Posted on 11/24/2010 6:38:37 AM PST by WebFocus
According to polls — Pew Research Center, the National Science Foundation — and studies such as Arthur Brooks’s Gross National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal Americans.
Liberals respond this way: “If we’re unhappier, it’s because we are more upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves.”
But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals. And as regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least half a century conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure and American blood (often their own) for other nations’ liberty.
Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others explanation for liberal unhappiness.
So, let’s look at other explanations.
Perhaps we are posing the question backwards when we ask why liberals are less happy than conservatives. The question implies that liberalism causes unhappiness. And while this is true, it may be equally correct to say that unhappy people are more likely to adopt leftist positions.
Take black Americans, for example. It makes perfect sense that a black American who is essentially happy is going to be less attracted to the Left. Anyone who has interacted with black conservatives rarely encounters an angry, unhappy person.
Why?
Because the liberal view on race is that America is a racist society. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a black American must abandon liberalism in order to be a happy individual. It is very hard, if not impossible, to be a happy person while believing that society is out to hurt you. So, the unhappy black person will gravitate to liberalism and liberalism will in turn make him more unhappy by reinforcing his view that he is a victim.
The unhappy gravitate toward the Left for a second reason. Life is hard for liberals and life is hard for conservatives. But conservatives assume that life will always be hard. Liberals, on the other hand, have utopian dreams. At his brother Robert’s funeral, the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy recalled his brother saying: “Some men see things as they are and say, ‘Why?’ I dream things that never were and say, ‘Why not?’”
Utopians will always be less happy than those who know that suffering is inherent to human existence. The utopian compares America to utopia and finds it terribly wanting. The conservative compares America to every other civilization that has ever existed and walks around wondering how he got so lucky as to be born or naturalized an American.
Third, imagine two Americans living in essentially identical socioeconomic conditions. They earn $45,000 a year, they have the same amount of debt on their homes, and both have the same number of dependents. One seeks governmental assistance wherever possible; the other eschews any governmental help. Which one is likely to be the liberal and which one is likely to be the happier individual?
This is not a question only an oracle can answer. The one who yearns for governmental help is the one who is likely to be both liberal and less happy. Conservatism, which demands self-reliance, makes one happier. The more a man or woman feels like captain of his or her ship (as poor as that ship may be), the happier he or she will be.
A fourth explanation for greater unhappiness among liberals is that the more people allow feelings to govern them, the less happy they will be. And the further left one goes, the more importance one attaches to feelings.
It is liberal educators and liberal parents who have clamored for protecting young people from the pain of losing games. The liberal world came up with the idea of giving trophies to kids who lose; they don’t want their children feeling bad. Conservatives, on the other hand, teach their kids how to lose well. They are less worried about their children feeling bad.
A couple of years ago, I gave a speech on happiness to the students and faculty of a prestigious high school in the Los Angeles area. The subject was the need to act happy even when one isn’t feeling happy — because it is unfair to others to inflict our bad moods on them and because we will never be happy if we allow our feelings to dictate our happiness.
From what I experienced that day and learned later, liberal students and faculty generally loathed my speech; conservative students generally loved it (there were no conservative faculty to speak of). Why? Because conservatives are far more likely to be comfortable with the idea that feelings are not as important as behavior.
Those who know that feelings must not govern us, but that we must govern our feelings, are far more likely to be happy people.
The upshot of all this? There is an amazingly simple way to defeat the Left: Raise children who are grateful to be American, who don’t complain, who can handle losing, and who are guided by values, not feelings. In other words, teach them how to be happy adults.
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist
Your entire post is a brilliant summation. Regarding the above part, I don't have the research, but would be willing to bet that the majority of substance abusers are "liberals."
Two principles: Give and Get
The conservative is more likely to give; the liberal is more likely concerned with getting.
It is more blessed to give than to receive - scriptural, I believe.
Many incorrigible liberals also have a serious issue with abandonment. Having been abandoned as a child by a parent through addiction, mental illness, divorce, death or some other reason, the unfortunate child projects a need for nurturing and support outside of the family. They demand "womb to the tomb" care that must be provided by the state. It is comforting to be recognized and provided for because the state will never gow away like an abandoning parent.
Conservatives and republicans are the party and beliefs of “I can do it myself”. Democrats and liberalism are the party and beliefts of “I have to wait for Government to do for me”
In a nutshell, that is why people become more conservative as they become self sufficient. We don’t need to wait around and/or ask permission to do things. We can do it ourselves.
To kick substance abuse and become usefully whole, the sufferer has to have a psychic overhaul — that is, they have to change from being selfish and self-centered to becoming more interested in helping others. That is why the A.A. program works — it is centered around helping others.
If that isn’t an good description of converting a Liberal to a Conservative, then I don’t know what is.
You’ll hardly ever find a more conservative group of people than a group of long-term A.A members. (Notice, I said LONG-TERM. It takes over 20 years sometimes for the change to take place.)
IMO, that doesn’t invalidate the premise of this article by mr. Prager.
The two subjects are mutually exclusive, and I can agree with him on this and disagree on that.
I don’t know if I would go that far, since I count alcoholism as substance abuse, and I have known more than a few conservatives who were alcoholics, including my father. I guess I have never really looked at substance abuse along political lines, though I do identify a key difference: Liberals accept substance abuse and try to explain personal responsibility away to other root causes...bad childhood, etc...I think it is no mistake most people support programs for drug abuse are liberals, but that is more a function of government cheese jobs.
BTW...nice hearing from you AW, have a nice Thanksgiving!
Prager makes many good points. I’d like to say that TV is the number one culprit for making people into liberals. TV is where the majority of people get their liberalism — the more educated will get it from the university. The less educated will get it from watching liberal shows on TV or almost anything from Hollywood. TV is a one way stream of information that wants you to react emotionally. Therefore, Hollywood, the news, commercials, TV shows, etc., are experts at manipulating your emotions, manipulating how you feel. Liberalism is about feeling “good.” To be fair, religious programs also manipulate feeling. And liberalism does have similarities with religion: both can be very idealistic. But with liberalism there is very little encouragement to think about the issues — most of the issues are presented prepackaged and the public is suppose to accept and react. It activism is its missionary work.
This has been going on for some time but I think the 60s were pivotal in pushing liberal values and the importance of feeling: pop & rock music were the first big public educators. We’ve been trained to feel. The 60s liberal values were in the “air” and spread everywhere, even to future generations of people.
Today the Tea Party want fiscal conservatism but are they socially conservative? Many aren’t, but the national debt factor mitigates their liberalism. In other words, they too have been watching TV all their lives but something is working against it’s influence: common sense.
Liberalism is also a big escape if you have nothing to loss — the person working in a sh*t job thinks he is equal to and should have the same as Brad Pitt. Life is unjust and the government handout is a paltry recompense for the great injustice of not being Brad Pitt. Where did he get that idea that we should all be equal? Television. Most desperate people buy lottery tickets and vote democrat. But the liberal “feels” he is being moral if he gives government permission to give handouts to the desperate guy who “feels” the injustice of not being Brad Pitt. One is a fool and the other is a desperate fool — but the ultimate root of the foolishness is liberalism.
As a former enabler who spent time in Al-Anon and ACOA, I agree with everything in your post.
Hey, rlmorel, a very happy Thanksgiving to you and family as well!
As to drug and alcohol abuse, the exceptions prove the rule. Like I said, I don’t have the research. But yes, the ones who not only don’t maintain themselves somehow, as your dad did, and who don’t recover but need frequent taxpayer-supported rehabs — are those likely to be conservatives? Possibly only the veterans who have PTSD as a primary wound.
Interesting. A friend who I grew up with and who came from a conservative family is now a hardcore liberal. He has worked in radio since high school. Maybe that explains what happened to him...
I’ve noticed that a common characteristic among liberals I know is jealousy. My neighbor was so upset that another neighbor, a retired cop, was going to be a teacher. She felt it was unfair that he would get 2 pensions when he retired from teaching.
“Alas, this is why so many liberals don’t want kids. They don’t want to face the pain and be the protectors, the earners and producers for others.”
It’s also why they feel so victimized when a tiny baby starts using up some of their body space.
A 2 year old has far more fortitude and maturity than your average liberal.
But do these describe symptoms and not the cause? The author descsribes the differences in symptoms pretty well but he never really gets to the underlying cause, whatever that may be. For example, and in my observations generally, libtards are eternal pessimists; conservatives, eternal optimists. But why? I think a deeper understanding of cause and effect would be a lot more helpful.
What causes one person to look at life and declare, "Life isn't fair", and uses it as justification for all manner of toxic bahavior? While another person declares, "Life isn't fair" but deals with it on a more rational, ie, adult level. To me the answer is simple and not necessarily a news flash since I've seen excellent articles and essays written on the subject and that is, libtards were never able to grow beyond adolescence emotionally. Conservatives were somehow able to make the leap to adulthood which allows them to accept the world as it is and commit themselves to dealing with it.
Especially difficult for parents raising children these days when schools, Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and of course the federal government in particular elevates fantasy and encourages dependency. IOW, they have usurped to role of parents and the church.
Same here. Prager is right on target as usual.
Recently, a researcher announced the discovery of a “liberal” gene: people who have it and were very social adolescents tend to be liberal. The researcher (a probable liberal) called it an “open-minded” gene, because liberals are so accepting of alternate life-styles and so forth. I would call it something else—a gullibility gene, maybe, since liberals seem to fall for any hair-brained scheme.
While I don’t think that genetics holds the entire answer, I do think that it plays a part. Also, since liberalism is a multi-faceted belief and behavior system, I think that other genes will be identified that also influence people to become liberals.
Identifying the genes is the first step towards finding a treatment.
[C]onservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals. And as regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least half a century conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure and American blood (often their own) for other nations’ liberty.
Happier people are more generous...hmm. Too common-sensical for the academy?
Utopians will always be less happy than those who know that suffering is inherent to human existence. The utopian compares America to utopia and finds it terribly wanting. The conservative compares America to every other civilization that has ever existed and walks around wondering how he got so lucky as to be born or naturalized an American.
bump
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.