“The Fine Print”, by Michael Schrader

Rage Is The Rage

(Written and posted 07 August 2006)

We are an angry nation. The left is angry with the right; the right is angry with the left. The reds are angry with the blues; the blues are angry with the reds. The have-nots are angry with the haves for having; the have are angry at the have-nots for being angry about not having. Christians are angry at the Muslims; the Muslims are angry at the Jews. The Arabs are mad at the United States, the U.S. is mad at the North Koreans, and the North Koreans are, well, just plain mad.

The axiom for the world is, “I’ll just take my ball and go home!” We do not strive for consensus or compromise; instead when we have differences, we get mad at each other and settle our differences the great American way – with a dual. Duals are great – there is one and only one clear winner, and one and only one loser, and the winner takes it all. Forget that squirrelly “win-win” compromise stuff; there is no thing as a “win-win”, only a “lose-lose”, because if I cannot stomp your face in the dirt and completely humiliate you, what kind of victory is it?

This aversion to consensus and compromise has seeped into every facet of American life. Take sports, for instance. Once upon a time, there used to be ties in football and hockey; not anymore. Now, games that are tied at the end of regulation are decided in “shootouts” and “sudden death” (gee, do you detect a certain American West flavor to the lingo?) overtime. We refuse to acknowledge that two things can be equals; one has to be superior to the other.

Something as mundane as pavement can cause otherwise sane people to just about come to blows. To those who prefer asphalt, “asphaltists”, just the thought of using concrete causes heartburn; same, too, with the “concreters” and the use of asphalt. Neither group will acknowledge that the other choice is an equal of their own.

Here in Oklahoma, the big “either”- “or” is OU or OSU. Complete strangers will approach you and ask you, “Are you OU or OSU?”, and how you respond determines whether you will get a handshake or a punch in the mouth. Of course, being an alumnus of neither, my answer is always, “Neither!”, which results in a mind-boggling silence on the part of the questioner, as his or her brain suffers a meltdown because my answer does not compute in a binary mind.

This inability to understand that the world is more than “Yes” or No”, “Right” or “Wrong” contributes to our anger and hostility. In a binary world, you are either with us or against us, and you can’t be both with us and against us. In other words, you must agree with us on everything to be with us; if you don’t agree with us on everything, then obviously you are against us. If you are against us, then obviously you are inferior (as “No” implies defectiveness and inferiority), and thus are deserving of our rage and ridicule. If you are not with us, then you are not worthy to be around us, and we will take our collective ball and go home, because we don’t want to contaminate it and ourselves with your “cooties”.

Look at the sorry state of marriage these days. Once upon a time, partners acknowledge each other’s failures and limitations, and there was a bit of give-and-take in order to preserve the marriage, as the stability and peace of the marriage was deemed more important than the wants and demands of each. Not anymore. Now, marriage partners are narcissistic and selfish, and if either one doesn’t get exactly what he or she wants, then it’s “I’ll take my ball and go home!” time. Even that isn’t done peacefully; not only is the game stopped and the ball taken from play, but the opposing sides then push each other’s face in the dirt and try to inflict as much harm to each other as possible. When I was in law school, I decided that under no circumstances did I want to be a divorce attorney, and I in no way wanted to be a party to seeing adults act like spoiled brats and do every thing that they can to humiliate each other. Divorces are full of meanness, nastiness, and anger. If only people could amicably divorce, agree, if you will, to a tie, the world would be a happier place and we would have a lot fewer people being permanently scarred as a result of being sucked in to a bitter fight between two people they love, their mother and their father.

Listen to talk radio and all you hear is anger. Read blogs and all you will see is anger. Everywhere we are bombarded with the message, “Agree with me, or else!” I am afraid that civil disagreement have gone the way of the dodo bird. I have received threats and very vitriolic mail about some of the stuff I have written; it got so bad, that I quit for the better part of two years. I do not know how to respond to somebody who is so enraged that they would threaten me with harm because I disagree with them over an issue, such as whether or not war is good or not; it is completely illogical, and illogic does not compute. I just don’t get it.

I don’t get how I can be called a traitor because I question why my government insists on sending people to die in a strange land for a cause that I don’t understand. I don’t hate the troops; quite the contrary, actually! It is because I care about the troops, and care about their health and well-being, that I don’t want to see them sent to a slaughterhouse. I don’t get how I be called soft on crime just because I believe it is morally wrong for the state to murder. (Murder is murder, and from what I read in the Bible, there are no exceptions!) I don’t get how I can be called a misogynist because I believe that it is immoral (and yes, murder) for a woman to take the life of an innocent just because that innocent happens to inconvenience her life a bit. I don’t get how I can be called a bigot because I believe in the mantra of personal responsibility and that I have no moral obligation to help those who refuse to help themselves.

Actually, I do get it- it is easier to hate than to love.

BACK TO “THE FINE PRINT” INDEX