Visceral Anger

(Above photo from the Washington Post)



Hi there,

Well, everyone, today I'd like to talk about some things that make me angry, and how I'd like to get through that anger. I didn't want to get involved in horse race politics, for two reasons. First, because I knew that might alienate some people if I were to talk about why one party, or one ideology was the greatest, while the other was just deplorable. This would invavlidate the readers of that party or ideology, which I don't want to do here.

Second, this blog is called Art From The Heart, which evolved from the previous Daily Reeder ( a much more explicitly political blog, but still more self-expressive than your average blog on these issues), and part of the Fuzz Memorial Project, which is still in its conception stages. So for these issues, I only want to talk about them in so far as they relate to my art, or others' art, or creative expression, particularly as a means of enriching humanity.

I also refuse to get totally swept up in this Presidential Race. You might realize that I have a certain position, however, I refuse to simply plug for any national party, or political ideology. I will tell you what appeals to me, in some cases, about it, but I take great pains to see the drawbacks for what they are, and keep it at arm's length. Just the other day, though, something crossed the line with me. This is something that I need to talk about now. It was a comment Newt Gingrich made at the South Carolina debate this past Monday.

Something about this set me off. I knew there was something bad about Newt, but the totally smug, egotistical "Let me tell you the facts of life, because you don't know any better," attitude was what was totally unjustified. Juan Williams made a totally valid point here. The epithet of "Food Stamp President," and saying that poor kids should "mop the floor and clean the bathroom," to earn money are absolutely insults. That is an attack on the poor, but especially the black segment of the poor. To add insult to injury, this debate took place on Martin Luther King Day.

You can see the incredible disdain on Gingrich's face as Williams asks him that. Williams at least brought this fact in the discussion, setting it up as a softball, and Newt spat all over it. By the way, what Gingrich is saying, when he says "own the job," is "be a janitor, because that's all you'll ever be good for, is cleaning rich kids' toilets." Don't rely on those goddamn Union workers, who dare to bargain for just a passable wage, instead, have those lazy poor kids pulled out of school, to work slaving away at the feet of the wealthy kids, because that's the only skill they'll ever be good for. They're just so fucking lazy that they need to work.

Now, if a kid wants to be a janitor, that's a different story. A child should have every right to pursue the type of work they want, be it rich or poor. So a poor child should have the right to be a janitor, if they want. They should also have the right to go to school, to get into college, and to get into the field the want, whether it's from a degree in engineering, economics, architecture, theater or communications. I believe that this not just better for the kids going into these fields, it is better for society itself, precisely because these kids are happier at their work. I elaborated on the importance of finding work that gives you joy yesterday. According to Newt Gingrich, and many others, these poor kids just "come from lazy families," and "need to learn to work." They need to work like children in China work in toxic factory settings, like this one.

The sickest part of this whole episode is how nuts the crowd went with applause. Listen to how absolutely disdainful Newt Gingrich was, in his speech, about these kids in the families. His little point about "those kids went and got jobs when they were little, why are you being so coddled?" was another wrong point. All kids are not meant to be forced to go to work, under pressure, when they are 10 or 11 years old. These young children should be given the time, the space, and the resources to grow, and then they will work more effectively for their employers.

None of this mattered though, to the people in that auditorium. It was that horribly sick mass cruelty toward the poor, and those absent from this discussion that really put this over the line. This amount of riotous applause are unprecedented for a debate. It is literally sickening to watch so many people approve so loudly of such a deplorable statement. This morning, when I was getting ready to do this post, my stomach was literally turned.

This type of anger reminded me of something else I heard that made me really mad. Remember when Sarah Palin first came on the scene, and gave that big Convention speech when she was nominated? There was this snide, spiteful line she threw out against community organizers.



This also got a huge line of applause, and conservatives continue to mock, belittle, and put down the work of community organizers. The most galling thing about this was, practically nobody in the media, not even liberals, talked about this for the rest of that campaign cycle. It was like nobody else noticed or cared that this insult had taken place. Against people with too little clout to defend themselves, no less.

All anyone seemed to be talking about was how provocative Sarah Palin was, or she was a brave feminist, or Look at how stupid Sarah Palin is! This last line was what frustrated me about the liberals. Call her out! I would always think to myself. All this talk about this shiny new woman, and since she's a woman, anyone who dares object is an evil misogynist. All the focus on her, none on the people she so gleefully pillaried. The only thing worse than an injustice, is an injustice that is not recognized as such.

This brings me back to Newt in this debate. There is also the subtle context of racial animosity against the poor in the inner city, many of whom are black. This was in South Carolina, where unemployment is much higher than the national average. It is sad to see, but many poor people in this country, who are victimized, marginalized, turn on each other. So poor whites in South Carolina blame those poor, mainly black, families who "have no history of work," as Gingrich put it.

I do not believe that Newt Gingrich, or the Republicans, are racists. There is a dialogue that needs to happen in this country around race and ethnicity. When you use the word racist, everybody shuts this discussion down, and they retreat into their defensive modes. So I hesitate to throw that bomb. I don't think it would be accurate to call them racists. What I believe Newt, and the others, are doing here, is appealing to the worst parts in the audience members.

This part in all Americans has been pushed numerous times, particuarly in the last few years. All this job loss, job insecurity, money and insurance insecurity, deeper and more terrifying law enforcement power, have been making everyone crazy, even (or, perhaps, especially) me. The economy is still on shaky ground, and just the threat that the economy could turn South again, would mean people could lose their jobs, their homes, their health resources, even perhaps their life, if they get sick.

So those people in the auditorium in South Carolina probably have lots of anger, and anxiety. Here, Newt is challenged on one of his points on "those lazy poor kids," and Newt smacks down the guy who asks him if this could be offensive. This forcefully confirms the order they have been given, that "those people on food stamps" need to just "get to work." The punishment of these out-groups supports the powerful, leader-type presence, like the order that "the Jews are enslaving us," or "the blacks are an inferior race," to borrow two historical examples. They are never shown that "those people" have more in common with them than they realize.

The media is constantly talking about the traits and doctrines that divide us. Races, economic strata, political ideology, these are all ways that we are pitted, sometimes violently, against each other. We see the other groups as having no human worth, or redemptive qualities. To us, the others are just evil, through and through. While we hate them, we are also terrified of them. This pattern existed in the minds of those at the debate, with the inner-city and black poor.

What I have come to realize is that most politics, journalism, and so forth is devoit of humanity. There is mainly a framework of us, the enemy, and how to maximize good for our side, and shut the others out. The downside of this competitive political arena is that there is little room for people to come together around a collaborative solution. It has to be this side, this party, this nation wins, and the other must be ignored. People's experiences of poverty, war, terror and all the rest are left out. In this way, our societal landscape is reduced to teams jockeying for an advantage.

This robs us of our humanity. It must be noted that while those of us for reforms have our deep, rich experiences of life, so do those working against us. Recognizing this is, in part, what distinguishes this country from the more despotic ones. We must also realize that our "leaders" (be it Newt Gingrich or Barack Obama) have their small human experiences too, although these might be darker. They had to get rid of these sides of themselves in order to make it to the top. This makes it easier for them to manipulate, shut down, pit their groups against others, and be so insincere.

This is part of why Gingrich uses these code words that are so divisive. In the world of Gingrich, you are either a "virtuous, Christian job creator," or an "elitist liberal," or one of the "poor that won't work, like you and I." In order for our society to recover, we need to be truthful about leaders like Gingrich, Obama, and others. We must realize that they are ultimately interested in their prosperity. We need to see each others' faults and shortcomings, and those in ourselves, and then accept them, or point out and correct the aggregious flaws.

I realize how powerful this visceral anger can be, particularly when you feel so right, and they are so wrong. I used to get very impulsively angry, when I was being abused. I would yell, scream, swear, sometimes hit people. I knew that my impulsive anger would make me do something I would regret later, even though it was so strong. I have been working on a way to say exactly what is making me mad, even as I recognizeand honor the other. This is a tough thing to do, but I am ambitious about this goal.

In case you get mad, listen to this video:



This is from the little-known 2003 comedy Anger Management, which starred Adam Sandler and Jack Nicholson. Maybe we need some national campaign of anger management, so that we can solve our serious crises without losing our shit. Maybe that's what we can call the program. When you get really mad, I have found that it is helpful to have some small to do, like take a few deep breaths, to focus your mind. I wanted to boldly, candidly, but relatably face this anger that I used to avoid, if I could. I have turned my creative energy toward the things I previously tried to stay away from, like my deep anger. Your creative lifestyle is much more potent, and much more important, when focusing on something that dogs at you. Thanks for listening.

See ya, and keep wondering, folks!