Are conservatives happier than liberals?

[technofox]

Deleted

 

[Yoder777]

please keep in mind, i used to be one of those people who sees american society as inherently unjust and defective and i always saw american life as about the haves vs. the have nots. now, having a broader and more global perspective, i can be thankful that even in hard times, i have a higher standard of living than the majority of the world's people, and that there's a good chance that i will be more financially successful someday.

 

[Savior2006]

Conservatives are more likely than liberals to love the country as it is, rather than hoping for a more utopian version of how they think American society should be.

Sounds like you dont know any more about liberals than the average right winger on CF. Liberals may be trying to make America better, but its not like conservatives dont try to do the same. So when a conservative tries to "make the country better" by enacting laws x y and z, they arent accused of making a utopia.

Conservatives love their country even when its government fails, because they don't believe that it's the government's responsibility to solve all of society's problems in the first place.

Liberals dont think that either.

 

[Yoder777]

Sounds like you dont know any more about liberals than the average right winger on CF. Liberals may be trying to make America better, but its not like conservatives dont try to do the same. So when a conservative tries to "make the country better" by enacting laws x y and z, they arent accused of making a utopia.
Liberals dont think that either.

I may not be stating these things clearly enough. George Will already stated it better:

Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole.

Begin with a paradox: Conservatives are happier than liberals because they are more pessimistic. Conservatives think the Book of Job got it right ("Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward"), as did Adam Smith ("There is a great deal of ruin in a nation"). Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile -- touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones.

Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver.
George F. Will - Smile if (and Only if) You're Conservative

What George Will is saying bears out in the available data. Liberal sociologists admit that conservatives are generally happier than liberals, but they use such negative terms as "rationalization" for the way conservatives perceive the inequalities in American society.

If you believe that economic inequality is largely the result of merit and achievement, rather than the result of a fundamentally unjust society, you are more likely to be happy to live here, regardless of your income level.

This doesn't necessarily mean that liberals hate their country, but they are statistically less likely to be happy in it. And again, these studies show that conservatives are generally happier than liberals in other countries as well, it is not just a uniquely American phenomenon.

In the interest of not having to repeat myself over and over again, I hope that these issues have been explained clearly enough.

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.
The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."

To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance. In that way, one's social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.
If your beliefs don't justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings.
"Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."
The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer.
Conservatives Happier Than Liberals | LiveScience

 

[Joykins]

So it boils down to this:

conservative: some people are rich, some people are poor, that's the way it is. People get what they're capable of achieving. I'm pretty happy with this.

liberal: how can you be happy when so many are so poor? We have to fix this so people don't suffer.

 

[Yoder777]

So it boils down to this:

conservative: some people are rich, some people are poor, that's the way it is. People get what they're capable of achieving. I'm pretty happy with this.

liberal: how can you be happy when so many are so poor? We have to fix this so people don't suffer.

Yes, that's exactly right. This doesn't mean that Republicans are against all social spending to benefit the less fortunate. They are more likely, however, to look where spending can be cut in order to better ensure the overall fiscal health of our country.

While I may not agree with the Ryan budget (I think it spends way too much on national defense), it should be kept in mind that, instead of cutting social programs, it only cuts the rate of increase in social spending. Even with Ryan's cutting measures, the rate of increase would still be the same, if not higher, than what the Bush administration projected before the recession hit.

Conservatives look at income inequality and see it as, overall, the result of merit and individual achievement. Therefore, they prefer making the pie bigger to simply redistributing the pie. Remember, this was the economic policy of the Kennedy administration and, looking back, it worked. His reductions in tax rates not only created jobs but it also increased the tax base, making more revenue, not less, for the federal government.

Republicans might support social programs, but with the intention that people will eventually get back on their feet so that they will no longer need them. Conservatives don't, in general, demonize poor people as lazy. They win elections by making a case that their policies make it more likely for the average person to succeed.

Please keep in mind that, since the recession started, the states with the most job growth are Republican while the states with the least job growth are Democrat:

Texas, Red States Beat Blue States On Jobs, Growth In Past Decade - Investors.com

It's not like the average conservative chooses to ignore the sufferings of poor people. Statistically, conservatives are, regardless of income level, more likely to give to charity and volunteer than liberals. It's just that conservatives are less likely to see America as a fundamentally unjust country simply because there are poor people in it, especially since America's poor have a higher standard of living than a majority of the world's people.

 

[Savior2006]

This doesn't necessarily mean that liberals hate their country, but they are statistically less likely to be happy in it. And again, these studies show that conservatives are generally happier than liberals in other countries as well, it is not just a uniquely American phenomenon.

In the interest of not having to repeat myself over and over again, I hope that these issues have been explained clearly enough.

I don't like repeating myself either, but in the interests of discussion, I will anyway. What I take issue with is the "analysis," both yours and Will's. He goes on about how liberals think government is going to make everyone happy and secure. That's wrong. That's a liberal bogeyman that conservatives made up.

You go on about how liberals actually expect to make a utopia for having the audacity for trying to change things in society. That's also wrong. You also go on about how conservatives have a problem with government. That's wrong and I explained why in my initial posts. The GOP is full of members of the "Christian Right" that don't have any problem at all with government when it's legislating their "morality." I quoted one of them in my signature.

 

[Yoder777]

I don't like repeating myself either, but in the interests of discussion, I will anyway. What I take issue with is the "analysis," both yours and Will's. He goes on about how liberals think government is going to make everyone happy and secure. That's wrong. That's a liberal bogeyman that conservatives made up.

You go on about how liberals actually expect to make a utopia for having the audacity for trying to change things in society. That's also wrong. You also go on about how conservatives have a problem with government. That's wrong and I explained why in my initial posts. The GOP is full of members of the "Christian Right" that don't have any problem at all with government when it's legislating their "morality." I quoted one of them in my signature.

For what reasons, then, do you think that conservatives are generally happier than liberals?

I am non-partisan, especially since I believe that Obama and the Republicans in Congress are equally to blame for our malfunctioning government.

 

[Savior2006]

For what reasons, then, do you think that conservatives are generally happier than liberals?

I don't care if they are or if they aren't.

 

[Yoder777]

I don't care if they are or if they aren't.

Then why are you even posting in this thread? I think we may need to politely agree to disagree.

 

[abdAlSalam]

Then why are you even posting in this thread? I think we may need to politely agree to disagree.

You keep making claims about how liberals see the world. Is it any wonder that people would be upset with being misrepresented?

 

[Veritas]

<edit>

So it boils down to this:

conservative: some people are rich, some people are poor, that's the way it is. People get what they're capable of achieving. I'm pretty happy with this.

liberal: how can you be happy when so many are so poor? We have to fix this so people don't suffer.

The the problem is you can't stop people from suffering. Who was it that said, "people are about as happy as they make up their minds to be"? People love to wallow in self-pity and that's how I see so many liberals and poor. It's never the individuals fault that things end up the way they are. It's the government's or corporations or evil rich people.

You also discount the compassion convervatives express through their giving. I personally don't want anyone to be poor. But each person lives as they choose. Throwing money at the poor through entitlement programs does nothing to move them to a better state. It just allows them to continue in their misfortune.

In a liberal's mind, it's better for all to be equally miserable then unequally successful. In other words, liberals measure compassion in how many people are receiving government assistance. Conservatives measure it by how many don't need it.

 

[Yoder777]

You keep making claims about how liberals see the world. Is it any wonder that people would be upset with being misrepresented?

Again, I've posted numerous studies in this forum, including from the non-partisan Pew Research Center, showing how and why conservatives are generally happier than liberals. Having to repeat myself over and over again has gotten tiresome and pointless. Please have a nice day.

 

[Savior2006]

Then why are you even posting in this thread? I think we may need to politely agree to disagree.

For the love of Chuck Norris and Stephen King, I already explained to you my issue with what you said. It isn't true that liberals think government is the answer for everything, and it certainly isn't true that conservatives never think government is the answer for anything. Even when talking about generalities, it simply isn't true. Hell, it isn't even a generality. It's an absolute that has no basis in fact because conservatives made it up.

 

[Yoder777]

For the love of Chuck Norris and Stephen King, I already explained to you my issue with what you said. It isn't true that liberals think government is the answer for everything, and it certainly isn't true that conservatives never think government is the answer for anything. Even when talking about generalities, it simply isn't true. Hell, it isn't even a generality. It's an absolute that has no basis in fact because conservatives made it up.

I think that you are misrepresenting the actual articles I've shared. I don't think you've read any of the articles or even care. Again, if you see income inequality as largely the result of merit and individual achievement, you are more likely to be happy in a society like the United States than someone who sees income inequality as largely the result of gross injustices. If you see that America's poor have a higher standard of living than a majority of the world's people, you are more likely to be happy to live in this country than someone who focuses more on the negative, regardless of your station in life.

In the interest of not having to repeat myself over and over again, I am done posting in this thread. Please go back and actually read the numerous articles I've already posted, based on actual non-partisan studies. I wouldn't call myself exclusively conservative or liberal, but I am very thankful to live in this country, and I resent anti-American sentiment wherever it is found. I attended one of the most liberal colleges in the country, and had professors and fellow students who honestly hate this country and wish it never existed. This, of course, may not describe the average liberal, but the average liberal is less likely to be happy in this country than the average conservative.

 

[Joykins]

Yes, that's exactly right. This doesn't mean that Republicans are against all social spending to benefit the less fortunate. They are more likely, however, to look where spending can be cut in order to better ensure the overall fiscal health of our country.

...and somehow it almost always targets social programs and the arts.

While I may not agree with the Ryan budget (I think it spends way too much on national defense), it should be kept in mind that, instead of cutting social programs, it only cuts the rate of increase in social spending. Even with Ryan's cutting measures, the rate of increase would still be the same, if not higher, than what the Bush administration projected before the recession hit.

In real terms, cutting the rate of increase is a cut--because the population and inflation (even at this low rate) keep growing. (It might well be different in a deflationary environment, but thank goodness we're not in one of those).

Conservatives look at income inequality and see it as, overall, the result of merit and individual achievement. Therefore, they prefer making the pie bigger to simply redistributing the pie.

Liberals look at income inequality and see the role of social structures as well as merit and individual achievement. Therefore they attempt to create a more even playing field by giving more initial advantage to those at the low end of the social scale (e.g. feeding poor children and investing in educational programs), enabling those at that end to achieve more. Many conservatives also want to achieve this goal using slightly different means; Bush's NCLB can be seen as a ham-handed attempt to do something about this sort of problem as well.

Republicans might support social programs, but with the intention that people will eventually get back on their feet so that they will no longer need them. Conservatives don't, in general, demonize poor people as lazy. They win elections by making a case that their policies make it more likely for the average person to succeed.

I would say that in my lifetime, conservatives have been campaigning on demonizing poor people as lazy moochers. From Reagan's "welfare queen" to Newt Gingrich's "food stamp president" to Romney's 47%. I do not know if it helps them win, although I am sure it helps to energize the resentful and prejudiced in their party.

Please keep in mind that, since the recession started, the states with the most job growth are Republican while the states with the least job growth are Democrat

When the job growth disproportionately takes place in places like Montana, Alaska, and North Dakota--places not well-known for having a high population density among other things--I wonder if something else might be at play here. Yes, there is political conservatism but there is also the fact that many people, in the late Lou Reed's words, think that "there is only one good use for a small town / You hate it and you'll know you have to leave."

It's not like the average conservative chooses to ignore the sufferings of poor people. Statistically, conservatives are, regardless of income level, more likely to give to charity and volunteer than liberals. It's just that conservatives are less likely to see America as a fundamentally unjust country simply because there are poor people in it, especially since America's poor have a higher standard of living than a majority of the world's people.

Conservatives tend to think that charity also ought not be the task of government, but the task of private individuals and charities. This is another major difference. I don't think conservatives think overmuch about people in other countries; like most people, in general, they tend to prioritize their own experiences and country. Pointing out that Americans are disproportionately wealthy is something I have seen more liberals do, to be honest. They think that's socially unjust too.

 

[Savior2006]

I think that you are misrepresenting the actual articles I've shared.

Oh really. Here's an excerpt from Will's Op-ed, which I've already pasted in this thread.

"The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver."

Which is wrong.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Conservatives tend to (unconsciously at times apparently**) embrace a very exaggerated version of libertarian free will. The idea that causality, past conditions, and the influences of say , environment, upbringing, education, past experience, imprints, genetics, etc.. only play some insignificant role in outcomes and that people could always do otherwise if they just "wanted to". Of course "wanting to" itself is largely dependent on past causes and conditions itself.

** I say unconsciously because I even see conservatives who would otherwise reject the idea of libertarian free will, like Calvinists for example, act as if it is true when it comes to social justice issues.

 

[Illuminaughty]

By definition liberals favor change and conservatives favor the status quo

What does that have to do with not liking America? Someone might actually like America enough to want to improve conditions and make it an even better place to live. If they didn't like America they would ignore all the problems or pretend they are not there like a lot of conservatives do. Ignoring is a sure path to the destruction of the country. Change is necessary for life and continual growth. Fall behind and kick the bucket. Some people might like America precisely because it's a nation that has shown such an amazing propensity to change and improve. They want to keep going with the progress and not stay still or fall back.

 

[Illuminaughty]

To imply that liberals looking to improve conditions in America must therefore hate America is like saying that Boy Scouts hate the parks they camp at because before the leave they always try to make it cleaner than it was when they got there. "If you really loved the parks you would leave the trash on the ground that you found there instead of trying to improve it!"