Why All the Bitterness?

There recently have been statements and editorials critical of the strident and sometimes hostile outbursts occurring on the web and at public rallies across the nation. Many have expressed dismay at the growing animosity in public debates. Recent harsh comments concerning Ted Kennedy and his legacy are a case in point.

It is my opinion that one reason for the rising hostility in political discourse is the centralization of power in Washington. When major policy decisions are made by people far removed from those affected by them, it can often be a source of resentment to those who must live by those policies. Insofar as those decisions are seen as made by others (which is usually the case), there is a natural resentment on the part of those burdened by those policies. This resentment is exacerbated by the sense that there is little, if any, chance that those policies can be affected by those unhappy with them.

If one is unhappy with a decision made by their city council, it is easy enough to go down to city hall and protest, or hold a rally in the park. There is a greater sense of efficacy on the part of the citizens because they feel they can have an impact on local policy. However, the further one travels from local government, the more difficult it becomes for citizens to affect policy. And, the less affect citizens can have on policy, the greater the potential for frustration and bitterness.

The chance that a dissatisfied or disgruntled citizen can have any impact on federal policy is infinitesimal. This frustration can be offset somewhat if the unhappy citizen is able to find a group that shares his dissatisfaction and so add his ire to theirs. Often though, the frustration borne by the unhappy citizen is shared by the interest group. This is because the same obstacle that frustrates the citizen can frustrate the interest group. Only a large, well funded interest group, such as the AMA or the Urban League can have any hope of affecting policy. And, when the individual throws his lot in with a large interest group, he soon finds that he has as little ability to affect the policy of that interest group as he did with the government. If, on the other hand, the individual chooses to throw his lot in with a smaller interest group better tailored to his grievance, he soon finds to his dismay that his voice is linked to a group with only minimal ability to affect policy beyond holding rallies and issuing press releases.

I believe that the frustration, bitterness, and sometimes plain petulance on display in various rallies and protests across the nation is a result of the growing sense of powerlessness on the part of communities and individuals to influence policy decisions that affect them. People have come to believe that they must yell louder and display greater outrage to have any chance of being noticed. One does not have to yell or wave his arms in a small room to be listened to. Like the fan who dresses and acts outrageously at a game hoping that, if he does so, the camera might be more inclined to focus on him, if only for a moment, protesters hope that if they yell loudly enough, or behave shockingly enough, their voices might be heard; if only for a moment. The impotence of individuals and small groups to affect national policy is a major source of the bitterness on display at many rallies. This bitterness, and the hostility borne by it, is something the federal government, by it's very nature, cannot address.