Living with anger

My daughter is quick to anger and, indeed, often seems to enjoy rousing herself to that state. My repeated line to her, which really doesn't seem to have much effect, is that "anger is not a nice place to be." I thought of that when I read P. David Hornik's American Spectator article in which he tries to divine why so many on the Left keep forgiving terrorists, rather than condemning and defending against them. He has several ideas, but the on that struck me so forcibly was his third idea:

Subconscious identification with the aggressor. This is clearly the most problematic category. Many leftists, especially more radical ones, are known to be people who nurse anger at their parents, and at their society as an extension of their parents. Leftists who seem stuck on the idea that we would 'do the same thing' if we were Palestinians, or Muslims, are the most suspect of harboring such feelings. The most virulent Israeli leftists have been known, indeed, to express such feelings openly when the victims of attacks are settlers, a group they hate. While not encountering such sentiments firsthand, in a couple of cases -- the most socially problematic -- I've sensed them lurking.

One of the things we often talk about, of course, is the "angry Left." It has the hallmark of a cute phrase, sort of like moonbat, or MSM -- simple shorthand for a group. But the Left is, in fact, extremely angry. It's anger seethes and bubbles. It appears in Senate hearings, in letters to the editor, in street protests, in blogs, in everything MoveOn.org does. This is an angry, angry group. And perhaps the reason they're so forgiving of the terrorists is that, if they didn't have a modicom of self-control, they'd do exactly the same thing. They're not angry at the terrorists, they're envious. So they don't really want to confront the terrorists, they want to see the terrorists act as the proxies against the capitalists and Jews and the whatevers who so incite their own anger. Talking to Technorati: Democrats, Anger