Skip to content

PC-Oppressed and Dishonest Anger

January 5, 2016

Just a quick thought. In his blog today Paul Krugman wonders why people on the right express such rage, over tiny issues. His examples are the guys doing the OR armed sit-in to overthrow the government, for having to pay a very reasonable fee for grazing on somebody else’s land, and Erick Erickson suggesting that people should beat their state representative to a pulp because reduced phosphates in dish soap prevent his dishwasher from getting all the food off.

Two examples of the hated intrusion by Big Gov.

A short time ago my sister told me a story our mom had told her: quite a while back, dad had gotten so angry that he picked mom up and carried her out into the yard, and told her to stay there so he wouldn’t hurt her. He went back into the house, locked all the doors, and tore some stuff up. So I said, wow, what in the world got him so angry? And she said, mom didn’t know. That’s the thing, dad never said what made him angry.

We’re talking about a man with a lot of anger built up inside, about a lot of people in his life. Lots of frustration with them. Furthermore, he often held that anger in, because he was afraid of his own self, he was afraid of emotions, and he had seen and suffered from a great deal of wild, violent anger when he was a kid. For that same reason, he never swore, because he equated such words with violent anger. We often saw smoke coming out of his ears, of course.

Now, I know that dad had some legitimate reasons for legitimate anger about some of the people around him. And I’m glad that he rarely expressed his anger physically, because that would not have been legitimate, or effective as a way of dealing with frustration. But the point is that he could not reveal who those people were, and thus could not reveal what he was angry about.

I’m speculating that people like the Bundys and Erickson, who do act out their anger, at least verbally, and even incite violence on the part of others, can’t be honest about what makes them mad, because they know that the larger society would not accept the extremity of their anger as legitimate or appropriate.

They can’t say, I’m angry because there’s an N in the white house, preventing me from having my way, and all those (bleep)s are taking what’s mine. I’m supposed to be privileged in this country, and they’re taking away my privileges.

So they lie by substitution, e.g idiots in gov are preventing me (powerful white cleaner) from dealing with the dirt and dirty (people), so I can’t even eat off my own plates. And they won’t even let me be honest about it.

And that makes me even madder.  Or, in Erickson’s case, “What a revoltin’ development this is!” (“The Life of Riley” radio show.)

[I know there are other motivations at work, in both these cases, and probably destructive parenting; but I think this is another dimension of the “PC” lie.]

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: