Over the past four weeks, we’ve had a runof undeniably good news. A panoply of data has shown that the U.S. economicsystem appears to be on firm ground. More people have jobs, albeit notnecessarily sterling jobs, and the pace of overall activity as measured by GDPis at the highest level in two years, expanding at 4.1 percentannually. On the political front, Congress passed a budget for the first timein more than three years, which suggests a period ahead where Washingtontantrums do not threaten to upend whatever delicate equilibrium currentlyexists.

And yet, an aura of unease still seems tohover over us. In the year or more that I have written this column, I haveoften emphasized the way in which things may be going at least a bit right.That contrasts with the frequently repeated mantra that we are goingdangerously off the rails. Of course, like anyone, I may be right or wrong orsomewhere in between. What’s been perplexing about responses to this column,however, isn’t whether the analysis is right or wrong, wise or naïve, but thatthe very hint of optimism makes a fair number of people extremely angry.

It may be, of course, that my optimism ismisplaced. It may be that the United States is actually headed to hell in aproverbial handbasket; that Europe is in a brief lull before its next legtoward dissolution of the Union; that Japan’s easy money spigot unleashed bythe new government of Shinzo Abe will end with the same no-exit stagnation ofthe past 20 years; and the glorious story of emerging economies from Brazil toMexico to India to China will end not so gloriously. It may also be thatwhatever appears to be working in the developed world is in truth working onlyfor a small minority—for the wealthy and members of the middle class inprivileged urban areas, and for anyone tethered to financial markets and globalcommerce.

But possibly being wrong doesn’t explainthe anger my columns have provoked, in the form of email and online reactions.Weather forecasters and sports experts are routinely wrong about outcomes, andwhile those missed predictions can trigger some ridicule, they’re not usually arecipe for rage.

True, the online world of comments andcommentary skews towards the negative, especially in the realm of economics andpolitics. People are more likely to express feelings based on disagreement anda sense of outrage than they are to react based on concord. Anger is a hotexperience that triggers action; agreement, even strong agreement, tends to bea more passive reaction.

But why does optimism about today’s worldgenerate such strong hostility? Perhaps because it contradicts what many peoplebelieve. Positive views on the present are seen as a slap in the face by peoplewho have negative experiences, which, according to some polls, is the majorityof Americans. Surveys suggest that more Americans than ever—66 percent,according to one poll—believe that the country is headed in the wrongdirection. Other polls say much the same thing. Two years ago the numberswere even worse. Americans of the past few years are less positive about thefuture than they have been at any point since the 1970s.

Interestingly, according to these surveys,blacks and Hispanics in the United States are more positive about the futurethan whites, perhaps reflecting the degree to which white males have seen theirfortunes decline on a relative basis over the past decades, while Hispanicsespecially have seen significant improvement in incomes andeducation. That said, it is difficult to know the race and gender breakdown ofonline reactions to my political and economic analysis.

The problem is that in a country of 300million people, let alone a world of 7 billion, any statement about an economicor societal trend is likely to differ from the actual experience of a greatmany people. While there may be upsides to the changing mechanisms of oureconomic system, there are unequivocally winners and losers and many shadesbetween. Any suggestion that the struggles of one group may be juxtaposedagainst, though not offset by, the flourishing of another group can seemdisrespectful and even indifferent to the challenges faced by many people.

The answer, however, is not to focusrelentlessly on what isn’t working. Every society must find some balancebetween addressing real shortcomings and building on real strengths. The UnitedStates in particular oscillates between excessive self-congratulation (“theindispensable nation,” “the freest nation on Earth”) and extremeself-criticism. We can be making a transition from a manufacturing economy toan idea economy that sees millions finding a new way, and millions suffering.We can be educating millions brilliantly while failing to educate millions atall. We can see thriving urban centers even as suburban sprawl melts under toomuch debt and overpriced homes.

Optimism, as the theoretical physicistDavid Deutsch so brilliantly describes in The Beginnings of Infinity,doesn’t mean surety about good future outcomes. Optimism is simply thecertainty that any human progress to date has been a product of our collectiveability to understand how things work and to craft solutions. The convictionthat the present is a prelude to a bad future negates that collective ability.Yes, we may indeed be at the end of the line, but by angrily dismissingoptimistic arguments we are likely to fail more rapidly. Why bother strivingfor constructive change if you firmly reject the possibility? That leaves onlyone viable alternative: to envision a path forward. That path may notmaterialize, but striving to find it is a vital component of creating thefuture we dream about, and not the one that we fear.