Sunday, 20 March 2016

Unsocial Darwinists

Riddle: Why are liberals known as the party of the poor?
Reply: Because they're always begging the question!

On top of "fearful and frustrated," America's media have found a third pigeonhole to stuff Trump's supporters into: angry. It goes without saying that in the liberal universe, anger is always a sign of negativity, if not indeed of derangement. Unless of course, it's liberals who are angry. If a liberal gets angry, it's because some great and noble cause is being impeded by some miserable right-wingers. Anger then becomes not only justified, it's admirable. It's not even anger anymore, but rather righteous indignation. Those people disrupting Trump rallies, for instance: don't mistake their threatening gestures and obnoxious language for anger. Those contorted red (or black) faces are actually paragons of progressivism, if not of progress itself. The "protesters" are simply exercising their Darwinian right to shut down anyone to the right of themselves. Darwin? You bet! But that's also a privilege of the left.When rightists try it, they're pilloried for being "social Darwinists." (Shudder, shudder!) 
      Anger, like all the emotions, must have a vital use, however, fulfill a necessary function, or why would God - or evolution - have instilled us with its ever-ready fire?
      Its main use, in fact, is survival. If you threaten an entity, it will get angry in order to better defend itself. Adrenaline and testosterone and any number of other energy-boosting secretions start flowing when we're feeling threatened, and lucky for us that they do, too. Organisms without anger don't last long in a world ruled by the Darwinian imperatives of aggression and domination. So it's puzzling to find liberals, those self-professed disciples of Darwin, deprecating any exhibition of anger from their fellow organisms. Puzzling, that is, until it's understood that deprecating anger is part and parcel of their attempt to dominate said organisms. 
         When journos condemn anger they rely on the convention which bars such an emotion, and emotions in general, from our everyday situations. At school, at work, at church, or even at home: in most situations, anger is regarded as a disruptive, primitive force. Quite unsocial, in fact. And so it is!        
       But in the realm of politics, in the arena of democracy, is anger  to be similarly banished from the light of day? Since when? Athletes and spectators alike get angry at sporting events and it's taken in stride. Sports are sublimated war, after all, and no one expects their troops to be polite. But war is "politics by other means." By other means, not by other emotions. 
        The Trumpsters are angry, and to suggest their anger is somehow indecorous, out of place or un-American, is to ignore US history, which is replete with intemperate politics and mad pols. (Read some of Gore Vidal's novels to find just how intemperate and mad.) And it begs the fundamental question: Are they under threat or not? That is to say, Is their anger justified or not? In fact, of course, they are under threat, under attack, and it's no use having the media, which is constantly leading the attack on their conservative way of life, trying to persuade them otherwise. 
          For the human organism, one's way of life is practically indistinguishable from life itself. Hence, the whole Trump phenomenon is a case-in-point illustration of the inexorable battle for survival. These people have been slowly beaten back into a defensive corner and now they're coming out in a last do-or-die counterattack at their tormentors. Angry? Hell, they're furious
         Granted, Trump and his supporters threaten the liberals' survival, too. The entire entitlement culture which half the US citizenry depend upon, in some degree, feels threatened by the Make America Great Again crowd. Alas, nothing ever got great again on welfare.  
          So let the war proceed, but please spare us the logic games, journos. Anger is the lifeblood of politics and anyone who says it isn't has already got his fangs halfway into his enemy's throat. 

No comments: