why??? cause we aren't stooopid!!! that and our toys are bigger, better and badder(specially those that go BANG) than theirs...
Posted on 05/07/2008 4:38:28 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals
Wednesday, May 07, 2008 By Jeanna Bryner
Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.
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 both 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,"
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
But, to a liberal nothing is fair. Thus, they are doomed to eternal misery. And they deserve it, too.
The faces of Rosie O’Donnell, Harry Reid, Michelle Obama come to mind...
They act like that's a bad thing. They could just as well say liberals can't fathom perfectly natural and unavoidable inequalities, which makes them irrational and bitter.
Well... there's the problem right there. Who in their right mind would stake their whole personal happiness on something as vapid as "social equality"?
well no one gets outta here alive so the king and the pauper share the same fate
Dare I say it?
Optimists are more happy than pessimists!
I hope FOX didn’t spend a lot of money on this research.
However, in 2008 Liberals will have two Presidential nominees to choose from, and conservatives will have none. This causes consrvatives some discontent.
why??? cause we aren't stooopid!!! that and our toys are bigger, better and badder(specially those that go BANG) than theirs...
I do not like how this article was phrased, as it is deceptive in several ways.
To start with, how do the define “inequalities”? This is a killer question, because “equality” is an abstract. The number 1 equals the number 1 only as numbers. If you have two apples represented each by the number one, only the abstract is equal. The apples themselves are not, and for a lot of reasons.
And when you apply this to humans, the differences are immense.
Our constitution is designed to *force* equality in the few ways it can be done, such as “equality before the law”.
Thomas Jefferson explained this as well in the Declaration of Independence by saying that “All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights...”
But in the former case, it recognizes that men only have very limited means to bestow equality, because in the latter case, most rights are bestowed equally at birth, and are not and cannot be given by the government.
Beyond that, individual rights trump equality. Importantly, government effort to force equality inherently assume that equality is more important than fairness or civil rights, and the right of people to direct their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Then consider the loaded word “rationalize”.
If you have two small boys, and one has a bicycle and the other doesn’t, they are unequal. But no place in the constitution does it say that all boys have the right to own a bicycle.
It is not in the constitution or in the law, so in no way is it a “rationalization” to say to the bicycle-less boy that he has no right to be given a bicycle. Any more than it would require a “rationalization” to deny him a billion dollars.
So “rationalization” isn’t a problem with conservatives. Instead, it should be said that liberals “rationalize” rights that do no exist to create their axiom of inequality in the first place.
Many, even most of their inequalities are superfluous and mean spirited. Because Itzhak Perlman is a brilliant violinist, unequally talented, liberals want him handicapped so that he could only play as well as a mediocre performer.
Alternatively, liberals want to release imbecilic and vicious murderers back into society because they are being treated differently from non-criminals. They want to “normalize” and “mainstream” such psychopaths, so that they will be “equal”.
The pursuit of equality reduces us all, it crushes the spirit, and is done in the pursuit of control, and *ease* of control, by elitists who want to control others.
hard work and good performance???
Whoa, there's a concept.
Imagine that: work hard, do well, excel in what you do and your life gets better.
Just wait until the government figures out that secret :)
Oh, good grief! It has nothing to do with rationalization, and everything to do with common sense.
Despite what today's political prostitute believes, the Founders' "All men are Created equal" does not translate into a governmental mandate to keep everyone that way.
History acknowledges a law of Nature and Nature's God. INequality is a part of LIFE!
-----
NOTE B., SECTION VI.
EQUALITY
By equality, in a democracy, is to be understood, equality of civil rights, and not of condition. Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties, in an honest way, and the fruits of his labour, thus acquired, are his own. But, some men have more strength than others; some more health; some more industry; and some more skill and ingenuity, than others; and according to these, and other circumstances the products of their labour must be various, and their property must become unequal. The rights of property must be sacred, and must be protected; otherwise there could be no exertion of either ingenuity or industry, and consequently nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal ignorance.
View of the Constitution of the United States
I know they think I should care... but I don't. And I'm happy.
Liberals are always whining about inequality, whatever that is. Liberals are out there tilting at windmills, protesting all sorts of foolishness, forming all sorts of political activism groups like "Code Pink". They are very unhappy people because they have put their hope in an ideal which can never be realized. "Equality", whatever that is. It's not really a goal; it's an excuse for being perpetually dissatisfied.
The happy liberals are too stoned to know that Nixon is out of office. ;)
NEXT QUESTION....
I would add that conservatives can accept when they are not equal too. In other words, if my neighbor has more money, a better job and more status, as a conservative I say...”Good for him! He earned it! Conservatives admire success and hard work. If someone works harder than I do and has more talent, that’s just the way it is. I will just have to work harder or accept less in life and be happy anyway. But liberals would think it was unfair that their neighbor has more earning power and more talent. They cannot accept that others are more prosperous than they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.