When I think of Mike, the term 'passive aggressive' always comes to mind.

I looked at the photos of Dean's so-called rage and anger -- give me a break. If this is the worst these 'compassionate conservatives' can dig up on Dean, we've got the election in the bag.

I'll take a pugnacious governor over an incompetent turkey any day.

Yeah, you'd think that they could find better examples of Dean's "rage". Dean actually has quite a few odd expressions that he shows from time to time--the apparently angry ones seem to be more personal mannerism than evidence of an uneven temper. Bushies are actually used to this "angry" label. They tried to stick it on McCain when Bush was trying to get the nomination. They must have heard some pollster some time say that voters don't like angry people.

The problem with the "anger industry" is not that people are angry at Bush and badly want to defeat him in an election: this is actually a sign that people believe in our system and care about politics. Let's not confuse vigorous political activity with anarchy or unhealthy immoderation. Rather the problem is that but that people who are members of the broad political elite (i.e. people who pay attention to politics, vote, and may conribute to an election campaign) have become consumed with a war between pundits. The mock motto: "If I don't blog, the terrorists win" is the perfect parody of the anger industry, not because political blogging per se is stupid or useless, but because many people with the time and means to contribute something important have neglected the things that are actually political: ideas, policies, electoral victories.

Of course, I think that there are many great blogs out there also. I visit 2-3 news sites and the Washington Post print edition each day for my political news, and I still find things in my daily blog read that I don't see in the news. Cable news has contributed much more to the stupidity of our political discourse in my opinion. E.g.: CNN had Al Franken on to comment on Limbaugh's drug problem, and Chris Matthews puts Ann Coulter on his show all the time just to talk about the issues. These people have never in their lives come up with an original political idea or solution to any policy problem! At least Franken can poke fun at himself.

No offense, but I don't think comparing concerned lefties such as Franken to nutcases like Ann Coulter is very useful.

I think the so-called "anger industry" is important because these books persuade otherwise ignorant citizens to get really fired-up about issues that may already be important to them, but that they hadn't previously heard voiced in layman's terms. I mean, before Michael Moore and Al Franken started putting out books, what average American read anything other than whatever was recommended that week by the Oprah bookclub? When was the last time a boring political science book made it to the bestseller list?

Never, because most people don't have the patience to thumb through an exhaustively detailed account of laws and bills and clauses, some nerdy lawyer's/admiral's/former-governor's take on some thoroughly unexciting experience told in utter monotony. Perhaps it's sad, but nobody but scholars and history buffs give a shit.

And even though the stuff of Al Franken and Michael Moore is by no means 100% (or, as the case may be, 50%) accurate, even if it's totally sensationalized for effect, it gets attention, it gets people interested in the current state of affairs at home in this here U.S. of A. It does much, much less harm than good.

I don't, however, think that the books in question should be grouped together to fall under one big all-inclusive "anger umbrella", because the Franken, for example, is extremely well-written and humorous, while the Hannity, for example, is a talentless, grammatically-incorrect, direct transcript of his radio show. The Franken stands alone as a book, in and of itself, while I believe the Hannity may have been thrown together -- last minute, post 9/11 -- as a quick reinforcer of the uneducated masses' diehard belief in guns, ammo, and blind patriotism. But I'm biased, on both a literary and political level. And I digress.

My point is that, anyway you slice it, anger is better than apathy.

I like to make fun of Oprah as much as the next guy, but most of the books on her list are of higher quality than the books that Ann Coulter and Michael Moore READ, much less write.

Have you read books like Slander, Stupid White Men, Lying Liars (or whatever it is)? They are not about "the issues", however 'layman' they may be. They are smear-books about thier rhetorical opponents, or chronicles of inflammatory anecdotes--about pundits and other obnoxious people on the fringes of either side. There are some others, like Hannity's book, which talk about some politial issues. These kinds of books may activate some constituencies, but they do it by conjuring up a political battle of ideologcal light versus darkness, rather than a politics of competing interests. This may make people more interested in winning elections, but it makes them less interested in making good policies. As a result you get legislation like the Bush administration has been pushing through over the last year--spending that is perverse from a conservative policy point of view, but designed to keep the "right people" in power. As a further result, these newly activated voters actually become the most naive citiens of all, since they interpret every political question as a mortal battle between good and evil.

I have no problem with heated political rhetoric and even anger, but if it is to be healthy it must be an anger that is rooted in basic human interests rather than ideological crusade or ad hominem demonization of TV and radio personalities.

As for Al Franken, I agree that he is still funny, mainly because he can still make fun of himself while he takes shots at others. I also think that Michael Moore is more responsible than Ann Coulter. But I also happen to agree with Moore and Franken on more political issues, so the important point I want make is that they all leave much to be desired as popular political writers.

Bess,

Thanks for taking the time to post a comment. While I would agree with you that anger is better than apathy, I am not sure those are the only options. I would like to see more writers that evoke passion without rage and reason without aleination. A more difficult prescription of course, but also more effective. I do think the popular left, Franken, Moore et al provide more reasonable arguments, engage in fewer ad hominem attacks, and that their writing is better, but alas it does come up a bit short. I would also add that I think the anger is better than not responding at all to the Coulters and O'Reillys. Fair and Balanced don't ya know.