Existential anger *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Apr 04 2008 at 2:14 pm | Filed under: America, Barack Obama
Barack Obama has had a weird life, but not a bad one. Yes, his father abandoned him, but he’s certainly not the only person, of any race, to experience that. His mother loved him, his grandparents loved him, he grew up in the mellow, racially-mixed world of Hawaii (barring his Indonesian stint), he went to excellent schools throughout his academic career, and his political career has been stratospheric. And yet, if you look past the “I’m such a mellow unifier,” and you find a very, very angry man. Ann Coulter, who is no stranger to anger herself, recognized it right away and makes hay with the fact in her column about his autobiography. As his two decade affiliation with Wright shows, Obama also seeks out angry people.
One has to ask where this anger comes from. Obama himself makes no bones about his relatively good life, one that definitely is well within the bell curve of the normal American experience, with a lot of stuff coming on the upper end of the bell curve (loving parent, loving surrogate parents, fabulous education, etc.). I remarked to DQ today that it seems to me that Obama isn’t in a rage at his life experiences — he couldn’t rationally be — but instead that he seems to suffer from existential fury that goes back to his very being. Circumstances do not affect his outlook; he’s just mad at something, and views his circumstances through that lens. That he’s learned to present as a calm man doesn’t affect this basic attitude.
My observation wasn’t so very deep or intelligent, but DQ’s response (naturally) was. He thought a minute about what I’d said and responded, “You know, that description seems to apply to Americans generally, especially to liberals.” He’s right. We in America truly have it better than any being at any time in history, and yet so many Americans are angry and anguished, something reflected in the recent poll pointing to an 81% dissatisfaction rate in America. We’re far less happy and optimistic than the Iraqis, for Heaven’s sake!
I’m baffled by this existential unhappiness. Do you know where it comes from? Do you know why Americans, who have, as John McCain noted, over history shown themselves to be capable of doing the right thing and still experiencing material rewards, are such a miserable bunch?
UPDATE: I’m not good at math, but Rockdalian seems to be on to something important in his comment:
an 81% dissatisfaction rate in America
This is a truckload of patooey. I may not know a lot about polls, but I rummaged around the PDF file for myself. This is what I came across.
N = 1,368
Registered Voters = 1,196
Democratic Primary Voters= 510
Republican Primary Voters= 323Have you already voted in or do you plan to vote in a Democratic primary or caucus this year, OR in a Republican Primary or caucus, or are you not voting in a primary or caucus at all this year?
Dem Primary 43%
Rep Primary 25%
Not Voting 25%
Never vote 1%
DK/NA 6%
Doing a little math ( this is premised on the idea of me reading this thing correctly, always subject to further review ) out of 1368 respondents, only 323 are self declared Republicans.
Not a weighted sample at all.
Reading through the question, the poll does not breakdown the response to the question by party.
The 81% negative, given no proof, I would bet comes from the more than two thirds that did not identify or for declared Dems.
This leads me to question what role religion, or lack thereof, plays into the responders answers.
If I remember correctly, when polled, that the religious people answered more to the affirmative about the positive outlook in their lives.
Email This Post To A Friend
19 Responses to “Existential anger *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[...] Bookworm Room added an interesting post today on Existential anger [...]
racially-mixed world of Hawaii
I heard that there were quite a bit of racism over mixed races in Hawaii. It is such a small place, however, that it’s hard to verify such rumours.
I’m baffled by this existential unhappiness. Do you know where it comes from?
it’s called guilt.
Back in the day when we had to survive as hunter-gatherers, you couldn’t be stealing food from your children or the women, Book. We needed the women for the next generation. A man that hunts and becomes fat while the children and women of the village starve… is not going to be a man that is going to be around for long, Book.
So our DNA has been wired to feel “guilt” when we feel that we have been blessed with gifts that should be shared with the rest of our tribe, but aren’t. And yet, that in itself is not a problem, Book. People that feel guilt atone for that guilt. If they feel they are too rich, then they should pay more taxes and give away more of their money and stop living in mansions. That can atone for their crimes of being born with a silver spoon in their mouth. But… that’s not the only way and because it is not the only way, it creates.
When people like Obama and Gore try to buy indulgences in order to shed their sins and guilt via money, they are essentially trying to bribe and corrupt the redemption process. Where redemption is made by your sacrifices, not the sacrifices you paid someone else to do in your place. That’s not a sacrifice, especially if you keep making more money, as Gore, Soros, and Obama has.
So these folks don’t want to give up their money. They feel bad about being rich and successful and born with a silver spoon in their mouth, Book, but they also feel resentment at people wanting a piece of their stuff, you see. They also feel pressure from society to maintain that “facade” of wealth and prosperity. They don’t want to disappoint their families, you see, Book. They don’t want to go broke and have to ask their Reverend to chip in.
So these two streams of guilt and societal limitations, societal limitations that only a strong and virtuous person can break free of, smash together and create anger. They are angry at their situation. They are supposed to be happy with wealth, but they feel guilty instead. If they could get rid of their wealth and live like others, then they might have become happy. But they can’t do that either, cause they are addicted to wealth, status, and power. They don’t want to give up their power in return for forgiveness, Book.
So they go into politics. They use their political power and wealth to “make things better for people”. Which in the end only means making things better so that they can sleep at night. It has nothing to do with helping people, since they can’t even help themselves, Book.
Add in a dose of psychoanalytical self-delusion, and you got the messiah and megalomaniac personalities you see in a Murtha or Kerry.
Americans - in schools and universities, in media (and by media), in movies, in books, in every nook and cranny of the American ethos since the 60-70’s with increasing frequency and boldness, have been TOLD that we are bad. It makes angry people feel GOOD to tell people they are bad and they feel righteous doing it. I always notice and sort of cringe when I hear Obama speak as if he were on some elevation that other mortals don’t attain, but at the same time he also sounds like a lecturing parent. I agree that he and his wife are angry people. I read MLK Jr.’s 4th of July Knock at Midnight sermon today and noticed the gentle yet powerful spirit of words that did not reek of holier than thou and there was a humility to his unrelenting demand for equal rights for all based on our inalienable rights bestowed by our creator.
I put the biggest blame in creating unhappy and angry people on the educational system from primary to secondary to college and beyond. In the Wall Street Journal recently there was a G.K. Chesterton quote that I thought if implemented would go a long way toward restoring a feeling amongst us that we are a great and noble nation:
” ‘The problem isn’t educating the uneducated but rather uneducating the educated.’ St. Paul had to be knocked off his horse to be uneducated.”
Book, are DQ and you suggesting that material wealth does not make one happy?
Contrast that with Jay Nordlinger’s recent “Impromptu” descriptions of his trip through India, published in National Review Online. He expressed wonderment at how everybody appeared to be so happy all the time, even those in extreme poverty.
A very smart international economist that I met as a university freshman had worked extensively in India. He shared with me the insight that “poverty is a state of mind”. Do you remember Mother Teresa observing that never had she seen as much “poverty” as she observed in America?
I suggest that Barack and Michel Obama are very spiritually poor people. No material wealth will change that. I, for one, doubt that either of them have ever stopped to take stock of all the blessings that life has bestowed upon them and that, for them, their glasses will forever be more-than half empty.
Nothing more complicated than Liberal guilt.
“I remarked to DQ today that it seems to me that Obama isn’t in a rage at his life experiences — he couldn’t rationally be”
Well, that right there is your mistake - you expect rationality? On the basis of what, precisely?
I agree with Coulter: he’s not only a problem for all the reasons we know he’s a problem, he’s also nuts.
How can anyone feel happy when they feel that they’re owed?
This is a truckload of patooey. I may not know a lot about polls, but I rummaged around the PDF file for myself. This is what I came across.
Doing a little math ( this is premised on the idea of me reading this thing correctly, always subject to further review ) out of 1368 respondents, only 323 are self declared Republicans.
Not a weighted sample at all.
Reading through the question, the poll does not breakdown the response to the question by party.
The 81% negative, given no proof, I would bet comes from the more than two thirds that did not identify or for declared Dems.
This leads me to question what role religion, or lack thereof, plays into the responders answers.
If I remember correctly, when polled, that the religious people answered more to the affirmative about the positive outlook in their lives.
I don’t think people should read too much into this kind of a poll question.
81% dissaatisfaction rate? The actual statistic is that 81% think the U.S. is on “the wrong track”.
I would claim:
- Any hater of George Bush will claim we’re on the wrong track, because our administration is evil and corrupt.
- Anyone who thinks religious values ought to be paramount in the culture will claim we’re on the wrong track, because we are too secular and people’s terrible behavior reflect this moral void.
- Any opponent of the Iraq War will claim we’re on the wrong track, because we’re involved in an illegal or outrageous war.
- Any social conservative will look at the state of our media, our movies, our TV, our culture, and claim we’re on the wrong track, because our values are out of control in a downward spiral.
- Any fiscal conservative will look at our federal spending and claim we’re on the wrong track, because we are bankrupting our children and in an endless spiral toward fiscal collapse (my own personal dissatisfaction with this country).
and on, and on.
There’s nothing to this question, no common ground, except that they are all dissatisfied with something around them that, in some way, they disagree with. That’s a broad canvas on which to paint a picture!
Our responses to this specific question seem to be to be the response to THIS more detailed question: Compared to a perfect utopia where every person’s beliefs and way of life matches your own, and where everything is done perfectly… do you think the USA is on the right track?
I would bet that if the question were rephrased… so that the respondent would consider whether or not, compared to the general condition of humanity, the USA were on the right track or not, you’d see a significant difference in the result.
Further, there is an entrenched philosophy that avers, “As long as there is one person who is the victim of injustice, as long as there is one person who is suffering, you should not enjoy your own comforts, and you should not feel happy How dare you be comfortable and thoroughly happy, when you know of someone suffering? That is selfish and actually sinful.”
This is a world of 4.5 billion people. Contemplate that! 4.5 billion people. Can you grasp how many distinct individuals that means?
Somewhere, at every second, SOMEONE will always be suffering. Today, somewhere, a child is being abused. Somewhere. A murder has happened. A kidnapping has taken place. A court has handed down an unjust opinion. A society has at least one law that marginalizes or harms some of the people it controls. Etc.
And any time any such thing happens, anywhere, we are all supposed to become deeply unhappy? That guarantees that no matter how much progress is made in the world, we will ALL remain deeply unhappy. That is the very essence of a deeply evil philosophy. It guarantees an absence of hope, an absence of joy; an eternity of misery for ALL.
To the extent that you buy into this philosophy, you will never be free to feel personal joy, ecstasy, happiness, without guilt. On the other hand, a philosophy that allows every person possible to experience joy, ecstasy and happiness is clearly better. You shouldn’t be oblivious to the awareness that suffering and injustice exist.
Finally, there is the concept of the utterly spoiled, rich, totally pampered princess whose life collapsed into hysterics when she broke a fingernail. To the extent that you are unable to accept the concept of “I was unhappy because I had no shoes, until I met a man who had no feet”, you will be dissatisfied, and convinced things are on the wrong track.
Perhaps the real purpose of polls is to get us to talk about the polls rather than the issues. The 81% dissatisfaction is very ambiguous. Mike’s list is right on. Political adversaries could be side by side on this poll. It proves nothing, except that we talk about polls rather than issues. Many people live in fear that “our side” won’t win. What a sad way to live.
Obama was a child of MLK’s dream. Clearly his mother and his grand-parents judged others on the content of their character, not the color of their skin. When he gave his “there are no hyphenated Americans, there is only the United States of America” (paraphrasing), at the 2004 Democratic Convention, I thought “finally a black man who is not angry and who is proud of his country! — And one who can draw the poison of hatred and anger from the black community and begin the healing.”
Having graduated from Harvard law, he headed off to South Chicago to work for the betterment of the blacks who lived there. It was a continuation of his journey of self-discovery — of finding out what it means to be a black man in American in a brand new Century. He arrived still the optimist, striving to lead his people to the promised land.
But it seems that instead of transforming the blacks’ worldview, the black community in South Chicago, and especially Trinity UCC, transformed him. And he became the stereo-typical angry black man. His mother and MLK must be spinning in their graves.
Ellie2, Do what? Obviously, you stopped reading King at 1963. The blacks’ worldview isn’t what he wanted transformed. King died fighting the triple evils: Racism, poverty and violence (war). King would back Obama, if he were alive today.
HelenL, are you channeling?
I don’t think so, Danny. But I did write my master’s thesis on King.
Try this http://www.howard.edu/divinity/documents/WeeklyWord26.pdf
(It may be hard to open, not sure why).
King would back Obama, if he were alive today.
The Leftist irrational tendency to bring back the heroic dead and have them mouth off support for the current administration is a bit too much.
I suppose creating new heroes is too hard. Digging up the dead is easier since they can be made to say whatever you want them to say, even if their writings and actions in life were inconsistent with the new party platform.
The real purpose of polls is to manipulate people with a weak propaganda defense system. And it does that quite well by skewing the results towards the intended goal.
Racism, poverty and violence (war).
The only reason King would support Democrats, obama, and Rev Wright would be to get up close to them and smack them upside the head with a two by four. The last there are some of primary sources for racism, eternal proverty, and renewed violence.
The difference between King and Malcom X was that they were really oppressed. If you aren’t oppressed, then you can’t really be backed in your liberation attempts from conditions you yourself created. King can’t help you throw off the shackles of what you yourself created. He can only help people that are really in trouble and not just in trouble cause they made it happen for themselves.
Y, Every time you mention the total war theory, you use history. Difference is, you use the part you like (and know), and my guess is, you don’t much like the civil rights era (and therefore, have studied it very little).
I actually never particularly liked reading about war criminals escaping justice, aristocrats starting wars up for land and wealth while the serfs paid in blood and misery, or any other number of forlorn hopes that litters human history like the stars in the heaven.
You misunderstand the motivations of people who study history, military history at that, as being it is something that is full of joy like a vacation. It is no vacation from the state of humanity, rather it is a bare bones lesson in how to avoid con artists. It doesn’t matter if the observer likes the lesson or not. He either learns the lesson and reproduces that lesson in life, or he doesn’t.
you don’t much like the civil rights era (and therefore, have studied it very little).
I am quite familiar with Harriet Tubman, the Civil War, the advent of the Republican party, Andrew Johnson’s throwing away of the sacrifices that allowed the Emancipation Proclamation to exist, and the Redemption Democrats that used terrorism and lawfare to prevent blacks from voting Republican.
If you are somehow implying that Robert Byrd and the Democrat’s filibuster of the Civil Rights Act under Johnson is somehow “special”, I reject that proposal in any shape or form.
Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.[5]-Robert Byrd Early Comments
That’s the kind of people you have in your party and movement for equality, helen. Not had but have
This is not old news. Democrats have known what they harbored within their party for generations. They just don’t care.
History, helen, is something totally different to you than it is to me.
On March 19, 2003, when Bush ordered the invasion after receiving U.S. Congress approval, Byrd stated:
“Today I weep for my country. I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned. Instead of reasoning with those with whom we disagree, we demand obedience or threaten recrimination.”[47]
Obedience and threats of recrimination are interesting terms for Byrd to use in the acceleration of Democrat domestic insurgencies against the Iraq war. Since it was Byrd that demanded loyalty to his racist and Democrat creed when he rejected blacks being put into positions of real power.
In the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s (NAACP)[44] Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress (spanning the 2003–2004 congressional session), Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100% for favoring the NAACP’s position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. Only 16 other Senators of the same session matched this approval rating. In June 2005, Byrd[45] proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that “With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently.”
It’s convenient for the Democrat party to see people like Reverend Wright and Byrd as useful allies, regardless of their personal ideologies. They may even claim that such people should be forgiven, like Democrats forgave Senator Trentt Lott.
Byrd is the only Senator to have voted against the nominations of both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas to the United States Supreme Court, the only two African Americans to have been nominated to the court. Marshall’s confirmation vote came in 1967 when Byrd and other segregationist senators were opposed to the idea of a black integrationist being placed on the court[37] In order to gain evidence against Marshall’s appointment, Byrd asked the FBI Director, J. Edgar Hoover, to look into what Byrd believed to be the possibility that Marshall had either connections to communists or a potential communist past.[38] Byrd opposed Thomas because Byrd stated that he was “offended” by Thomas using the phrase “high-tech lynching of uppity blacks” in his defense. Byrd stated that he was “offended by the injection of racism” into the hearing. He called Justice Thomas’ comments a mere “diversionary tactic”. Byrd commented upon the “racism” issue that Thomas raised by stating that “I (Byrd) thought we were past that stage.” Byrd called Thomas’ “high-tech lynching” reference an attempt by Thomas of “blatant intimidation” of members of the committee. Byrd dismissed Thomas’ racism charges by stating that Thomas exhibited “arrogance” and Thomas’ comments were, “nonsense, nonsense.” Regarding Anita Hill’s sexual harrassment charges against Thomas, Byrd believed Hill.[39] Byrd joined 45 other Democrats in their opposition to Thomas.[40] Byrd also opposed some of George W. Bush’s judicial and cabinet nominees who were black, notably Federal Judge Janice Rogers Brown and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Niger Innis, a self-described conservative[41] and official with the civil rights organization Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), told NewsMax that Byrd’s hold on Rice’s nomination was “racist” and said that Byrd has “black colleagues in the House and the Senate who apologize for him.”[42] Mychal Massie of Project 21, another prominent conservative African American commentator, has also hinted at an underlying racism as a possible motive for Byrd’s opposition to the confirmation of these nominees.[43]
In reality, however, the views of Byrd are perfectly in line with mainstream Democrat views on perpetuating institutional racism. There is nothing to forgive, even if his fellow travelers were capable of it.
Byrd is a nice example of how blacks are kept down by the white man. A 100% approval rating by the NAACP is quite rare. Certainly when Byrd couldn’t stop integration in the military and the rest of America, he went into stealth mode and became allies of organizations and institutions designed to keep black people bottled up and enslaved in this country. The NAACP is just one of many such organizations Byrd saw promise in helping.
Every time you mention the total war theory, you use history.
I doubt you know much history involving the background of any total war, helen. You are not really in a position to tell me I am only using parts of history I like. That is a just a baseless claim. You don’t know whether it is true or not because you either don’t want to argue the details of history or you don’t have the facts available to dispute me.