Anger

Anger is defined as “a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility.”  But it also seems to make people a little crazy.  For example, today, still, the media is discussing Melania’s stiletto heels, though, to be fair, they have also moved to the hat she wore in Texas.  Today, even an opinion in the Washington Post notes that  despite no evidence of collusion, the Russia story survives (https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/08/30/the-trump-russia-story-survives-even-as-evidence-of-collusion-fades/?utm_term=.38036f4a5075).   More examples abound, both of the findings of fault for any and everything regarding Trump, as well as the lack of ability to acknowledge anything at all positive coming from the President or his administration.  It also seems to allow people to be blind to any possible bad acts that do not involve Trump (DNC server and DNC/Wasserman-Schultz’s now indicted IT crowd; emails showing Comey prejudging Hillary before seeing evidence; violence of the Antifa group; to name just a few). 

I want to say, “give it up”; for isn’t it about time to do so?   But it seems there is a large group, including a large portion of the media, who simply cannot do so.  I am thus inclined to think (to fear) that perhaps this is the new normal.  Clearly, there is still a large group of people feeling annoyed, displeased, and even hostile that Donald Trump is their legitimately elected president.  The problem is that they do not know how to deal with that anger and so they continue to behave in immature and unhealthy ways. 

Psychologists tell us that anger is a normal emotion, and, dealt with properly it can be a healthy emotion.  Anger becomes a problem when it is out of control or aggressive and when it is acted on in ways that are not healthy for the actor or those with whom the angry person interacts.  Parents try to teach children how to properly address their angry emotions and avoid “acting out” their anger.  From the looks of the anti-Trump (& anti-Trump supporter) hatred, it would appear that many parents failed in teaching this skill.  For really, isn’t today’s political name calling and behavior not unlike what one hears and sees from young children when they are angry?

Those angry children are unable to have a dialog; instead, they throw their tantrum and call their names.  They don’t want to hear a rational explanation of why they aren’t getting what they want; they don’t want to have reality encroach on their own angry caricatures of the world and the people in it.  And, sadly, the one whom the child attacks, then often responds in equally irrational ways.

One must ask:  is this really that different from what we see and hear daily in the news?  There is a narrative, filled with caricatures, that sustains the anger and its subsequent behavior.  The narrative includes first that Trump is an illegitimate president - this then justifies all the “annoyance, displeasure, and hostility” at his presidency and subsequently at those who support it.   This narrative supports the tantrum and, in the way of those unable to face and deal with their emotion of anger, rational evidence to the contrary is ignored.  Because this anger is so all-consuming, it leaves no room for rational thought or dialog.  It requires caricatures.  Thus, any attempt to explain a contrary position is simply met with name calling:  one who disagrees is labeled with an appropriate caricature (racist, bigot, Nazi, deplorable, ignorant, hateful, etc.)  and thus everything that person or evidence might put forth can be ignored.   This precludes the possibility of any actual dialog beyond name calling.

Anger is the emotional response that accompanies aggression, though a well-balanced adult is able to deal with his or her anger without aggression.  But, when anger is the primary if not over-whelming emotion, there certainly exists a danger of aggressive action.  Is this not what we see at many of the recent demonstrations?

Think again of the child throwing a temper tantrum.  It is often because the child is frustrated at not getting what he wants and hence feels somehow deprived.  He is not willing to understand that too much candy might make him sick or that a toy is too expensive or that he must first do his homework.  Think of the angry teen, frustrated and furious because he can’t use the car or because his parents have imposed a curfew that the teen sees as unfair and as some sort of deprivation.  In the heat of anger, the teen is not going to listen to reason and dialog is impossible. 

But, in most cases, the anger will pass, either because the individual himself will gain control or because the parent will skillfully defuse the anger.  Then there is an opportunity for dialog.  This is how we learn to step back when we feel anger and then address it and its frustration rationally and constructively.

Sadly, in the political arena there seems no interest in diffusing the anger, in facing reality, and in constructively addressing frustration.  Rather, those people who feel in some way deprived because they did not get the president they wanted, are content to let their anger fester and grow.  They seem to be content to live in a narrative that their anger constructs, regardless of its rationality.  And, until that changes, I fear that this “annoyance, fear, and hostility” will continue to pervade every aspect of our lives.  I fear that anger is indeed the new normal.