That anger should belong to the noble parts of the soul goes back to Plato. He distinguishes between the cognizing part, the desiring part and the angry part of the soul. The thymos, as it is called in ancient Greek, is responsible for the striving for recognition. The thymos is awakened whenever somebody feels violated in his value and self-esteem as a human being.
The thymos has acquired an important function in the postmodern anger cultures of our time. In the midst of the groundlessness of relativism and permanent change, the self-enchantment of the angry person becomes a new foundation. Petty personal anger can be turned into holy wrath if it acquires a political and moral dimension.
Those who know how to incite and channel this anger attract attention. And those who know how to direct it gain power over people. Anger becomes a value, a kind of commodity to be exploited . The angry masses are the force of nature of modernity. Being able to incite them and set them in motion is the power of populist politics.
There is an important distinction between right-wing and conservative politics. Conservative politics is concerned with the maximum containment of anger because it does not want to shape developments by leaps and bounds but in a considered, step-by-step manner. Right-wing politics, by contrast, is revolutionary, it needs public mass anger because it wants to change or even destroy the system in power.
I've been saying it for years: MAGA Republicans are NOT conservatives. They're radicals. They seek to destroy, not to conserve.
Or... As John Lydon (Syd Vicious) put it, Anger is an energy
I'd be angry too if some dumb shit was beating the dust out of their carpet over my freshly washed sheets
You might find it interesting to watch the video below.
In the latest episode from Uncommon Knowledge, Sir Roger Scruton, a formally trained political philosopher, talks about his life and the events he’s witnessed that led him to conservatism. He first embraced conservatism after witnessing the leftist student protests in France in May 1968. During the ensuing riots in Paris, more than three hundred people were injured. Scruton walked away from this event with a change in worldview and a strong leaning toward conservatism. Visits to communist- controlled Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1979 cemented his preference for conservatism and his distaste for the fraud of communism and socialism, initiating a desire to do something about it. From thereon he dedicated himself to helping organize underground seminars for the young people oppressed behind the iron curtain.
Thank you, but a few month ago I read Roger Scruton's book "Conservatism. Ideas in profile". I agree with some of his points, but I disagree when he treats classic liberalism (especially market liberalism) as an element of Conservatism, in the way Reagan or Maggie Thatcher did (whom he admires)
@Thibaud70 No, he rather criticised Thatcher; he appreciated what she stood for as a conservative, but he argues that she never used the conservative framework to organize her overall political strategy. Instead she organised around market economics, which was not always effective in the social, cultural, and legal areas. That was his take.
"There is an important distinction between right-wing and conservative politics. Conservative politics is concerned with the maximum containment of anger because it does not want to shape developments by leaps and bounds but in a considered, step-by-step manner. Right-wing politics, by contrast, is revolutionary, it needs public mass anger because it wants to change or even destroy the system in power."
By this definition, I have difficulty naming a "conservative" politician. The right-wing rules the party.
Correct. True conservatives are a species on the brink of extinction. Sad.
MAGA-ism isn't conservative, neither are libertarians
@DenoPenno As do I
@Thibaud70 I don't believe some of these political categories are mutually exclusive. There's a certain amount of crossover.
@TheoryNumber3 Of course, there's always crossover and grey areas in culture and politics. But all political scientists I know who have written about the situation of the left agree that there are two types of it: 1.-the universalist left based on the ideas and values of the Enlightenment (who favor equality and color-blindness), and 2.- the postmodern identitarian left, whose proponents explicitly reject universalism and prefer policies based on identity groups and strategic essentialism; equity instead of equality). A very good book about these two varieties of the Left is Yascha Mounk's "The identity trap" (no, he's not a right-wing guy who hates the "woke" !