really means—in its practical, not rhetorical, impact."

As Kim asserts, it is imporant to note that this anger has potential "political capital" for the Obama administration in seeking out grass roots support for his economic recovery plan.

Now maybe all of this is not a bad thing... anger is a strong motivator for change. But, as the story I listened to this morning, I considered the claim that it is one thing to be angry. It is another thing to express that anger in riled up ways that don't result in addressing the real source of the anger, only trade an immediate sense of feeling better for worse expressions of anger later on. Either way, let's get to the root cause! Why are so many people angry?

I would be curious what others think of this.