The Republicans own hate
They own anger.
Anger and hatred is their brand.
It doesn't matter what Obama or other Democrats do to disappoint you, unless you frame your critique positively -- as in, "Health care reform was a step in the right direction, but a lot more work needs to be done" as opposed to "I can't believe what a POS legislation these loser Dems stuck us with! What a sellout to big pharma!" -- the message is a win for Republicans, because negative messaging is always a win for Republicans.
People vote for progressive candidates when envision a better future. They vote for regressive candidates when they are terrified of the future. See the difference? Positive change is the Democratic/progressive message. Stopping big scary change is the Republican/right wing message.
At this point, I anticipate a reaction from the left along the lines of "don't tell me not to be angry! I'm really pissed off and I have very good reason to be pissed off!"
You do. You're right.
I'm not going to tell you not to be angry.
I'm not talking about how you, personally, feel about things, or even how you express yourselves on, say, DailyKos message boards. I just think that your anger, or my anger, or anybody's anger, does not sell a progressive agenda.
You can be as angry as you like.
It's just not going to help Democrats win.
Now, when I say anger doesn't work for the left anymore, I'm expressing an opinion, my analysis of the data, but it's one I'm pretty certain of. It would take a lot of good evidence and solid analysis to convince me otherwise.
When I speculate about why anger doesn't work for the left these days, I'm just throwing stuff out there. I'm really not sure.
Maybe it's because of...
- The characterization of the left as feminine.
It is an unfortunate, but I think true thing, that angry men can be seen as powerful (if unpleasant) while angry women are seen as emotional. We have internalized a sex role stereotype that an angry man might kill you, and you'd better beware, but an angry woman will do nothing but yell and cry and so it's okay to laugh at her.
- The fact that nobody is really willing to die/kill for a progressive cause.
People on the left talk about revolution. People on the right talk about revolution. Neither side, as far as I can tell, is actually interested in having one. But one side has a lot of guns, and it's not ours.
When you look at some of the big progressive movements of the past, they were, actually, kind of violent. There was a sense that people who literally had nothing to lose were laying absolutely everything on the line.
I don't see that kind of fire now, not from the left or the right. Even the supposedly fired-up Beck/Palin right wing crowd seems to mostly be kind of role-playing their self-image as modern revolutionaries. And, not to put too fine a point on it, they are too old. A bunch of people in scooters are not going to lead the charge against the Bastille. Or be busting down doorways and rounding up dissidents to take to the gulag, either, which I guess is a little reassuring.
- A change in social norms independent of the left/right split
It might well be that anger itself is simply perceived differently than in the past. Human emotions don't change, but appropriate social expression of them certainly does, as well as the perception of what they mean.
For example: I, for one, am flabbergasted at the way weeping has become a right wing thing. Because I thought they saw themselves as stoic tough guys. And now their spokesmodels are major blubberpusses like Glenn Beck and John Boehner. So I guess either weeping is now seen as manly (missed that memo) or the right wing no longer tries to be seen as manly? I don't know. Some of this stuff is pretty confusing.
But, anyway, it might be related to why anger doesn't work for the left anymore. Because the social meaning of "getting angry" has changed.
It may be that anger itself has been trivialized. Look at Homer Simpson. The fact that he's always enraged about everything all the time is seen as a hilarious personal weakness. Maybe we no longer have the social sense that anybody -- left or right -- ever has a good reason to be angry. We see anger as being an expression of age and helplessness and maladjusted medication -- hey you kids! Get off my lawn! Old man yells at cloud!
Of the two major parties, Republicans will always be bigger with the the yelling at clouds base.
- And let's not forget the mainstream news media
Republicans own the news media. They literally own it (in the Rupert Murdoch sense) and they also own it in the sense of driving the narrative and being able to use it as a press release factory. (They pwn it, in the current parlance.)
Anger on the right is simply presented as more meaningful and legitimate than anger on the left. I don't see any good way to change that, save inventing a time machine and going back to make sure that Rupert Murdoch's parents never meet.
- Basic neurobiology
It might be entirely possible that you could still fuel a progressive movement with anger, but it would have to be a violent, emotional, le guillotine! kind of movement. It would have to be more about storming the Bastille and less about passing useful, imperfect, but ultimately progressive legislation.
When you get people all riled up, they aren't really thinking straight. You're invoking a lot of primitive, irrational systems -- fight or flight, Hulk smash, I want my mommy, waaaa, waaaa, arrrrrrrrghhh!
People in a highly agitated emotional state don't always think about things logically, in terms of likely cause and effect. They aren't thinking about consequences. They aren't full of compassion and love and finer human feeling. A crowd of human animals in a frenzy of fear, greed or anger simply tramples over other members of the crowd, sometimes literally to death.
Now, look at the current Republican platform. It's mostly a bunch of illogical stuff that could only possibly make sense to a bunch of people in an agitated emotional frenzy.
If we want people to realize that the Democratic agenda is the one that makes sense, the one that benefits them and their children and their communities, we can't do it by invoking a highly charged emotional state.
Generally speaking, in the current climate, voting for Democrats is a rational act, voting for Republicans is an emotional act.
Angry people tend to vote emotional, when they vote at all.
(This is kind of a follow-up to my post We all need some cheering up.