Letting Go of the Anger
It would be an understatement to say that Americans are angry. There's anger about high gas prices (though they have settled down quite a bit in recent days -- largely due to decreased demand). There's anger about the financial meltdown and the way it has been handled. It would seem that the American people don't know how the government should respond, but no matter what Congress or the Administration does, there will be plenty of angry responses.
We've seen this anger expressed on the campaign trail, more often than not at Sarah Palin rallies, and sometimes at McCain ones. Largely because Obama is ahead whatever anger that is present is much more muted. John McCain has ventured down the road toward encouraging angry responses, but he's not a very good demagogue. He's more like Mr. Wilson complaining about Dennis the Menace. Sarah Palin is, on the other hand, a classic demagogue. She has eagerly pushed the anger buttons. In fact, I think that Palin has been an unfortunate influence on the McCain campaign. There is much of the end justifies the means logic in Palin's methodology. She's not well informed about many issues, but her "Joe Six-Pack" and "Hockey-Mom" routine is very much in the old populist tradition, one that can, if it gets out of hand, prove to be very dangerous.
I grew up Republican, and while Nixon and Agnew were less than savory characters, I don't remember this kind of rhetoric coming from Republicans.
So, what do we do? Appealing to this brewing anger might prove politically beneficial, but it is also dangerous. It could get out of hand quickly, and in the hands of the wrong person lead to disaster. I'm not saying that Sarah Palin is anything like Hitler, but it should be sobering to us that he came to power by appealing to populist sentiment and to fear.
I understand that there have been politicians and corporate figures that have done bad things, and it's appropriate to get angry, but we must not let that anger control us.
In closing, let me suggest we consider these words of Jesus:
We've seen this anger expressed on the campaign trail, more often than not at Sarah Palin rallies, and sometimes at McCain ones. Largely because Obama is ahead whatever anger that is present is much more muted. John McCain has ventured down the road toward encouraging angry responses, but he's not a very good demagogue. He's more like Mr. Wilson complaining about Dennis the Menace. Sarah Palin is, on the other hand, a classic demagogue. She has eagerly pushed the anger buttons. In fact, I think that Palin has been an unfortunate influence on the McCain campaign. There is much of the end justifies the means logic in Palin's methodology. She's not well informed about many issues, but her "Joe Six-Pack" and "Hockey-Mom" routine is very much in the old populist tradition, one that can, if it gets out of hand, prove to be very dangerous.
I grew up Republican, and while Nixon and Agnew were less than savory characters, I don't remember this kind of rhetoric coming from Republicans.
So, what do we do? Appealing to this brewing anger might prove politically beneficial, but it is also dangerous. It could get out of hand quickly, and in the hands of the wrong person lead to disaster. I'm not saying that Sarah Palin is anything like Hitler, but it should be sobering to us that he came to power by appealing to populist sentiment and to fear.
I understand that there have been politicians and corporate figures that have done bad things, and it's appropriate to get angry, but we must not let that anger control us.
In closing, let me suggest we consider these words of Jesus:
21"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder,[a] and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother[b]will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,[c]' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. (Matthew 5:21-22 -- NIV).
Comments
Frankly, I am a little angry about the election. I can't believe I am saying this, but I agree with Bill Clinton. The Obama presidency feels bought and paid for by the media. My simple challenge to you would be to find a mainstream article thats negative about Obama, then try to find a positive one about Palin. Do we honestly believe either candidate is that good or that bad? Obama is the most liberal senator, so there are probably some hairy bills he signed on to, while Palin had to have done something right to have a 80% approval rating at home. It frustrates me to no end to see my candidate dragged through the mud, while one graces Time's cover every month. Palin's child isn't her own? Surely there would some push back from the Dems on this one! Thats plain horrible. Why is Bill a joke for "not inhaling", but no comment about Obama's admitted cocaine use? How come if Bush mispronounces a word he is an idiot, Joe tells a paraplegic to stand up and well thats just Joe. There has been a serious double standard!
I also remember how the people wanted to make Jesus a political king, and Jesus response was to withdraw and be alone. Not saying we simply withdraw.. but maybe we do an emotional level both the winners and the losers.
As for the media and Obama. Over the course of the election there has been plenty of negative coverage, especially as to Jeremiah Wright and some on Tony Rezko. As for being liberal, yes, he's liberal. Yet he has reached across the aisle to work with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative of senators.
I don't believe Obama is perfect nor do I believe that Sarah Palin is all bad. I believe that Obama has some of the qualities we need at this moment in history. I believe also that besides being inexperienced, Sarah Palin has some tendencies that could be dangerous -- sort of like Dick Cheney.
As for the gaffes, you know GW says lots of things that get mangled, and Joe does too. I don't think it's the mangling of words that is the ultimate problem with GW. I believe it's the fact that he allowed his administration to become an agent of a polarizing political agenda.
On the drug use. There has been less made of it largely because Obama was up front about it. As a youth and young adult he did drugs. He regrets it, but did it. I think the difference is that Clinton tried to slide by. How do you smoke pot and not inhale. As Obama said, that's the point -- inhaling.
But back to Sarah Palin, I'll admit that she scares me. Yes, she is popular in Alaska -- at least she has been. She has good political instincts and seems to keep ahead of the curve politically. But . . .
I still think you give Sarah way too much credit. Dick Cheaney is part of a Washington insider group with Rumsfield, etc.. that I don't trust or like. I think Putin hit the nail on the head when he said "I like Bush, but I don't like the people around him". I personally like Bush, but politically he put the wrong people around him and made bad decisions. I know I am on an island with that opinion.
I still think you give Palin too much credit. She gives a good speach, just like Obama.. although the tone and direction are vastly different. I don't like scorched earth politics either, but when you are down, you don't leave anything on the table. Hillary by the way.. is a much better saber rattler!!
Ava Semerau author of And God Was Pleased: Biblical Principles for Creating Christian Success.