Go-vangelist
United States
Denver
Colorado
-
Primary season has taken on a noticeably negative chill because "partisan polarization has grown more frenzied in recent years," explains Bruce Miroff, a political science professor at State University of New York, Albany. "Anger is especially rampant on the Republican side — not that there is an absence of it on the Democratic side — so much so that in recent debates the winner has been the angry aggressor." Most often that has been Gingrich, Miroff points out, but in Florida, Romney has gone on the offensive.
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/31/146080015/the-slimary-process-...
Why are Republicans so angry? I don't understand them. (I'm wanting to know, not just asking rhetorically.)
The economy? That seems mostly Bush II's fault to me - expensive wars, lack of proper financial regulation, huge tax cuts. Obama spent some money, Keynes-like, to try to get us out, but that's nothing to what Bush spent.
Immigration? Are immigrants really threatening R's jobs? - which I assume tend to be higher on the totem pole than cleaning toilets or picking grapes. Is it xenophobism? - whites will soon no longer be the majority.
Inflammatory rhetoric?
Denial of climate change? Maybe subconsciously at least they suspect the scientists are correct, and they're angry about having to change their oil-wasting ways?
Decline of America? Again, the finger points to Bush.
Obama-style socialism? The worst president ever? These kinds of statements seem quite exaggerated and ignorant to me.
Racism? Obama is half-black, you know.
-
Chad
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
 on your strawman "reasons why" - not even going to waste the electrons responding to them.
As for your larger question - why are Republicans angry
Primary reason - they are the out of power opposition party
Subreasons (IMO) is that there is an ongoing debate (and has been for the last 50+ years) on what is the role of government and the state of the economy.
-
KNOWN GOOD
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
-
It's naive to lay the blame for everything on Bush. Even that retard isn't idiotic enough to be responsible for our downfall. It had its roots in Reagan's administration through insane and unsustainable tax structure coupled with no reduction in spending. Clinton contributed to the problem tremendously by negotiating for a balanced budget and giving away free trade to get it. He sold his only milk cow to buy a better milker, which didn't work out well for anyone. Bush spent money with the best of them, but by the time he was President the system was staged for failure, he just did his share to make it fail. He doesn't deserve all the blame by any means. Hundreds of congressmen, senators, and a few presidents helped fuck things up royal.
So, maybe a more broadened view of the issues is in order? You wouldn't want to be exaggerated or ignorant, right?
-
King Ævil
South Euclid
Ohio
-
Fear-mongering by the right-wing media has contributed—just look at the response to Obamacare, not to mention all the "birther" and "socialist Obama" nonsense. The Tea Party is a perfect example of the effectiveness of misleading propaganda.
But I would like to think that the root cause of the right-wing rage is the realization that, after their few years of supremacy under GWB, the nation has awakened to their failures and is moving on to better things. The tide has officially turned on gay marriage, for example—it's only a matter of time before marriage equality is guaranteed all Americans.
I would say that global warming denial is, by the perpetrators, a calculated political strategy that generates anger through propaganda.
I would discount "the decline of America" as a legitimate cause of anything, since people have been complaining about that pretty much continuously since, well, there ever was a USA.
-
steven slater
England
County of Essex
-
They are angry because they have no made the inroads they expected to; simply put they are not being listened to. They are angry because reality is not quite the same as many of their opinions tell them it should be.
I think they are angry because anger makes for black and white answers, rather then facing up to the idea they may be wrong.
-
Xander Fulton
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
slatersteven wrote: I think they are angry because anger makes for black and white answers, rather then facing up to the idea they may be wrong.
This is the reason that both sides show 'anger'.
A world of 'us vs them' and 'right and wrong' is a purely black and white world, that is simple and easy to live in.
-
steven slater
England
County of Essex
-
XanderF wrote: slatersteven wrote: I think they are angry because anger makes for black and white answers, rather then facing up to the idea they may be wrong.
This is the reason that both sides show 'anger'. A world of 'us vs them' and 'right and wrong' is a purely black and white world, that is simple and easy to live in.
Yes but the democrats do not seem as angry. I am reminded of the complaint you used to hear from the Torries (in fact you still do) that of only people understood what we were doing they would not complain. Its the we know best mentaility appplied to scenarios that hurt the majority for the benifot of a few. Without figuring out that in democracies its the majority who matter.
-
Marc P
United States
Green Lake--Seattle
Washington
-
To motivate an individual to join a cause, you must tap into one of the primal emotions, be it love, lust, empathy, jealously, greed, or hatred. It is quite easy to play on personal prejudices with a message calculated to elicit an anger response, usually based on a perceived injustice. And today, even if you've already won, you can still easily keep that fire stoked, thanks in part to a mouthpiece news organization that has good-looking people who talk like you and your friends to provide daily confirmation to your biases. The Rove era right wing machine is not the first American foray into this as a successful political strategy, but they are the most successful since the days of Hearst to take advantage of the available media and technology.
In short, Republican politicians are "so angry" because it's good business. Republican constituents, individually, have their own disparate reasons, but it's fair to say based on the success of attack ads and the specific media that people choose to consume that many are angry because they want to be, or because someone told them they should be.
I'm not purposely excluding Democrats/liberals from this discussion--the question did specify Republicans.
-
Jon
United States
Vancouver
WA
-
They're not angry. They're passionate about their beliefs.
-
Go-vangelist
United States
Denver
Colorado
-
Thanks for the replies so far.
If you are a Republican who disagree with my opinions about Republicans, I would value an explanation of where I'm wrong. You are the person I'm asking - why are you so angry?
-
Go-vangelist
United States
Denver
Colorado
-
Utrecht wrote: on your strawman "reasons why" - not even going to waste the electrons responding to them. As for your larger question - why are Republicans angry Primary reason - they are the out of power opposition party
They're my perceptions, not intended to be straw men. Enlighten me.
Quote: Subreasons (IMO) is that there is an ongoing debate (and has been for the last 50+ years) on what is the role of government and the state of the economy. OK, I understand they are angry about this. But why is the volume of anger so loud now, compared to past decades?
They seem hopping mad about something, and I don't understand what it is.
-
Neil Carr
United States
Barre
Vermont
-
tesuji wrote: OK, I understand they are angry about this. But why is the volume of anger so loud now, compared to past decades?
No Cold War. The "black and white" outlook that can characterize conservative perspectives was able to accommodate liberals to a degree because there was the "great enemy." Plus, imminent nuclear annihilation tends to sober people up, stressing realism over ideological purity.
-
steven slater
England
County of Essex
-
bjlillo wrote:
They are less intelegent?, or as your posted artciel says because conservative's think things are better then they are, they belive that meritocricy works (for example) so are happy with a system they think will benifit them in the long run.
-
Xander Fulton
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
bjlillo wrote:
I'm also much happier when I'm "blasted off my ass" drunk.
That doesn't mean I'm more right then.
-
Eric Mowrer
United States
Gresham
Oregon
Ami. Geek.
-
Occupy. Wall. Street.
See how absurdly ridiculous the premise of angry conservatives sounds now?
It's a little silly even discussing it. It's like trying to have a serious discussion on why fascist dictators are more authoritarian than communist ones.
-
steven slater
England
County of Essex
-
ejmowrer wrote: Occupy. Wall. Street.
See how absurdly ridiculous the premise of angry conservatives sounds now?
It's a little silly even discussing it. It's like trying to have a serious discussion on why fascist dictators are more authoritarian than communist ones.
Arnt some of them (admitedly a tiny fraction) republicans?
-
Chad
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
[q="tesuji"]
Again, you are ignoring the most obviuos answer - they are the party out of power. Put your mind in the way back machine and recall the political climate of say, 2003 or 2004. Democrats sure were angry then. Its politics.
Further, I encourage you to look at some of the things that were written about Abraham Lincon or Andrew Jackson - the opposition party was pretty pissed then.
OK - since you asked nicely - here are my responses.
Quote:
The economy? That seems mostly Bush II's fault to me - expensive wars, lack of proper financial regulation, huge tax cuts. Obama spent some money, Keynes-like, to try to get us out, but that's nothing to what Bush spent.
OK - blaming a president (any president) for the economy is like saying the Goalkeeper won the football match - there are a whole lot of other people's finger in the pie.
But, even Obama says you should blame him - I paraphrase - "If I dont have the economy fixed by the next election, I deserve to be a one term president"
Quote:
Immigration? Are immigrants really threatening R's jobs? - which I assume tend to be higher on the totem pole than cleaning toilets or picking grapes. Is it xenophobism? - whites will soon no longer be the majority.
So, first off, only republicans can be xenophobic? Second, Republicans are all white???? Wow, this is all news to me.
There are two elements here - one relates to societal obligations (bootstapping vs. safety need - again that whole obligation of government thing) and the second is racial politics - both parties do it (Again Obama - to a Latin audience - we must punish our enemies).
Quote:
Inflammatory rhetoric?
Three elements here - please show me that the Repiblicans are any more inflamitory than any other political party (see above). You are falling into the same trap that the media did right after the Griffith shooting
Two - 24 hour news cycle - you have to fill it with something (but again, it is really not much different than the yellow journalism of the late 1800s)
Three - pervasiveness of information - every time a politician says someting inflamatory, there is a microphone to pick it up, a blooger to post on it, etc. to a national audience. In the past, many of these statements would stay local.
Quote:
Denial of climate change? Maybe subconsciously at least they suspect the scientists are correct, and they're angry about having to change their oil-wasting ways?
Dude, this is so far from the list of current anger points - sounds like you are wanting to put words in peoples mouths here.
As far as why - ultimately, it comes down to control - and may conservatives see climate change as the rebirth of the communist desires of dictatation and see it as a direct threat to their liberty.
Quote:
Decline of America? Again, the finger points to Bush.
Whoa there tiger - it does? Cite please - because last I heard Bush never bowed or apologized to any foreign leader (or any president before him)
But as to the reason why - not so much as America's decline as other nations raising.
Quote:
Obama-style socialism? The worst president ever? These kinds of statements seem quite exaggerated and ignorant to me.
Bush = Hitler - nuff said. I point again you back to opposition party. The easist way to win elections is by being "not him"
Quote:
Racism? Obama is half-black, you know.
Umm exactly - and he has seemingly bungled every single racial "teachable moment"
Again, I encourage you to get some historical context
-
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
-
slatersteven wrote: XanderF wrote: slatersteven wrote: I think they are angry because anger makes for black and white answers, rather then facing up to the idea they may be wrong.
This is the reason that both sides show 'anger'. A world of 'us vs them' and 'right and wrong' is a purely black and white world, that is simple and easy to live in. Yes but the democrats do not seem as angry. I am reminded of the complaint you used to hear from the Torries (in fact you still do) that of only people understood what we were doing they would not complain. Its the we know best mentaility appplied to scenarios that hurt the majority for the benifot of a few. Without figuring out that in democracies its the majority who matter.
Democrats were just as "angry" 8 years ago. I recall people I actually know being literally "black listed" by friends for having dared to vote for Bush after he was voted in for a second term.
Longtime friendships destroyed.
Heck there are several people I won't talk politics with because of the inherent ANGER they will direct at me.
And more of them democrats than republicans.
-
Not Just Wrong- SPECTACULARLY WRONG.
Spain
Texas
-
Republicans don't have a lock on 'anger' right now.
The American electorate, in general, is upset with the political and economic elites right now.
The difference is that the Left blames different elites than the Right does. The Left has a tendency to blame corporations for their woes, and the Right blames government. Both sides have something to their argument, but the fact that everyone is angry has an overall effect of making the current political discourse a bit nastier than our usual ugly norm.
Why are people angry? Probably has something to do with 8-9% unemployment.
This isn't the end of the Republic, nor indicative of anything other than our collective mood as a country. In fact, the only thing that would surprise me would be a general trend by most people to NOT blame the 'other side' for the current ills of the nation.
At this present time, political polarization is going to be par for the course. Its why despite having two frontrunning Presidential candidates who are pretty much both as 'Moderate' and identical as you can get with our current political parties, most Americans are not enthused about EITHER Romney OR Obama. At this time, we WANT political partisanship. We usually do when times get rough. As a culture, we want other people to blame, simple solutions to complicated problems, and simple platitudes to reassure us.
It's just par for the course for American Democracy during times of economic hardship.
Darilian
-
Sam hudson
United States
Portage
Michigan
-
I would say it is from not getting laid enough but Ginrich has enjoyed a veritable buffet of 'tang. I just wish I loved my country that much.
-
Asili Eiliaz
Memphis
Tennessee
-
Authoritarians are inherently angry about other people's freedoms. Authoritarians are very vocal. And in the Republican party, there is a wing, the social conservatives, for which the party politic is literally congruent with their own authoritarian nature.
This is not to say that there are no authoritarians on the other side of the fence; nothing could be further from the truth. There are also the "libertarian" economic conservatives, who do not necessarily share the authoritarian tendency. But the big difference here is that the liberal wings do not contain a segment for which their authoritarian leanings form the fundament of their platform; they instead tend to be outlying symptoms.
To wit: the authoritarian conservative wishes to control the degree to which the sex lives of others are visible to him through legislation. Direct control over an issue which is directly related to authoritarianism QUA authoritarianism. He wishes to make it impossible to DO something taboo, and for reasons which imply a desire to shape the world according to personal sexual convictions. THE WORLD WILL DIE IF WE DO X, THEREFORE DOING X IS FORBIDDEN. I AM DISGUSTED WITH YOUR VIOLATION OF MORALITY. YOU WILL END THE WORLD.
The authoritarian liberal differs largely in the abstraction level of the reasons, and the direction of the prohibitions. He wishes to make it impossible to NOT do something (recycle, be "diverse", adopt new and softer terminology, etc.). But also the reasoning usually includes a secondary utilitarian component; the speaker believes (perhaps erroneously) that the implementation represents a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. WE WILL FIX THE WORLD BY DOING X, THEREFORE DOING X IS COMPULSORY. I AM DISGUSTED WITH YOUR FAILURE TO PERFORM X, WHICH I DEEM NECESSARY. YOU WILL NOT SAVE THE WORLD.
You might notice that these positions are primarily matters of tone; each can be stated the other way around and contain the same logical component. But the self-description tends to line up that way; the authoritarian conservative describes prohibitions and the authoritarian liberal describes compulsory activities. The primary factor is authoritarianism, which can be found on both sides: the difference is that _one party has institutionalized its authoritarianism openly and the other has sublimated it_. It is predictable that the displays on the "open" side of the fence will tend toward open anger, and the displays on the "sublimated" side will be passive-aggressive.
Note: describing tendencies only; nothing hard and fast. And I am describing only the authoritarian wings of each party; there are also anti-authoritarians in both parties, and in this respect the anti-authoritarian Republicans are hobbled by the authoritarians with which they share their party, because due to the open authoritarianism of the "socially tough" wing the financially anti-authoritarian Republicans must work especially hard to have their voice heard. Whereas Democrats may more easily steer the conversation away from their (potential) financial authoritarianism by moving it back into the "socially affirmative" area of discussion.
My point is that it's not so much about the actual party as it is the difference between open aggression and passive aggression as a general rule. There are of course many exceptions.
Attempts to actively jump ship on either of these methodologies either come across as clunky and desperate ("They're threatening our marriages with their buggery!"/War on Christmas style top-dog-as-victim ploy), easily ridiculed (OWS's fairly open anger, 60s-style demonstrations in general) or outright unworkable/unfathomable (Alex Jones).
SHORT ANSWER: They're not, but they have better and more convenient avenues for openly displaying anger, in contrast to the typical liberal voice of desperation and sadness. It's just the tone that has evolved over time. EDIT: By which I mean "not angrier necessarily than their counterparts," not that they're not angry at all. They're plenty angry, but as has already been said, most folks are these days.
-
Vlad Taltos
United States
Washington
-
Fear.
-
Not Just Wrong- SPECTACULARLY WRONG.
Spain
Texas
-
Spacejack wrote: Authoritarians are inherently angry about other people's freedoms. Authoritarians are very vocal. And in the Republican party, there is a wing, the social conservatives, for which the party politic is literally congruent with their own authoritarian nature.
Ahh- nice conflation of Republicans and social conservatives with 'Authoritarians'. Too bad its merely an assertion.
Moreover, its an assertion that doesn't bear up under close examination. If social conservatives are authoritarian personality types (and here, I'm explicitly refering to Adorno and The Authoritarian Personality), then why is it that the Social Conservative vote is split between Gingrich and Ron Paul? One would think that if they were that consistent and congruent, they would have been more consistent in who they supported.
The problem is that social conservatives are not necessarily puritanical 'Butt-inskis'. Some of them are quite willing 'to live and let live' so long as they are able to keep 'away' from elements in culture that they feel are contrary to their being able to raise their children in the fashion they see fit. This is a quite different thing from what Adorno was referring to in the The Authoritarian Personality of the concept of following a 'leader/father' figure in order to help find meaning about the world.
Darilian
-
Asili Eiliaz
Memphis
Tennessee
-
Uh... I'm not sure how to respond to a counter-argument that ignores everything after the third sentence of my long post... I was speaking about the technical differences in flavors of authoritarianism and stated quite plainly that I was NOT doing a simple one-to-one conflation.
-
|
|
Posted Tue Jan 31, 2012 4:47 pm
