When People Aren't Angry, Politicians Aren't Responsive

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Mar 27, 2009 at 08:15


So, why shouldn't we govern out of anger, exactly? I've heard a number of politicians, including President Obama, say that we shouldn't govern out of anger. However, they never make a case against governing out of anger--they just say we shouldn't do it. Further, their calls not to govern out of anger are confusing when they seem to actually be governing out of anger themselves.

For example, consider Representative Emanuel Cleaver who regrets his vote on the bonus tax for companies receiving government money.

Cleaver voted for the tax. He said he felt "uncomfortable" about the impending vote all day. He spoke to colleagues about his concerns.

And then he caved.

"I joined the cowards," he said, referring to the 327 other House members who backed the bill; 243 Democrats, 85 Republicans. "Maybe this is a confession."(...)

"What we did was to tell the financial services industry, if you choose to work with us, we will demean you at every opportunity," Cleaver said.

More in the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: When People Aren't Angry, Politicians Aren't Responsive
Cleaver doesn't think we should be voting out of anger. He thinks those people who voted against the bonus tax showed "courage" (not quoted above, but in the article), and that he and everyone else who voted in favor of it were "cowards." He doesn't think the financial services industry should be demeaned, because they are working with the government. But then, why did he say this:

In the hallway afterward, Cleaver said Liddy should have taken out his wallet and "thrown a dollar bill on the table and said, 'I quit.'"

So, Representative Cleaver said that we shouldn't be demeaning the financial services industry if they choose to work with us, and calls people who want them demeaned "cowards." But then, a few minutes later, he demands an act of public demeaning for AIG's chief. Am I the only one who is confused here?

This reminds me of President Obama's discussion of anger. First, he says:

"I don't want to quell anger," he said. "I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry."

Then, he issues a press release indicating he will sign the bonus tax bill when it reaches his desk. The only reason the bonus tax passed the House was because of public anger. So, to summarize:

  1. President Obama thinks people are right to be angry.
  2. President Obama does not want to quell anger
  3. President Obama is also angry
  4. President Obama will sign angry legislation.
Now, how exactly does this mesh-up with not "governing out of anger." If politicians are angry, if they think people are right to be angry, if they don't want to quell anger, and if they support angry legislation, then how are they not governing out of anger?

Here is an alternative theory. Rather than opposing governing out of anger in and of itself, perhaps politicians like Representative Cleaver and President Obama are annoyed that, for a little while, they were forced to govern out of our anger. They were pushed into publicly validating anger, and pushed into publicly validating angry legislation, because a high-profile stance against public anger last week would have made them both look really, really bad. Because of the public mood at the time, they were all but forced to validate the anger, declare themselves one of us, and then vote for some angry legislation.

When people aren't angry, politicians aren't responsive. Even President Obama and Representative Cleaver demonstrated this. They may not like what happened, but they ended up going along with it because they didn't feel like standing up to a bunch of angry Americans. To me, as a political activist, the lesson is that we should be generating as much anger as possible, all the time, because it is about the only thing that appears to make politicians in D.C. responsible to our concerns.

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

When People Aren't Angry, Politicians Aren't Responsive | 40 comments
We shouldn't govern out of anger or fear (4.00 / 1)
because we get things like the Iraq war.  
Only if there is no such thing as (4.00 / 12)
right or wrong.

The war was wrong. Stopping the Wall Street culture of corruption is right. There is a difference between them.

Emotions, like facts, are nothing more than information that we need to make good decisions. We ignore or repress them at our peril.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Excellent point, Sadie. (4.00 / 2)
We should be angry about what the wealthy did to America and Americans.  
[ Parent ]
if only (4.00 / 1)
If only the bill "stopped the Wall Street culture of corruption".  I'd support regulation that did that.

Sadly, that's not what the bonus tax is.

[ Parent ]
It's a step in the right direction. (4.00 / 1)
And taking a step is better than sitting on your hands.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
not really (4.00 / 1)
It's the government stepping in and canceling contracts that people don't like.  As much as I think the compensation in this situation is high, having the government arbitrarily and unilaterally nullify contracts is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.

The rule of law is important, and it's disappointing that so many people on this site show it so little respect.

[ Parent ]
Rule of law? (4.00 / 3)
There is nothing arbitrary about that law. These were firms that should have failed. We bailed them out because they were alleged to be too big to fail. It's not arbitrary to say that those firms should not be rewarding people exorbitantly, when many of them were the same people who caused those firms to collapse.  

The rule of law does not demand that contracts are never nullified. If the states did this, it would certainly be unconstitutional. But the rules for the federal government are not the same.  If you don't like that, suggest altering Article I Section 9.  

It does nothing for respect for the rule of law for people to make vague objections on its behalf that lack substance. It may have been unfair or unwise, but that's a different matter entirely.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
The rule of law does not demand that contracts are never nullified.

Correct.  But it does have specific ways that contracts can be nullified (renegotiation, bankruptcy, etc).  This bill is not one of them.  If accepting TARP funds was contingent on eliminating retention bonuses (as it should have been), that would have been fine.  But the government retroactively eliminating these bonuses because of public outcry IS arbitrary.  How is any present or future employee of AIG to know which parts of their employment contract the general public will get pissy about?  Can AIG employees trust their employment contracts at all any more?

Like I said, it's a dangerous precedent.  The fact that you're so willing to disregard the law in this case but so ardently support it in other cases is really intellectually dishonest.

[ Parent ]
Nonesense (4.00 / 1)
There are a number of potential objections to this - and they all fail:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/200...

Whether something is arbitrary depends on the connection between the alleged goal and the means used.  Whether it got on the agenda because of public outcry is irrelevant - otherwise the vast bulk of law enacted in response to popular pressure would be unconstitutional.  

Rule of law is a conclusion, not an argument.  If you want to claim I'm "disregarding the law" and "intellectually dishonest" you should point to a provision of the constitution, or legal doctrine, or any of the things that make up a legal argument. You have not done that yet.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
That article isn't the last say on the Constitutionality of the law, but even if the law happens to be Constitutional, it's hard to argue that it's not retroactively annulling employment contracts.

If you think doing that is a good thing, in general, then cool -- you're at least consistent.  But I happen to think that -- barring the established ways for modifying contracts -- that we should be upholding them.  I know that's not popular around here, but I think it's the only sensible way to go, regardless of whether it's the contract of a bigwig that makes $750K or a plumber that makes $20/hr.

Not only is this law bad policy, but it eliminates the ability of AIG to attract any competent employees -- who in their right mind would work for AIG at this point?  And why do we, the taxpayers, think it's a good idea to so cripple a business that we own 80% of?

[ Parent ]
"arbitrarily"? (4.00 / 1)
having the government arbitrarily and unilaterally nullify contracts is a very, very dangerous precedent to set.

Ummm....  What the hell was arbitrary about it? They voted to levy a high tax on income that was not deserved. A bunch of greedy assholes who brought down the whole economy are now siphoning more millions for themselves from the tax payers. That's wrong. There is nothing arbitrary about the decision to tax most of that money back.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
yes, arbitrarily. (0.00 / 0)
What the hell was arbitrary about it? They voted to levy a high tax on income that was not deserved.

Define "not deserved". It's arbitrary.  How many other wall street bankers were making money last year that wasn't deserved?  How many people in general make money that isn't deserved?

We can't let (largely uninformed) public sentiment about who's deserving of what compensation warp employment contracts after-the-fact.  That's totally absurd, and it's extremely disappointing that so many progressive think that this is a perfectly fine thing to do.

[ Parent ]
fuck them and fuck you (0.00 / 0)
My tax money is going to pay people who brought down the world economy. It's paying some guy more money in one year than I've seen in an entire lifetime. I didn't bring down the world economy, but I'm helping to pay 100 times what I make to someone who did. Do you think my anger and sense of injustice is arbitrary? You are obtuse.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Stepping in? (4.00 / 1)
We own that company, we just bought it with our own money. If the AIG execs disagree, let them sue us, their new bosses, the American people. A jury will sort it all out pretty quickly.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
uh (0.00 / 0)
So you think it's okay if owners of a company just change employment contracts of their employees whenever they want to?  Really?

Because that seems pretty at odds of the anti-big-business vibe I get from you.  

Or do you really mean that it's okay only if it's hurting someone that you approve of being hurt?  Because that would sure be intellectually dishonest, if that was the case.  And I think it is.

[ Parent ]
If the owner of a business (0.00 / 0)
catches an employee with his/her hand in the till, they have a duty to do something about it. And giving that employee a bonus is not it.



Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
. (0.00 / 0)
I imagine that having your "hand in the till" is a firable offense (assuming you're talking about stealing money from the company).  And contracts are written such that they can be terminated for such offenses.

The employees in question did nothing illegal, and their contracts cannot be simply broken for accepting the compensation to which they've been promised.

You really are grasping at straws here.

[ Parent ]
The executives (0.00 / 0)
wrote contracts giving themselves money that the corporation did not have. It wasn't their money to take.

As to whether or not that's having your hand in the till, again, I look forward to hearing what a jury has to say.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Not Exactly (4.00 / 3)
That's governing out of fear, ignorance and deceit.

Anger had virtually no part in it.

Fear is generally bad for governance.  Ignorance and deceit always are.

But anger?  You're using guilt-by-association to tar it with sins for which it's not responsible.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

[ Parent ]
That's kind of what I think, too. (0.00 / 0)
The elites are never angry, not really. They are far too cold for that.  

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Anger in Americans translates into (4.00 / 5)
Beware the anger of a patient man, a Bible proverb, no less.

Americans are often accused of complacency. Well, I don't see a lot of complacency at this point. What I do see is the pillaging of the present and future tax revenues of this nation. Personally, it looks like they are trying to turn the tax debts that we and our children will owe into history's biggest Collateralized Debt Obligation and hand it over to a fraction of a percent of the U.S. population with no strings attached. Add to that the massive unemployment, the poor and working class uninsured who live under the constant threat of bankruptcy, sickness and death, and the No Child Left Behind children who are all being left behind and you get a recipe for rage.

And the tent cities don't help.

This anger is here to stay. It is not going away. It demands change. And the sooner Washington realizes this and responds with some level of reason (i.e., adult behavior) to this anger, the better for all of us.

Love the aphorism (0.00 / 0)
which captures the current situation pretty exactly (though I see it attributed to John Dryden in my limited googling).

What these politicians don't recognize is that there has been a welling up of resentment in the public over the decades over the redistribution of income to the rich. This crisis has brought to a head the sheer greed and arrogance of the rich, their ability to manipulate the system and our politicians so that they keep getting richer no matter how they may fail, their completely parasitic relation to the American economy, and their ability to bring to ruin the larger economy.

What Americans seem to be willing to do at this point, given the overall complexity of the crisis, is to extend to the Obama team some slack so that it might deal with the problem. But the raw anger remains right beneath the surface.

The thing is, of course, it is highly likely that Obama's program will fail. When it does, and the public has been gouged for roughly a trillion dollars or more in order to clean up the mess on Wall Street, the aftermath will not be pretty. I'm sure we will be treated in the interim to any number of stories as to how the Wall Street gang have gamed the system for their own benefit, further fueling outrage. Failure at that point is going to burn everyone involved in the process, most definitely including Obama himself, whose honeymoon period will be well past its shelf date.  

[ Parent ]
Public anger is a (4.00 / 2)
powerful political force.  It can be used to create programs like the New Deal, and it can also be used to ram through disasters like the Iraq War.  The public aren't saints, they are often all too happy to lash out unthinkingly when they are angry.  They can be easily manipulated and channeled into faux-outrage activities.  

Nevertheless, the AIG bonuses are not a faux-outrage issue.  And the public outrage over the government bailout of Wall Street is not misguided, not when Paulson put out his dinky three page power grab, and sadly not now with Obama's Wall Street buddies Summers and Geithner.  Those who conflate bailout outrage with the desire to simply do nothing are simply being disingenuous.  Polls clearly showed at the time that the public was angry about the bailout, but also felt that something needed to be done.  It was the WAY it was done, a continuation of the trickle-down kabuki that Wall Street must never be pressed or undermined or have their power taken away, that produced a new anger.  And now this new anger may trust the government to do anything.  And, frankly, after seeing the Obama/Geithner plan I can't really say they are wrong or confused.  

? (4.00 / 2)
It can be used to create programs like the New Deal, and it can also be used to ram through disasters like the Iraq War.  The public aren't saints, they are often all too happy to lash out unthinkingly when they are angry.  They can be easily manipulated and channeled into faux-outrage activities.  

If you're suggesting that the public was easily manipulated into Iraq War, I'd disagree.  It took a rather long period where the bulk of both parties and the media misled the public and insisted that nuclear war would result from failing to act.

For my money, Iraq wasn't about anger - it was about deference to elites - which anger tends to weaken.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
I'd love to be able to agree with you about the Iraq war (0.00 / 0)
and I think it's absolutely right that the media had a great deal of complicity to the Iraq War run-up.  But let's not kid ourselves here.  That was a very scary period.  A lot of people didn't give a shit about whether Saddam was responsible for 9/11 or not.  Sure, polls were taken showing that they believed it, but they wanted to believe it.  I remember exactly the kind of rhetoric that was going on around water coolers and dinner tables back in 2003, and it wasn't about Saddam was responsible for 9/11.  It was about bombing the entire Middle East (save Israel) back to the Stone Age.  

Don't infantilize the public.  They have a sense of morality and justice, but public movements also do a fair amount of scapegoating.  That's just historical fact.  Public outrage is not always good.  Sometimes it finds its target in very dangerous places.  

But this ain't one of those times.  The public has it exactly right, and the media has their head in the fucking sand whining about populism.  

[ Parent ]
Infantilizing? (4.00 / 1)
I'm not infantilizing anyone. If people were so hell bent on a war based on scapegoating, the whole thing would have happened much easier. People were lied to repeatedly, by those supposedly conservative, liberal and neutral. That is a failure of our institutions, not our people. (Of course, I wish more people had done a better job at seeing through those lies.) They sold the war primarily about WMDs because they knew that was the best way to get public support.

Nor is any of this "just historical fact."  Trying to make sense of the motivations and actions of elites and the public at large is never a simple matter of fact. It's a construction, an interpretation.  I don't doubt what you heard at the water cooler. I do doubt the war would have happened if only those people were on board. There were plenty of people who felt war was necessary because of WMDs, who trusted the NYT and the Democratic Party.  I doubt we would have gone to war without all those people.


Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.

[ Parent ]
What I am saying is very simple (4.00 / 1)
Public outrage is not, by itself, simply a net positive.  It is a very powerful force that can either be used in good or bad ways.  Whether you think that the American public was "tricked" or not doesn't really matter.  I personally take a bit more dimmer view of human nature than you, but se la vie.  My original point was that the target of public outrage is also very important.  Public outrage taken alone is just a very very powerful force.  It's not positive or negative.  
[ Parent ]
What people are angry about is what matters (0.00 / 0)
I agree entirely. But while some people have suggested that anger is always dangerous, I don't think anyone has suggested that its always a positive. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
I'd rather get even than get angry (4.00 / 1)
Even if anger is sustainable, is that healthy? I suppose it's healthier for democracy than indifference, but for individuals, I don't think so.

To "get even", we need to either throw the bums out of office, or make incumbents so scared of that that they serve the public good, in spite of themselves. So, I would say (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) that given the moral quality of Congress and the administration, it's just fine with me if they govern out of fear. Fear, that is, of losing their office and the power that was entrusted to them by the public, which they so willingly sell out.

If we had a modern-day ostracism process, as I outline here, I believe we could make incumbents more afraid of insulting their constituents. A  bad report card (or 2 or 3), coming from fellow citizens, will have more weight than large quantities of expensive, vapid campaign TV ads. And best of all, an effective ostracism process would help us dump incumbents who can't do right by their incumbents.

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com

can't do right by their constituents (0.00 / 0)
not "can't do right by their incumbents"

435 Dem Primaries 2012
Coffee Party Usa
TheRealNews.Com
[ Parent ]
Anger is just fine when (4.00 / 3)
it is not directed at our masters.  Looks like Cleaver knows who butters his bread.  Until we honestly confront the debilitating effects of great wealth upon our democracy, politians will continue to bow to their real masters.

Damn right I'm angry.  How many jobs must be lost for their greed?  The arrogance of the AIG executives knows no bounds.  

Not rage, justified anger directed toward making real and funamental changes.

I think Tom has this formula (4.00 / 1)
about right.  It's not so much that popular anger, per se, is a good thing.  But it is almost always a good thing when the anger is directed squarely at congress and other powerful interests who would otherwise dictate policy altogether.  
[ Parent ]
Liddy throwing the $1 on the table (0.00 / 0)
That's not demeaning as much as it is Jason DeSantis or whatever his name is being defiant. It is saying, "I am angry, too, so I will leave you with the mess for demeaning me". Cleaver is saying there that it would have been better to be angry that to be cheerful and cooperative on the surface the way Liddy was. That bolsters Chris's point.

This also gets to the House vs. the Senate. The House is supposed to be responsive to popular anger. The Senate takes more to move in that way.  The existence of this roadblock caused Obama to think over his possible support of the bonus tax.

Obama said, "I'm angry". But in part he was elected because his first response to anything isn't to get so angry that he goes off the cliff. The community organizer image means that this is someone who will listen day to day without your having to get steaming mad and who will bring out issues of your everyday life.  

Darkness has a hunger that's insatiable, and lightness has a call that's hard to hear.  

It's nice to be listened to (4.00 / 1)
But effective action is more important, no?

And I'm not sure that demeaning the advocates of marijuana legalization, which is the only sane policy option on offer, is the best way to demonstrate a capacity to listen, eh?

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  

[ Parent ]
When you're dealing… (0.00 / 0)
...with bad faith actors, it's sometimes necessary to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Basically, we're in extraordinary economic times and the people who got us there are still holding all the cards--and they know it. That's why there's all this appeasement talk about the financial services industry being willing to "work with us" when, quite frankly, the idea that finance folk would even think about bonuses at this point is proof that they're not willing to "work with us." So what to do? This collective rage only proves the public is watching closely. In this particular instance I don't think the anger is misdirected, so channeling it isn't a bad idea. Of course, that's not always the case. (Anyone care to join me out back for a flag-burning ceremony?)

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
Cleaver's touching (4.00 / 1)
concern not to "demean" the Wall Street fraudsters who brought the economy to ruins could not show more clearly where his true allegiances lie.

In Krugman's latest column he makes a simple, basic point (which almost defines Krugman's writing style). Up until the early eighties, the finance/insurance industry constituted roughly 4% of the GDP. Throughout that period, it was able to provide all the money and credit necessary to grow the American economy at an extremely healthy rate. After the deregulation of the eighties, it grew to its current size of 8% of the GDP -- double the size. There is simply no reason to believe that it has added any further value to the economy. Indeed, the current crisis demonstrates that it has only added great additional risk.

In short, the finance industry in its current form is a parasite on the American economy. It holds a position in our economy for which it is completely unworthy. It should be largely dismantled, and reduced to something much more resembling its previous size.

And yet the overriding concern of Cleaver is that these industry players not be "demeaned". In fact, of course, most of them should simply be fired, sooner or later, as hindrances to the robustness and stability of the larger economy. As smart as they imagine themselves to be, and insist to others that they are, they are worse than obsolete, because they never served a useful purpose.

Indeed, (0.00 / 0)
it might almost be said that in the finance industry, it's particularly the "smart" ones -- the smooth, clever operators whose entire role seems to be to find ways of exploiting loopholes in the system to introduce further gambles that can be turned into bubbles -- who need to be fired.

If the finance industry is returned to the stewardship of the dull and staid, it would seem to be a major step in the right direction.  

[ Parent ]
In short (4.00 / 1)
if every single quant on Wall Street were fired, would we be better or worse off as a nation?

My guess is, far better off.

[ Parent ]
Almost all legislation comes from anger, real or threatened. (4.00 / 1)
And confusing the motivation with the intent is a huge error in logic.

You want me to name a post office after the town's most beloved Little League coach? Well, get lost. It's ridiculous. It's a waste of time and money. I won't do it.

Angry? Oh. Well then, nevermind. I'll introduce the bill.

Need me to lift the import duty on cyclopentanone? Why? Because you need it for your business and you're outraged that the arbitrary tariff on it puts you at a competitive disadvantage? Oh, OK.

Outraged that sex offenders are buying homes near schoolyards? That tainted food products are endangering children? That imaginary earmarks are being set aside for a fake levitating train line you made up in your moronic head that supposedly runs from Disneyland to the Moonlight Bunny Ranch?

Gosh, your anger is so sensible and patriotic! It's odd, because your anger at having Wall Street banksters privatize and pocket public money that was supposedly dispatched under emergency circumstances to save the world was so unreasonable. It just didn't seem like the usual you I know, Mr. and Mrs. America.

Anger Has Always Been One Of The Potent Forms To Bring About Change (4.00 / 2)
Anger stoked at the injustices surrounding us throughout  history has always played  a major role: The Revolutionary War, Emancipation of Slavery, The End of The Gilded Age, Labor Rights, The Civil Rights Movement, The Feminist Movement, The Anti-War movement of the 60's, the list is much bigger.

I think the problem now is that--while we have a lot of excellent progressive leaders fighting for a more just and fairer country--I do not see to many leaders that have have a national stage.  More importantly, I do not see too many leaders with a big following, channeling that energy into a more effective stategy. (Because while blind angry populist rage is good--look at France's citizens--its organic origins still need leadership and a voice.)  I too often, still see, mainly, Jessie Jackson & Al Sharpton using their leadership qualities; and their results are usually pretty effective for the African-American community. Of course, they are leaders for other causes.

Understandly, the netroots has improved some of the strategies and tactics of past radicals and progressive leaders. However, I think there are still important lessons from the 50's and 60's.  The civil rights movement, in my humble opinion, still stands out as one of the most potent movements in history.

We need leaders outside of government, listening to that anger, building it too, then channeling into smart strategies and tactics to bring about change.  The movie Milk showed how Harvey Milk really understood the different levels of power at a grassroots level. And, how it be used to bring change at higher levels.  Martin Luther King, Jr. certainly used anger, but transcended into a more formidable movement.

I do not see a Niebuhr, a King, a Williams Jenning Bryant, a John Dewey, etc.

We will never get our desired outcomes without stong, powerful leaders outside of government.  I think the different progressive institutions and leaders need to come together around, for example, say 5 (a number focuses our energies better--it could be 10) major issues that are most pressing to bring about a more social democracy.

We need strong and leaders who are great communicators.
People are looking for leaders outside of government. Too many voices, not enough leaders.

I think PDA should be listed under liberal institutions.
Tom Hayden, with his battle scars and experience, has a lot to offer.


When People Aren't Angry, Politicians Aren't Responsive | 40 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox