Although the president referred to his political opponents as enemies requiring punishment, it appears that he has turned a new leaf calling for us to remove anger from our political discourse. That begs the question, "Is there a case for political anger?"
First of all, anger is not violence. What Loughner did was horrific, but it was an action, and not a feeling. (And since when are we supposed to be legally judged on our feelings?) Anger is a feeling, which in this case means that people feel strongly about what is going on in government. Most people are fed up with the actions taken by the Obama Administration (e.g. the Food Safety Bill, Obamacare
, TARP, forced selling of Chrysler and GM, the offshore Oil drilling ban, EPA regulation of CO2 etc.)and their willing accomplices in Congress. Most people who feel like this (over half of the country) have spoken up, voted, and tried to stop the Federal government from doing similar things. Will getting rid of this "anger" help political discourse?
Probably not.
This can be illustrated by changing the circumstances just slightly. Let's imagine that Obama was King George III and called for removing anger from the political discourse in the Colonies. Assuming that people heeded his call, where would the America Revolution be?
Can you imagine the Sons of Liberty not throwing the tea into the Boston harbor? Can you imagine John Adams not defending the soldiers accused of the Boston Massacre? (He actually had something to fear.) Can you imagine the colonists not getting upset at a stamp tax on everything they purchased?
Anger, or a reaction against governmental abuses, provides a check on the power and growth of the Federal government. And let's be honest, do we really want more bureaucrats telling us what and how to run our lives?
Come on, think about how much good the Brady Center for Handgun Violence has done! And Brady was an aide to Ronald Reagan, who you claim to love so much.
ReplyDeleteWell hold on, isn't it taking it too far to suggest that the President's call for calming the political atmosphere that has come to blood-shed within the recent past is the same as taxing without representation or using a branch of a country as second hand citizens? It think that that's a bit unfair.
ReplyDeleteAnd though I don't think that what you claim was happening was the President's intention, I do think that you make a good point about the fact that feelings are or should be viewed as some sort of crime. Very important point.