As a clinical psychologist, I want to comment on a recent pre-debate posting by bloggist Mo Rocca titled "Obama's Anger Problem." Mr. Rocca writes: "Obama may be the candidate with the anger problem -- a problem in that it seems he can't get angry. Or is it that he doesn't think he can let us see him get mad? Whatever it is, it's a problem that could cost him the election."
Rocca raises an important point about anger: not just Senator Obama's anger (or perceived lack thereof), but how we Americans tend to deal with anger in general. Americans are very angry. There is no shortage of things to be angry about: the Iraq war; unemployment; the faltering economy; a weak dollar; the sinking housing market; rising gas prices; out of control health care costs; lost standing in the world; terrorism and much more. Anger is the postmodern American zeitgeist, the spirit of our times. It is a feeling which at once divides and unites us. Whether we admit it or not, Americans are an irate bunch. We live not only in an "age of anxiety," as astute observers of the twentieth-century psyche noted, but presently in an era of rage. And, as I write in my book Anger, Madness, and the Daimonic, this festering rage underlies much of the psychopathology, interpersonal hostility, and devastating violence we witness today, both here at home and abroad. If our present presidential candidates do have problems with anger, they personify our collective anger problem. They mirror our own inner ambivalence around anger.
Anger is an extraordinarily thorny emotion. The reason it is so perplexing is that anger is a two-sided sword: Anger can kill and destroy or it can create and empower. This is what I mean by anger being daimonic. The real challenge of anger or rage is learning how to deal with it well. Despite their dangerous and destructive aspects, anger, and at times even rage, are vital, primal, indispensable human passions. Sometimes we need to get angry. To defend ourselves or those we love. To take a stand about something we value deeply. To overcome obstacles thrown in our path. To fight against evil and ignorance. To express righteous indignation when warranted. Anger, when channeled constructively, imparts impetus, strength, courage, power and resolve. This upside of anger is acknowledged by Buddhism, for example. The spiritually naïve notion of totally eliminating the experience of anger is not only unrealistic in my view, but totally unadvisable. Even Jesus of Nazareth could get angry when necessary.
Anger is not inherently negative. It is a natural and necessary function. The main problem with anger is its mismanagement. Managing anger isn't about drugging or intellectualizing it away, or transcending it through enlightenment. Anger management--rather than mismanagement--means learning to accept, acknowledge, understand, and deal more consciously and constructively with our anger or rage. It's not about not having anger. It means being able to feel and express anger appropriately rather than chronically controlling, denying or repressing it. Anger management also means not allowing rage to impulsively and destructively drive our decisions and actions; nor using it to manipulate, bully and intimidate others to get our own way.
Some pundits have previously criticized Senator McCain for being too hot-headed, volatile, angry. And now, people wonder whether Senator Obama could have the opposite problem: being too nice, polite, controlled, unwilling or unable to get angry when he should. I can't know the answer to that question, because I don't know either candidate personally. Like the rest of us, all I get to see is their politically polished public persona. But I can say that this concern is a classic conundrum when it comes to anger. As a culture, we are conditioned to repress much of our anger and rage. Anger is viewed as a primarily negative, evil emotion, best kept buried and hidden from ourselves and others. But chronically concealing anger doesn't make it disappear. It makes it even more powerful and dangerous. This is one of the costly emotional prices we pay for being "civilized" and "good" people. Rage is an instinctual, defensive reaction to severe stress or physical threat, an autonomic reflex we humans share with so-called lower animals. This congenital capacity has been experimentally demonstrated by both Walter Cannon (1915) and Hans Selye (1946), and referred to as the "fight or flight" response. It serves as a vital, first-line physiological defense for the very survival of the species. Any threat to the continued physical (or psychological) existence or well-being of the organism will elicit the impulse to escape the threatening situation, or, when escape is impossible, to physically or verbally defend itself by attacking the perceived source of that threat.
Senator McCain's harrowing history of having been captured behind enemy lines during the Vietnam war, brutally tortured, beaten and imprisoned for years, would be profoundly traumatic for anyone. How could someone not feel angry about being the victim of such abusive, inhumane treatment? What helped him survive? Perhaps precisely what helped John McCain persevere his horrible ordeal as a prisoner of war was partly his anger, his feisty, belligerent refusal to give up the fight for life. But there are those that wonder whether McCain has adequately come to terms with those demons from his past. Senator Obama grew up as half African- American in a society where racial prejudice and discrimination remain pervasive. Racism--rooted in a fundamental fear, resentment and defensive denigration of those we deem different, and therefore, threatening--and the racial animus that accompany it, is among the foremost evils Americans still face. As detailed in the classic text Black Rage, written by two black psychiatrists in 1968, such rampant racism remains a steady source of anger for most African-Americans. So Senator Obama too certainly has his share of mistreatment, loss and injustice to be angry about. It could well be that, to his great credit, Senator Obama's courageous and already racially healing run for the presidency may itself be an expression of his positive redirection of rage.
But Obama and McCain appear to deal with their anger differently. McCain tends to be cantankerous, fiery, incendiary, ornery and reactive. Obama cool, courteous, calm, charming and collected. In tonight's presidential debate, Senator McCain repeatedly attacked Obama, calling him "naïve," "stubborn," and imputing a fundamental lack of understanding on foreign policy, while Senator Obama smiled broadly at the blows. Under fire, Obama often agreed with the pugnacious McCain, remaining respectful and somewhat deferential. This all begs the following crucial questions: Is Senator McCain's anger an asset? Or a liability? Is it primarily a source of strength and passion? Or is it a ticking time-bomb, threatening to furiously explode at the slightest provocation? Is Senator McCain in control of his anger? Or does his anger control him? Is he bitter and vengeful about his fate, or has he accepted and come to terms with it? Will he be thoughtful and reflective in a crisis, or reactive and impulsive? And, regarding Senator Obama, is his anger so repressed, dissociated or over-controlled that he may be incapable of getting appropriately angry and aggressive when called for by circumstance? If he can't stand up to his political enemies, how will he handle hostile world leaders? Or respond to unprovoked acts of aggression or terrorism? Will he be able to muster the power and strength of his own aggression? Or will he prove too passive, pacific, politically correct? Is Senator Obama able to recognize evil and resist or even violently attack it when needed? Or is he too naïve, laid back or optimistic for his--and the country's--own good? These seem to be some of the questions the American people want answers to in this historic election. Another question Mo Rocca's piece suggests might be: Do either or both of our presidential candidates need anger management? My answer is: Maybe so. But then, who doesn't today?
