Lately, we Democrats have become an angry bunch. While Rep. Kucinich dangles articles of impeachment over the head of our lame duck President, bumper stickers in liberal strongholds across America sneer, "Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot." Online, dehumanization of the opposing party has become common practice among bloggers and commenters.
This hostility is hardly less intense when fissures emerge within the party. A number of vocal and resentful Hillary Clinton supporters continue to withhold their support for Barack Obama -- keeping his overall poll numbers below 50% and feeding the media's self-serving hopes for a photo finish with John McCain.
Is anger good or bad for the Democratic party? The question is worth exploring.
Of course, Democrats have every right to feel angry. Angry at being misled into war, at a tragically lax response to hurricane Katrina, at the politicization of the Justice Department, at the trampling of the constitution and our civil liberties, and at the painful reductions in essential social services. The list goes on and on. If we don't huff and puff and blow the White House down, one could argue, we are doomed to a continuation of this nightmarish status quo.
Hillary Clinton's supporters have the right to feel angry, too. See Rebecca Traistor's article in Salon for a lengthy list of their complaints.
Without denying the right of Democrats and Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton to feel angry, let me suggest that, in both of these cases, the public expression of this anger - in the media, on car bumpers, on blogs, and in the halls of congress -- is counter -- productive. We can be passionate without being caustic, and we can speak from a place of calm while effectively defending our beliefs.
I'd like to suggest that when Democrats get red in the face and loose their venom on the world, they are no longer Democrats, but something else entirely. They become Angercrats.
The principle difference between a Democrat and an Angercrat is that a Democrat is driven to help his or her party -- and by extension, his or her country -- to succeed. An Angercrat, on the other hand, is driven primarily by the need to be heard.
Angercrats are the righteously indignant, the red-faced crusaders. They often punctuate their arguments with name-calling and hyperbole, and tend to forget those moments when they have been the ones in error. And like the road ragers who cause a six-car pileup by cutting off the jerk who just did the same to them, Angercrats can end up bringing all progress to a screeching halt.
Obama's current plateau in the polls is not surprising when you consider that he is under constant attack from these Angercrats. Aside from genuine policy disagreements they may have with Obama, the Angercrats are also reacting to his repeated calls for unity, compromise, and bipartisanship. These things threaten the personal satisfaction that Angercrats feel when venting their many (and often just) frustrations.
In his recent NYT editorial, Michael A. Cohen wrote that:
An emerging Obama Doctrine is becoming clearer: it is the culture in Washington and the nation's sharp partisan divides that must be healed before real legislative and policy change can occur.
I would take an even broader view and argue that before the nation's "partisan divides" can be healed, the nation's compulsive need to express its anger must be curbed. Republicans and Democrats are equally angry. The first party to effectively manage this anger will be doing our nation a great service while simultaneously endearing itself to voters of all stripes.
Again, this is not a question of entitlement. Democrats are entitled to our anger, just as we are entitled to all of our emotions. The question is one of strategy. Democrats -- both inside and outside the beltway -- are better off cooling down before we act or speak.
There are many reasons why blue-faced, rational, or "cool anger" is preferable to red-faced, emotional, or "hot anger." I'll focus on two:
First, cool anger is more influential. In a democracy, the side with the most votes wins. Yelling, swearing, belittling, and name-calling are ineffective ways to win support from those who have yet to be convinced.
Second, cool anger is a progressive value. Progressives believe in laying down their arms until the last possible moment. Yet, in the case of the "fight" with neo-conservatism, and the "fight" between Clinton and Obama supporters, Angercrats have commandeered the debate before genuine efforts at respectful dialogue have been attempted.
The question then becomes: is the Democratic party ready for Barack Obama? Are we ready to unite as a party for the sake of this election? Are we ready to unclench our fists, put on our thinking caps, and get to work on creatively pitching our ideas to swing voters, independents, and conservatives? The outcome of this critical election may rest on whether we Democrats, following our nominee's lead, can turn our red faces blue.