By Len Zheleznyak
When I was a child my father often read to me the stories of the Olympians. One of the greatest rivalries in those stories was between a brother and sister, Ares and Athena. Athena was born fully formed from the mind of Zeus and was the goddess of wisdom and war. Ares was conceived in spite and born to anger. He was the god of murder and war.
Theirs was a conflict between rage and reason. They were polar opposites.
RAGE VS REASON
Athena was a defender. Her symbol was a shield, the fabled aegis. Athena was a strategist, a thinker, a planner. If she battled it was for justice, though she preferred peaceful settlements over violence.
Ares was quite different. He represented the lust for blood. His symbol was the spear, an offensive weapon. He fought simply for the thrill of killing, justice be damned. He marched to war with his sister Eris (Strife) and his children Phobos (Panic) and Deimos (Rout).
Athena was worshiped in Athens, a democracy. Ares was worshiped in Sparta, a military oligarchy.
Sparta (Ares) fought and won a war against Athens (Athena), installed the government of Thirty Tyrants, and then initiated a blood purge in which 1500 Athenians were put to death without trial. Democracy in Athens never fully recovered.
Why the lengthy background on Greek mythology and history? Because the conflict didn’t end with Sparta conquering Athens. In our modern political climate rage is still at war with reason, and, sadly, it appears rage is winning.
THE BATTLE CONTINUES
Research psychologists have discovered much about anger in general and political anger in particular.
For example, we know that as anger mounts into rage, people tend to see things in simplistic either/or categories, black and white. I’m right! You’re wrong!
We also know that acting out of anger fuels more anger, acting out of rage fuels more rage.
What’s worse, we’ve also learned that when anger is combined with politics, anger causes many people to assimilate information in ways that support their biases and prejudices. Angry people are less likely to accept alternative points of view, or even listen to them.
Politicians understand this toxic mix and have sparked anger and rage as means of achieving their goals. Why? Because it’s far easier than reason and persuasion.
If politicians can make you angry, consistently, frequently, then they create a self-reinforcing cycle of anger that helps them. Your ability to think about a problem, critically, coolly, in a detached way, is subverted by your anger, which prevents you from absorbing information that might contradict your biases.
Bottom line: Politicians don’t want you thinking. They want you raging.
MARCHES & ABORTION, ARES & ATHENA
Three examples from our modern politics illuminate the phenomena I am describing:
- The Women’s March
- The Covington High School March for Life incident
- Abortion
In an effort to discredit the Women’s March, opposing partisans have used the anti-Semitic actions of a few to spark anger towards everyone marching, the vast majority of whom don’t hate Jews. Doesn’t matter. Every other important issue raised by the Marchers has been eclipsed by angry accusations of support for Jew haters.
Similarly, in an effort to discredit the politics of the current President, a heavily edited and decontextualized video of teenage boys wearing red MAGA hats was used to reinforce the idea that the President’s supporters must be racist because the President himself must be racist.
Abortion is perhaps the best example. The epithets hurled by each side—baby killer, woman hater, etc.—render any kind of reasoned discussion impossible. When everyone believes that all parties to a debate are either baby killers or woman haters, the only option is total war followed by complete victory over the enemy.
While fueling anger and rage is convenient for politicians, there is a dark side that we ought not forget. The victims of anger often become resentful. They rightfully feel maligned and likely won’t agree to the prescriptions or solutions offered by those who use anger against them.
They may themselves start to become angry at their political opponents and the cycle of anger to rage can lead to violence. That’s not what any of us should want.
Will we go the way of Ares followed by strife, panic, and finally rout? Or will we choose to follow Athena, and choose to use our reason? Our answers to these questions determine our future, so let us think well and answer carefully.
Len Zheleznyak is a business executive, immigrant from the former Soviet Union, husband, father of two empowered little girls, and a lover of all things in outdoor Colorado.
What if one side of that debate are in FACT killing babies? Would that not make them “baby-Killers”? If so, perhaps it is not the speak-easy approach to actually say so, but it is still in fact true. How then would you approach people with a lust for the the blood and death of the unborn? How do you reasonably discuss the issue with those who have no reason other than convenience and murder itself?
Any thoughts?
The purpose of using the abortion issue as an example was really not about abortion. I can certainly understand the passion of both sides of the issue. The question is, will you use reason (Athena) or rage (Ares) to attempt to find a solution? All two often I have seen both sides throw invective, use derision, enflame passions, and use emotion to mobilize political will. But, using anger with moral indignation makes us incapable of listening to the other side.
For me the abortion debate is just the most visible example of both sides joining the cult of rage and abandoning reason. and persuasion.
This is I believe the actual Speakeasy way:
“We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.” -Abraham Lincoln
You don’t… There is no politically correct way to address murder of babies.
Len; I have noticed today both parties represent big government spending and a active offensive military. In truth there is little difference between the parties. They create these arguments like border wall, flag burning etc to try to show a difference between the two parties. When in reality they are more like dogs returning to eat their own vomit and only care about themselves but succeed in getting the village idiot upset and rageful. If either cared about the citizens they would make sure the government workers and their families were getting paid for the work they are required to perform. They would not ask someone to be the last person to die in Afganistan after 18 years.
” How do you reasonably discuss the issue with those who have no reason other than convenience and murder itself?”
“You don’t… There is no politically correct way to address murder of babies.”
Wade into the messiness maintaining intellectual integrity.
1 Sam 15- and God said: Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants,
Mr Rogers and Ms. Garciella have perhaps demonstrated what Len was articulating. When we process from a lens of anger we occlude our ability to process fully. Convenience is a great word, it paints a picture of someone that wants to go see a show but due to her pregnancy the popcorn results in heartburn, no worries. We’ll stop and have an abortion beforehand, then all will be well…..rather than a woman or couple that is overwhelmed by their pregnancy. A baby presents consequences that don’t appear to have any upside, in fact compounds their current circumstance that is essentially all downside. They lack support, resource, perhaps they don’t believe they would even manage the ability to care about much less for this baby, in short they are desperate, overwhelmed—>hopeless. That’s before we toss in some of the more horrible real life examples of how pregnancies come to be.
I know, tell them they are a baby murderer. Then they’ll see things with correct clarity…..
The opportunity is to wade into what “convenience” really means & looks like. Then address that, with supportive actions, so that non-abortion appears to be a realistic, perhaps a rewarding, choice.
Stop hurling insults, out of anger, and start building/supporting a better choice. Then and only then will “we” have the credibility to suggest qualifying what is & is not justifiable.
11 year old raped– by a family member or members? clearly there’s a political justification for ensuring abortion is to remain available.
A couple or individual that made poor choices and isn’t willing to bear all the consequences-there’s a plan or life validating option for that too.
Don’t descend into identity vilification, rise up to validation of hope.