"Don't get the impression that you arouse my anger. You see, one can only be angry with those he respects"

Richard Nixon’s words reveal a paradoxical sentiment about the relationship between anger and respect. He asserts that anger is not simply a raw, uncontrolled emotion directed at anyone who disappoints or frustrates; it is a response reserved for those whom the aggrieved holds in esteem. The subtext here is that anger itself is evidence of a meaningful connection or valuation of the other person’s actions and opinions.

To become angry at someone’s behavior implies that their choices or failures have the capacity to affect one’s own emotions and expectations. This only happens when the individual matters to us, perhaps due to their position, influence, or a prior relationship rooted in admiration. Disregard, contempt, or indifference does not arouse anger, not because the action or slight is not noticed, but because the person is not worthy of emotional investment. Thus, Nixon suggests that if he is not angry, if he does not respond emotionally, it is not due to greater self-control or diplomacy, but rather a lack of respect for the individual concerned.

For those who might expect or hope to provoke a reaction, this statement can sting more than outright hostility. Anger, as Nixon frames it, becomes a kind of backhanded compliment, a signal of importance or equality. Its absence is not forgiveness or acquiescence; it is dismissal. This perspective positions anger not as a losing of temper, but as a sign of recognition and grudging honor.

In interpersonal and political relationships, the implications are subtle but profound. One might prefer to have a respected adversary capable of anger than be so inconsequential as to inspire only apathy. Nixon’s remark, therefore, serves both as a window into his own strategies of emotional engagement and as a broader commentary on the dynamics of power, esteem, and human reaction.