Here in Pennsylvania, a critical battleground state, I sense the election will hinge on the strongest emotion evident on Election Day, with the two competing emotions on trial: namely, fear versus anger. Republicans have deftly exploited the politics of fear. Of course, 9/11 touched the fears in all of us, but was shamelessly exploited as leverage for a host of immoral and undemocratic policies that have come to define us in the eyes of the world as imperialist hypocrites.
Human nature seems to dictate that irrationality is a perfectly acceptable response to fear, and we currently are now at our irrational worst, thrashing around in the currents of uncertainty and squandered opportunities desperately in search of a life raft, a buoy, a piece of driftwood, anything that will allow us to keep our heads above water, if only temporarily, hopefully long enough for us to be rescued.
On the other hand, there are those among us who survey the scorched landscape and are angry. Democrats, particularly Sen. Barack Obama, skillfully exploited the politics of anger during the primary season and until the "Great Distraction," read Sarah Palin, successfully managed to transform that anger into a program of progressive policy prescriptions that Americans could identify and relate to.
It harkens back to the age old sports conundrum: what is more effective, a good offense or a good defense? Fear is premised on defensive strategies to protect us from the future. Anger is premised on offensive strategies designed to project us into the future and divorce us from the past. I have always opted for offense because if executed properly it does not allow for the 0-0 score. But then again, the trick is to always stay one step ahead of your opponent by scoring more than he (she). With Obama as the quarterback I like my chances.
Fear versus anger, defense versus offense, past versus future, insecurity versus hope. These are the trademarks of the current decisions Americans must make in the next six weeks. The choices really could not be starker. And yes, lest we not forget, because it is the sleeping giant in this election: black versus white. Forget the experience issue; the cynical choice of Gov. Palin takes that off the plate.
The question really should not be whether or not we are better off than we were four or eight years ago, but are we better. Is the world a better place? Are we a better society? Are there better opportunities? Are our kids better positioned to take advantage of those opportunities?
Constructive anger can be a positive motivator and make us better. Fear is negative and makes us bitter. Whether it is the economy or the environment; our international prestige or our domestic failures; the loss of civil liberties or the gross specter of increasing intolerance be it racial, religious and/or cultural; health care inequality or a decrepit national infrastructure; mounting debt or the crumbling of our retirement savings and pensions; we truly cannot say we are either better off or better.
Change for the better will not be accomplished by wielding the axe of fear but rather through the dynamic forces of anger, properly crafted and carefully harnessed. Some of us are, and all of us should be, "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" so let's work to ensure that the politics of anger prevails over the politics of fear. We will be better for it.