Why Are We So Angry?
It’s probably the fault of toddlers, but the habit of asking “why” has fallen badly out of fashion in recent years. In fact, when it comes to anything in the increasingly ubiquitous realm of politics, questions in general have seen their stock price take a hit.
This is a shame, but it is also a natural consequence of allowing our national dialogue to devolve into tribal warfare.
Questions denote uncertainty, and lacking ready-made opinions is not rewarded in our current cultural dynamic. Being slow to make up your mind might be alright when you’re discussing a traditional Democrat or Republican politician, but not when your subject is a Fascist or a Socialist, a criminal or a traitor. You don’t find your way to the right side of those arguments. You’re in or you’re out.
The problem is apparent across the political spectrum, and basic attempts at understanding are now synonymous with betrayal. A question like “What is it about the Executive Order on immigration that makes you so angry?” is treated with the same type of apocalyptic disgust on the Left as asking “Why is it again that you think Democrats want to take all your guns away?” would produce on the Right. Neither question would lead to a productive conversation where reality would be the arbiter.
We lose something by this. Because a productive discussion, shorn of the idea that facts don’t matter when indignation and virtue signaling will do, would be useful in both of these cases.
People have gotten the message. Unless you want to practice getting yelled at, then there is no value in asking probing questions. So nobody does. And we’re left bumbling around in the dark on our biggest issues, because an honest and level-headed debate is simply not possible.
The reason why chronic hysteria stifles questions and conversation among reasonable people is that the social cost is so high. If you have a friend who works with undocumented immigrants, posting a stray remark on Facebook that wonders aloud whether there might be some merit to a country having functional borders presents a far higher chance of you losing that friend than of anything of positive value resulting from the question. The cost-benefit analysis makes no sense. And so, ever more often, curious minds keep their mouths closed.
There are any number of reasons that might be proposed as the cause of this roadblock to open discussion. Maybe it’s social media, and the instant-shaming that goes along with it. Maybe it’s our increased prioritization of empathy, and we see questions through the lens of how a particular group would be made to feel, rather than whether there is anything to be gained by the asking.
Whatever the cause, the result is a problem. It may be the problem. When Centrists refrain from discussion, the only voices we hear tend to be the most fanatical. And the result is a dangerously polarized public debate where it looks as if everyone in the country has gone insane. All this at a time when those on the Left continue to flock to coastal cities, and the vagaries of technology and trade continue to eviscerate the traditional lifestyles of the rest of the country. Despite (or because of) unprecedented access to information, our mutual understanding is in the gutter. If we can’t have frank discussions with each other even within our own silos, it’s hard to see a clear path forward.
Asking questions to get after the roots of an idea is the baseline necessity of a functional democracy. We do not survive by dogma. No one in our society ought ever to refrain from seeking clarification based on the premise that a belief people hold with passion is a correct one. If it’s a good idea, they can explain it. If they simply rant and rave, then it’s a good bet they haven’t thought it through.
If we want an informed and even tacitly rational society, more questions need to be asked by people who do not exist at the extremes of political opinion. We just have to hope that there are enough of them out there willing to risk losing a few friends in order to get that done.
