[Andrew Frisardi]

As a footnote to this thread, I’ll add that when I was reflecting on it yesterday, I finally realized (I’m a bit slow in realizing things) why I reacted against the message of Wilbur’s poem and Michael’s comment, in the present context.

Mike wrote: My point--and Wilbur's--is that our democracy works better if we talk civilly to each other rather than ranting angrily.

But I think this is setting up two false equations: calm = civil, and anger = ranting.

I remember from previous posts, Mike, that you’ve recommended the Aristotelian golden mean for debate and discussion, pointing out (rightfully) that blow-out anger doesn’t in fact mitigate anger. It only spreads it. This is true.

But Aristotle also granted a place to controlled, articulate anger and polemic (which is where Dante is coming from, btw, in that passage I quoted). Among the valid emotional responses he named, one is righteous indignation.

And I think that’s exactly the emotion that meets what has just happened in this election and what is still happening as Trump selects his advisors.

It’s not the doors of voters I need to knock on, since they’re not the ones I’m incensed at. The door of Trump Tower would be the one to knock on. But I and others can’t do that.

So my position is that, figuratively speaking, I’m outside the door of Trump Tower, not to discuss anything, but to give him a piece of my mind for what he is inflicting on us collectively. And to protest his policies in whatever way I can.