In his essay today in the Washington Post on anger, George Will describes a new style -- "fury as a fashion accessory, indignation as evidence of good character."
Many people who loathe George W. Bush have adopted what Peter Wood describes as "ecstatic anger as a mode of political action." Anger often is, Wood says, "a spectacle to be witnessed by an appreciative audience, not an attempt to win over the uncommitted."
Wood, an anthropologist and author of "A Bee in the Mouth: Anger in America Now," says the new anger "often has the look-at-me character of performance art." His book is a convincing, hence depressing, explanation of "anger chic" -- of why anger has become an all-purpose emotional stance. It has achieved prestige and become "a credential for group membership." As a result, "Americans have been flattening their emotional range into an angry monotone."
Anger may be chic, but I think what Will describes is really a manifestation of the Theory of Unquestionable Goodness. It's something I've just stumbled onto. The Theory of Unquestionable Goodness states that by thinking good thoughts you become a Person of Unquestionable Goodness. Although it's not widely recognized, it's managed to attract a huge number of practitioners, since it requires only that you demonstrate your devotion to your core beliefs. Then, bingo! You're in the Club of Unquestionably Good Persons. Not just any core beliefs will open doors for you, though, but I’ll mention two that will.
A core belief, devoutly held, that will raise your status to Person of Provisional Goodness is an enduring belief that the free market system is hopelessly unfair, and that the sole remedy to this unjust condition is to disallow free enterprise whenever possible, or tax it heavily when not. The degree of distaste you have for the free market weighs heavily on your chances of progressing to full status as Person of Unquestionable Goodness. The greater your distaste, the better your chances. Conceding that free markets economies out perform controlled economies is something you do at your peril, but if you take that position you can offset it by championing the rights of the downtrodden masses whose lifeblood has been sucked dry by WalMart.
That's one way, but the better and more direct route to status of Unquestionable Goodness, is to oppose war. If opposing free markets lifts you to the status of sainthood, opposing war puts you along side the angels. If you oppose war unconditionally and at all times, while at the same time displaying your deep dislike of WalMart, you can consider yourself a person of Unquestionable and Immense Goodness – sort of like an archangel. Sorry for the religious analogy.
There are other core beliefs that will help you into the club. Despising George Bush is a good one, but doesn't guarantee anything since it's so commonly held. Even some Republicans despise him. But the two that I mention, opposition to war and distaste for free markets, work. Try them out. You'll be a Person of Unquestionable Goodness in no time and then you get to enjoy the perks.
That brings us back to Will's essay. The perk most popular with Persons of Unquestionable Goodness is the right to express their rage. Their Unquestionable Goodness confers full immunity from consequences of any kind for any actions whatever.
It's a necessary thing really, because there are people who are Unquestionably Bad -- Republicans. Anything done in the name of defeating the Republican scourge is by definition Unquestionably Good. For example.
When Ned Lamont challenged Joe Lieberman for his Connecticut Senate seat, Jane Hamsher joined the attack on Lieberman for his position in favor of the liberation of Iraq. That position made him worse than a Republican, actually and caused dear sweet Jane to post a picture of Joe in blackface. She can do that because she wears the armor of Unquestionable Goodness.
“I sincerely apologize to anyone who was genuinely offended by the choice of images accompanying my blog post today on the Huffington Post. It’s also important to note that I do not, nor have I ever worked for Ned Lamont’s campaign. However, at their request, I removed the image earlier today.” So, she doesn’t think she’s actually done anything wrong here but, hey, if you’re offended–but only sincerely offended, not just somewhat offended–she’s sorry you’re so stupid as to be offended.
When it was announced that Sandy Berger was under investigation for his removal and destruction of classified documents from the National Archives, the immediate response from the Unquestionably Good people was not surprise and dismay that one of their own might be guilty of criminal behavior intended to obstruct the investigation of the 9/11 Commission. Not at all. The real evil, they complained, was that the revelation was a filthy Republican campaign trick.
WASHINGTON - Democrats assailed Republicans who suggested Wednesday that former White House national security adviser Sandy Berger sought to hide embarrassing materials when he removed classified documents related to the investigation of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The presidential campaign of Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts accused the Bush White House of disclosing the existence of a criminal investigation for political advantage. After news of the investigation surfaced, Berger, who served in the Clinton administration, quit as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign Tuesday to limit the political fallout.
You see, Berger is Unquestionably Good. He's a hero who took one for the team. His was a sacrifice in the interest of the greater good. That his deeds should ever have been brought to light was the true crime. I could go on, but I think you get the drift.
George Will goes on to say that Americans are infatuated with anger because it is democratic and anyone can express it. I think he is slightly off the mark. It's really Democratic, and only Persons of Unquestionable Goodness are entitled to express it with impunity
Comments