A Washington Post analysis piece was among those that spoke of voter "anger" on primary day, which lead to the downfall of a few incumbents, most of whom accepted their party's results to the extent of not announcing independence runs. On that front, the party leaders rather quickly began to underline that Lieberman lost the primary, so it is time for the Democrats to rally around the winner. Some might have realized the basic truth that anger at incumbents benefits the party out of party, even if as a result a few incumbent minority party members get hurt in the process. The cries of "this is the downfall of the party" (including the obligatory "Democrats are wrong, but not for the reason the Republicans say they are" commentary from the usual suspects at Slate*) notwithstanding.
Some advocates, including those mean old bloggers (as some note, this disrespects the actual people on the ground, those who actively worked in all the little ways that win elections; Firedoglake and certain other bloggers were in some degree involved there, but mostly bloggers only talked and provided a means of communication for the base of support already there), actually want Lieberman to be stripped of his seats on Senate committees. Though I find this pleasing on some level, it really is not too credible -- for now, he is a sitting Democratic senator, even if he lost the primary. Likewise, push comes to shove, he will vote for the Democratic Caucus. Indies have ranking member privileges too ... they are not just floating members with no leadership roles. OTOH, there is party loyalty ...
As to those "angry" voters. I write here concerning my uneasiness with the term, since it is too often associated with irrationality. Thus, Howard Dean is now forever known for his "scream" and tarred as an irrational fire-eater, as unevenly as those accounts that pick out a few random liberal blog comments as representing the spectrum, while ignoring the reckless ranting of many conservative bloggers. [Lapdogs covered this ground as do others.] I note in fact that among these "angry" voters are those who apparently got tired of the gentle lady from Georgia, a rather angry person herself. Likewise, a Republican lost his race, while conservative sorts are making Lincoln Chafee's race rather difficult, even though he is more likely to win the state in November. In comparison, even if Lamont loses in November, it is rather clear that the Democratic Senate Caucus will control Connecticut.
So, the term has a negative connotation. A few other people in the thread reminded me that anger can be a good thing, especially if used to promote a good cause. I do not disagree; my concern is the ways the emotion is spun, and the fact the article started off using the term to describe what is going on. Now, maybe it is the best word to use -- I know I am among those rather angry at Lieberman and other Democrats who I feel are not doing enough to promote the good fight. Perhaps, it is the driving force. All the same, again, it is spun to mean irrationality. Thus, the simple fact that Lieberman promotes a cause (directly/indirectly) bad for the country can be ignored; Lamont supporters just have a grudge against the man. The actual reasons why apparently are not important or at best oversimplified.
Thus, I guess, the problem perhaps is not focus on anger per se, but using it without properly spelling out the reasons behind it. Or, using simplistic reasoning such as how the opponents are "anti-war" or simply ignorant about how they want to get rid of this great hero of bipartisanship that apparently is a Senate great on the level of Daniel Webster or something. Still, I think I will stick with my original sentiment. The use of the "angry voter" meme should be looked at warily given its tendency to be used in a selective way. The responses to my fray post led me to check out a book I own that discusses emotions and the law. The book disfavors use of disgust, but states that anger can be a reasonable emotion, which is surely the case here.
The problem is that it is being described somewhat unreasonably. This clearly does not mean that rightful anger many have should therefore be withheld. It just means that the task before us becomes that much more complicated.
---
* Cheney and Snowjob suggested Lamont's win is dangerous since it promotes a defeatist attitude that helps the terrorists. Typical crap. But, I see Lieberman shares the sentiment, disgustingly tying it to the latest terrorist plot:
“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,” Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event at lunchtime in Waterbury, Conn. “It will strengthen them and they will strike again.”
Various people who have fought the good fight, more than passive sorts like I, have been somewhat sympathetic to Lieberman, noting his niceness and past service. They agree he should step down now, but overall, still they feel a bit sorry for the guy. Time is over for that. He clearly crossed the line now. Not that I'm "angry" or anything. That would be irrational.