What Gets You Angry Politically?

What Gets You Angry Politically?

A couple weeks back, I posted a blog entry on a political topic.  Political entries are infrequent in this blog, and of those political entries, this was even more unusual because I was quite strong in my opinions and harsh in my language.  It’s unusual for several reasons, and maybe someday I’ll write about why it was unusual, but today I am more interested in examining the reason I wrote so strongly.

And the reason was because I was frustrated, and that frustration pushed me to anger.  When I am angry, and I decide to “pick up a pen,” well, that’s the sort of thing I can write.

So, what got me frustrated?  Let me tell you a story.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I was recently a dinner guest at a fancy meal, hosted by a wealthy business associate, whom I will call X.  I had been warned that X liked to talk politics, even though the meal was supposed to be a business meal.  But it was at X’s property (a beautiful, old mansion – the one X uses for entertaining, not living in – comparable to the Plummer House here in Rochester) and X also viewed these meals as a chance to get to know one another. 

During the course of the evening, X made frequent comments which made it clear that X holds very strong conservative views, and watches Fox News frequently.  So, I knew I was in for an evening of having to hold my tongue.  You see, X is a customer, it was a business function, and getting into an argument over politics would have been detrimental to the business purpose of the event.  Plus, I think it’s generally uncouth to argue with your host.  In fact, I think it’s dangerous to discuss politics at an introductory social event at all, because arguments are so easily begun.

Well, during the evening, X brought up the topic of extending unemployment benefits several times, and each time X talked about not wanting to support “drug addicts and alcoholics.”  There were other similar remarks in a very conservative vein, and each time X made the comment, it was accompanied by “you know what I mean?” or “right?”, plus a look around the table to see who agreed, as well as a hand that reached out to pat my arm in an attempt to get my assent.

Here is what that felt like to me: X believed that the people receiving unemployment benefits are “drug addicts and alcoholics.”  Every time the people were mentioned, that phrase was used.  Now, perhaps that is not exactly what X meant, but X was clearly opposed to extending the benefits to all unemployed people, and the reason seemed to be these “drug addicts and alcoholics.”   

That made me angry.  Now, I do realize that some percentage of unemployed people have a substance abuse problem, and I know one way to characterize that set of people is “drug addicts and alcoholics.”  But they are not all “drug addicts and alcoholics.”  I have since done some light Internet research, and the percentage seems to be about 1 in 6 (or 17%).  But I did not have that information on that particular evening. 

What I did have was personal relationships with people who were, or had been, unemployed.  And of the people I knew, zero of them were “drug addicts and alcoholics.”  Wait, strike that.  First, as far as I know, none of them are drug addicts.  And, as far as I know, one of them is a recovering alcoholic who has not had a drink in over 15 years.  But I do know that none of them were unemployed because of substance abuse.

So, here was a person, upset that their tax dollars were going to be used to help “drug addicts and alcoholics” when, in my experience, the people who needed those benefits were out of work because of corporations reducing the size of their work forces, and because jobs were/are hard to find.

Now, perhaps at another time we could have a discussion about whether people who are “drug addicts and alcoholics” deserve our help via programs paid for by our tax dollars.  But that’s not the discussion X seemed to be having.   X was opposed, strongly and vocally, to the extension of Federal Unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed because it would be used to help “drug addicts and alcoholics.” 

And this makes me angry.  Politically, I don’t get angry about much, but this is the sort of thing that makes me angry.  X decides that some people do not deserve help (the “drug addicts and alcoholics”) and so, therefore, no one should get it.  Why?  Is it because all of the recipients are “drug addicts and alcoholics?”  Well, the way X talked, that’s how it seemed.  But even if X were willing to admit that the “drug addicts and alcoholics”  are only part of the population receiving benefits, X is still willing to withhold help from those who are not in the offensive subcategory.

So, the evening ended.  I kept most of my political opinions to myself and I remained tactful.  But in the end, I was frustrated.  And when I told family and friends about the experience later, that frustration colored my description about the event.

And I was still frustrated when – lo and behold – that video from Jon Stewart appeared on my facebook feed.  And there it was again – another instance of people making me angry, politically.  It was Food Stamps, not Unemployment Benefits, but the similarities were there.  And, since I had bottled up all my rhetoric when I was listening to X, I decided I would write something about this video.  And I did.  It was not as balanced as I usually try to be.  I was angry, so I was writing angry.

And later, I sorta regretted it.  I prefer to remain balanced.  I live my life that way.  Some of it is my approach to life, but some of it is my comfort zone.  Anyway, I sorta regretted it.  But I also started analyzing the situation.  After having “blown up” and cooling down, I tried to put some perspective around the entire sequence. 

End of Story – Beginning of Analysis

- - - - - - - - - - - -

There are many facets to a person’s political viewpoint.   A facet exposed by my reaction to the “Dinner with X” is this:  What makes me angry? 

I am not a liberal because I choose to be labeled a liberal.  (And I am not as “liberal” as the label would make me seem.)  I am a liberal because it angers me when I think someone is trying to blame the people who need our collective help for needing that help.  And it angers me when I think someone is arguing to withhold help from those who deserve it, in order to prevent the undeserving from receiving benefits. 

Conservatives are brought to anger by different things.  (And, yes, I realize I’m generalizing here. That’s what happens when we decide to use labels.)  My perception is that conservatives get angry when they think someone is doing something wrong, and the government is allowing/encouraging/facilitating/perpetrating that wrong-doing.  In the cases involving tax dollars, they get angry if they think people are getting tax dollars (your tax dollars, their tax dollars, our tax dollars) when they don’t deserve them, or when they will misuse them.

Put in that context (and I realize, I created the context – I didn’t ask a conservative for the context) I can understand why that would get some people angry.  I really can.  It’s just that, given the two sources of anger, the former cause for anger – the liberal one -- means more to me personally than the conservative one does.

There are more aspects to one’s political viewpoint than anger.  But I finally have spent enough time thinking about the topic, writing about it, editing what I wrote, and reading it again that I finally feel like I can post this.  This is not the end of my thinking on the subject, but it’s the end of this entry to Snippets and Wisps.

======

Artwork-related P.S. - To get an image for this post, I used Google, and found the above image accompanying an article entitled "What Would Scooby Doo?: What marriage counseling can teach liberals and conservatives" by Shankar Vedantam.  I like the art, and I can't find any other way to give attribution.  So, there it is.  And the opinion piece is interesting, too.