In Defense of (Freddie's) Anger

Freddie comes out of hiding to explain why he is not blogging.

...and since I am still egoist enough to assume that some care-- there are many reasons I could tell you for my stopping, and most of them true, but ultimately it comes down to simply this: I am incapable of writing on the Internet without becoming an asshole. This fact has asserted itself to me again and again. And while I believe the blogosphere is a narrow-minded and vulgar space, there is no excuse for my own vulgarity, my own lack of compassion, my own failure. I have tried reform; I have tried rededication; I have tried genre and tonal shifts. Sooner or later I revert to my hands, this keyboard, and my anger.

Despite this, TAE suggests that obviously brilliant people like Freddie, especially those on the Left who are effectively available to counter the disingenuous arguments of the Right, are sorely mistaken if they think removal of their angry voice is better for the blogosphere than their angry presence.

Being happy, calm, or even serene all the time might work pretty well for some New Age meditators, but those people are typically not key contributors in society. In fact, one could reasonably argue that hard, sharp emotions are the trademark of successful leaders. If you want to be a good leader, be excited about your project, the advice touts. The angry, the vengeful, the ambitious, even the malicious...time and time again they are the successful ones. The ones that end up on top.
I am not trying to write a thesis on being angry all the time. Merely, I am attempting to remind people that fear their own anger that it is part of being human, and while it can be part of what focuses you on particular issues, it should not be what defines your position. We don't need a blogger who simply stands like Howard Beale and shouts "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" because that does not further the discourse of the blogosphere. Rather, the gradual escalation of a discussion into a debate, into a disagreement, into an argument represents the natural arms race of verbal intercourse in which two sides attempt to hold fast to their personal belief while simultaneously defeating the belief of the other. Such a situation will invariably lead to anger.

While I do, honestly, laud Freddie for backing down if he felt his own anger had become a distraction, I do not believe the world is a better place without his writing.

My own writing, if I take a step back, is inherently cynical and sarcastic. Long gone are the days where I garnered any hope for NASA's future (or subsequently the future of humankind traveling between planets). Long gone are the days where I really, truly believed that mankind would join hands and clean the environment. Instead, I have evolved into a creature that sadistically watches as the 30 year misadventures of NASA quickly stretch towards 40. I report sadly on the incapacity of engineers to do the right thing, when instead it is easier to do the cheap thing. Should I take a step back and realize that the blogosphere is a sarcastic place, made no less so by my own hands? Should I quit blogging until a time when I am cheerful and optimistic about humanity's future?
Chances are, I will never feel that way. I know too much about science, and about people. If I quit writing here for a year, maybe 12,000 people wouldn't read my cynical diatribes against the modern technological bureaucracy, but when I came back a year later, the bureaucrats would still be here, and my cynicism would return.

I fear the same will be true for Freddie. He can step back for as long as he wishes. But when he returns to writing, the philosophical chasms of American politics will still be there, uncrossable, deafening, and unfortunately for Freddie, maddening.


_