I’ve been thinking, and writing, a lot about anger and respect lately. I’ve got a book review of Peter Wood’s “A Bee in the Mouth” that will hopefully be running in the Examiner chain in the near future, and that book examines Americans’ changing attitudes towards expressions of anger in politics, music, and culture. And of course we witnessed the first real blogging controversy of 2007, which spurred any denunciations of them, anger at the denunciations, anger at the reaction of anger in response to the denunciations, etc.

On DigiTurk, the Oliver Stone movie “Any Given Sunday” has been playing frequently lately. The middle act of the movie is about the sudden rise of obscure backup quarterback Willie Beamen (Jamie Foxx, in one of his first real dramatic roles) and how his ego explodes with the sudden infusion of fame, endorsements, success, and glory. A rival player not happy with Beamen’s sudden preeminence tells the leader of the defense, Luther “Shark” Levay (played by real-life talented but drug-abusing maniacal linebacker Lawrence Taylor) that Beamen has been bad-mouthing his teammates, and complaining that the defense isn’t pulling its weight. In response, Shark uses power tools to cut Beaman’s car in half, and tells the horrified Beamen:

In football, you have the offense and the defense. You can’t have one without the other. Respect will be paid.

At that moment, Shark simultaneously seems like a maniac, and yet we kind of envy him - when a co-worker fails to pay the appropriate respect to his efforts and those of his teammates, he metes out expensive punishment. The final line isn’t a threat so much as a lesson; “here’s how things work in the big leagues, son.”

Anyway — the conclusion I took from Wood’s book was that anger isn’t as empowering as many angry people think it is. Some people can use their anger as motivation and a spur to action. But often it results in useless tantrums, shouting, using the F-word in blogging posts a lot… and then it passes. Anger is almost like a drug. It gives us a high, and then we crash.

Modern life just about guarantees that we will run across people who will spit on us literally or metaphorically, sneer at us, insult us, get in our faces, needlessly confrontational, bitchy… all around disrespectful. And we kind of long for that Shark Levay moment, where we can make some sort of big, dramatic demonstration of the consequences, and declare “Respect will be paid.” Not, “you ought to respect me” or even “respect me or else.” But simply, “no, your actions are just a blip, because this is the way things work. You will pay respect. Eventually, the consequences of not paying respect will grow so great that even your massive ego and defiance will be broken, and you will acknowledge the natural order of things. Respect will be paid.” We want to declare that, because we know we’re owed that respect.

But we also don’t want to be one of the anger addicts, the folks who are constantly obsessing over the latest infuriating slight or raging against everyone and everything: Perpetual Outrage Machines.

So - how do you demand/earn that respect without being one of those angry people? (Who aren’t that respected, come to think of it.) How do you walk with your head held high, in a society where so many proudly proclaim that they have no respect for those who disagree with them? When having no respect is not only edgy and cool, but common?

Cam: I think it starts and ends with self-respect. If you can respect yourself, then really it shouldn’t matter what other people think. You walk with your head held high because there’s no need to worry about whether or not others “respect” you. At least that’s my take on it.

Marshall: Jim, this is an extraordinary post. I agree with everything you’ve said. And I think it gets at something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately: the general detioriation of dialogue in our nation. People don’t debate any more. They argue. They shout. They villify. They demagogue.

Too often it’s because they’re not actually trying to win the argument — they’re just trying to raise money by arguing. But it seems that real debate — where ideas and facts are put forward, but where debators are persuadable — has become largely a thing of the past.

You have both heard me argue that the persuadable middle is largely gone from American politics. I observe that as a political fact which impacts how candidates run and win campaigns, but I don’t celebrate it. Sadly, it’s an indication that fewer and fewer of us are actually taking the time to really think about and consider and discuss why we believe what we believe. Indeed, it’s only through thorough discussion and careful thought that our thinking can evolve at all.