Multiple mentions of physically dark folk not wanting to appear emotionally dark caught me this week. The perceived political wisdom that black or Latino men should not turn off voters is at once obvious and befuddling.
I recall Black Panthers and others who seriously expressed anger. Speeches included calls to kill whitey, plain folk as well as cops. There's some threatening anger.
Cross-post note: This started out as a personal blog, over at Harrumph. As happens, it morphed a bit and seems as apt here.
For two examples this week, consider:
- Very savvy image consultant Dorie Clark was on WGBH's Callie Crossley show again. She noted in a segmentasking whether Barack Obama could win a second term that the POTUS was caught in the vise. Angry black men can freak constituents.
- This morning's Financial Times had a similar treatment in their generally LITE Lunch with... series, this time with San Antonia Mayor Julián Castro. He spoke of the immigration backlash against Hispanics and its racist aspects. Yet, as Richard McGregor wrote, "He admits he is conscious not to sound angry. Obama has exercised a similar discipline. It seems to be a rule of American politics that an angry black or Hispanic man does not play well with the broader electorate."
Yet all but those in comas here are aware of angry white folk. Many in Congress, the Tea Party and winger spokesmen (screams-men?) and lobbying and interest groups are mad as hell about this, that and the other. They yell, they defame, they lie at high volume and with repetition, and some even threaten violence.
It all makes me wonder that if the timorous and accommodating POTUS displayed real anger that really would be so bad. As a nation, we certainly have expected our top leaders to express outrage and anger befitting the situation. Is it really true that our first black President has a separate set of behaviors?
The recent, prolonged GOP debt, spending and tax disgrace just had to make him furious. Even many voters in that party expressed and continue to express fury at the continued insistence on transferring wealth to the super-rich from the middle and lower classes. Yet, the POTUS spoke of disappointment.
Disappointment?! That's when the ice-cream shop is out of the flavor you drove 10 miles to taste.
Rage should come when confronting ideologues who would steal from tens of millions of oldsters to increase benefits for multi-millionaires and billionaires. If that doesn't make even the most mild-mannered black man angry, something's wrong here.
To turn this from political to personal, this has reminded me of way back in my single days. I was keeping company with a fairly volatile woman, who would blow up and yell sometimes, including at me.
A mutual friend, a psychologist, noted how even tempered I was and how I grew up in a home where people didn't act out. He asked how I reacted when she was like that. I said I let her run through the course. He asked then what I thought would happen if I yelled back. I said I hadn't thought about it and he went on to ask (with a smile) whether I figured that would destroy the relationship. I replied that I thought it would.
He had known her for a long time and said it would not. He advised yelling back. She did. I did. Not only did nothing bad happened, she was much less likely to flip out around me. Things got better. She acted more like I and I didn't have to yell back again.a
That's not to say that if Obama displays justifiable anger some people won't diss him. Hell, they already do. Plus, he has the big bunch of progressives who are on him for not being strong enough to demand fair negotiation from the wingers.
Conciliation doesn't seem to be the best approach here and now. It's time for our President to yell back.
Tags: massmarrier, anger, Obama, Dorie Clark, Congress, voters