Well, I am the same guy that wrote "I am pissed," but I want to encourage you to take a look at what we are experiencing from another angle -- that would be the angle of persuasion.
When we communicate what we are thinking about the issues of the day in these most conseqential times, let's remember that we have several audiences. First, we have the true believers and fellow travelers; these are the ones who are most fired up by "I am pissed" red meat. Others ... such as those inclined to agree with us but yet unmotivated, along with the great unwashed (unsure what they think, I know, it's hard to fathom sometimes but true) are unlikely to be persuaded by "red meat," much less anger.
The hard-core opposition, i.e., the Kossacks and such, are pretty much impervious to what we might say, other than to gauge the level of our commitment. I would say expressing anger is a neutral here.
For those who disagree but are open to what we have to say, I would say that this group would probably be turned off by our anger about as much as any group.
Krauthammer has yet to review my findings and approve, but this is what I think.
Bottom line: Anger is generally a poor technique of persuasion. It's a net negative. Think Hillary screeching "We have a right to disagree!!" Think Joy Behar. Okay, sorry about that. But you get the point.
Let's back up a minute. Obama and the Demos won the '08 election, so they get to govern (for a while). Jon Stewart's critique from the left notwithstanding, Obama has done a lot of what he said he would do. He's done arguably the most important thing done by or for the Left in 50 years -- Obamacare. For those listening during the campaign, it was quite clear that Obama would do just as he has done if he had the legislative support.
It seems to me the people to be mad at are the buffoons who bought the line (without any evidence whatsoever) that Obama was a mainstream liberal.
So, how do we persuade those who can be persuaded? My suggestion is that we keep making the case, in as interesting a fashion as possible, while mixing in good measure of levity ... and humility.
If our audience believes that we view ourselves as better than they are, well, we've lost already. Good people can be wrong, and bad people can be right. It's a good thing, for we are all "bad," if you will.
Most of all, I think persuasion requires a clear communication of the message and a strength of character to see the message delivered, in spite of distractions, static, and obstacles. Think Chris Christie. One of my great frustrations over the past few years has been the dearth of "teaching" in public life on what it means to be a conservative, and more fundamentally, an American. We who love this land are always on duty to communicate our vision. If we fail to do so, eventually no one will be left who understands.
Of course, all of this is no easy task, particularly when we are in a mortal struggle with ghoulish post-modernists for the very survival of the nation. But the stakes are too high to give up.
In the end, remember that Atticus Finch's strength of character -- more than his mere words -- is what proved his cause to be just.