Conservatives Happier than Liberals?

[Danoff]

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/09/why-are-conservatives-happier-than-liberals/

Actually makes quite a bit of sense. Liberals see inequality as injustice. Conservatives see inequality as justice. I know which worldview would make me happier.

Discuss.

 

[superberkut]

So, given that the image of equality is still very difficult to obtain, the Conservatives see fit to let things as is? I suppose that makes sense... a bit like the optimist and the pessimist: "The optimist sees an opportunity in every calamity, while the pessimist sees a calamity in every opportunity".

*actually reads it* That made a lot of sense. I see no apparent need to discuss it.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well, its not really that surprising. I think of a good number of people that I went to school with, the neighborhood I grew up in, and its always that "Pleasantville" attitude that they tried to push forward. I'm not particularly sure if its a justification of these inequalities, more often than not, I think its the apathy that they have towards these situations that generally defines the issue, not their moral views.

I took the position for a long time that it was as such, and I suppose that it did make me happy only worrying about my own little world in West Michigan. But, ever more frequently, its not the case. I still sleep well, and I still feel happy (for the most part), but its the increased frustration that has been my own problem. Maybe thats what defines a socially liberal but economically conservative "independent" person?

As both of my Political Science professors would say, "thats called being Catholic." Odd, I'm really not...

 

[TopHat]

So Liberalism really is a mental illness? Rationalizing FTW.

 

[Solid Fro]

Where can I get some of those? Yummy!

 

[Omnis]

Judging by the Presidential candidates, conservatives should be the ones who are miserable.

Anyway, onto the Tocqueville quote fit for this thread: Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

 

[niky]

But then, they wouldn't have voted in a Republican president two times in a row.

So, what's new with the study?

People who spend less time dwelling on the status quo and more time focusing on their own fortune are happier, hallelujah, what a concept. No mental illness, there, actually. You either accept that the inequalities are inevitable, or you try to find ways that they can be rectified. One side is butting their head against a wall, the other side is simply blithely ignoring it.

Okay, that might be oversimplifying, but when you define rationalizing inequality... are you saying that those who can have correctly identified all the causes of inequality and have come to terms with it? Or that those who cannot rationalize inequality are incapable of some form of logical thought? It's very hard to draw conclusions about the mental capacity of people from what is basically an emotional and complex issue.

Simply when inequality arises partially from cultural and partially from historical differences. If person "A" is less fortunate, from an economic point of view, because they were born into poverty in a country where there is little economic opportunity due to war, invasion, or externally applied circumstances, that is likely unjust.

If, however, person "B" is in poverty due to poor economic planning on his part, wasted educational opportunities and by being unfit to become a productive member of society, then that is likely just.

 

[Swift]

Yeah, I thought that was almost a "common knowledge" social thing. I'm certainly conservative and pretty happy that I have many opportunities to make my life better. Liberals see it as opportunities for the government to make other's lives better. If you put your destiny completely in the hands of other humans, you will not be too happy.

 

[FoolKiller]

First of all, I am glad to see that the discussion here is much more civil and intelligent than the responses on the link.


But this could explain things a bit. I'm a strong conservative and my brother is a strong liberal. When we get together I try to talk to him about the latest fun things that I have discovered and all he wants to do is complain and argue about politics. Often attempting to start an argument by working to push my buttons.

The other funny thing is that he has at least twice the money I do and yet he complains about how hard it is to make ends meet, while I manage to buy the newest video game systems, big TVs, a new car, and still pack away into my savings. He also complains about work, but I put in more hours and sometimes have to show up on weekends.


And the thing is he does talk about equality all the time and when I explain that the status quo is fine by me he tells me how I just don't understand how much I truly have. Thing is, if we were to be "equalized" I would get more and he would have less.

Personally, I know that what I have I earned, what I don't have I either missed out on, either on purpose or by my own failure, and that if I work toward those things I want I can eventually reach them.

The fact is that I am 100% happy with my life now and where I see things headed.

 

[niky]

What's funny is: I see the inequality, it pisses me off, but I also realize that there's not much I can do about it.

At work, I do what I can to help the less fortunate, those who are down on their luck... heck... being their boss, I can't help but try... but i don't really fret about it much. But then, maybe that's because I don't have to struggle as much for money nowadays as I used to. I actually have it pretty good.

So... liberal in philosophy, conservative in outlook? Is that a bad thing?

 

[YSSMAN]

Its what I try to do, but then I donate money and vote for the proper politicians. Thats about all I can do at the moment...

 

[Danoff]

Inequality doesn't piss me off. I like to hear stories about people making gobs of money for some novel invention/medicine/service/etc. So I find super rich people fairly inspiring. But then, I've known quite a few people who are extremely wealthy but whose jobs leave them a mess mentally. I'm glad they're paid more than I am, and I wouldn't trade places with them.

One that comes to mind was a physician. His particular specialty caused him to deal with the dead and dying on a daily basis. He was constantly trying to buy people another couple of years, or even months. When you cure a 90 year old woman, you know you're going to see her again soon.

His job did strange things to his perception of reality, his outlook on the world, and his view of humanity. It would stress me the hell out to have someone's life in my hands every day and night. I'm quite glad that he's loaded. It's when people start talking about taking his money and giving it to people who contribute nothing that I get ticked.

 

[YSSMAN]

Well you do have to see the opposite side of the spectrum as well... People who are working three jobs just to get food on the table for the kids, pay for gas in the car, and barely get by to the next month. Surely they deserve a tax break, but they've yet to receive one, and the $150bn from China isn't going to help anyone. Especially when the tax burden is just as unfairly given as it is for that wealthy person.

I begin to worry when I see families struggle that even a year ago were easily making ends meet, placing money in the bank regularly, and if anything living the American dream. In the neighborhood I live in, all townhouses, we've seen renter tenants skyrocket, a lot of our neighbors struggling to make ends meet even after cutting hundreds out of their housing bills. People like my Uncle who owns his own business, thats when I start worrying.

 

[niky]

Well, see, that's the thing. I don't begrudge people their riches, particularly when I see how messed up some rich people can be, due to the way they've acquired it. My only beef is, like with YSSMAN, how so many people are forced to work ten times as much as others just to stay in place, or how even deserving, hardworking people fall into poverty.

Being attached to a school and hospital, I see inequality every day. People just trudging water and getting more than they need, and people who we've had to give a hand up to get out of their situation. Personally... scholarships are the best charity you can give anybody. Free food, free money, free housing? Sometimes it's justified, many times, it's a waste... but scholarships? Only those genuinely interested in furthering their lot in life and working their way up will take them. And it generally works. I've seen lots of people go from poverty to middle-income this way... but it's sad that we can't do it for everybody.

 

[Kylehnat]

People who are working three jobs just to get food on the table for the kids, pay for gas in the car, and barely get by to the next month. Surely they deserve a tax break.

Low income + several kids means you pay next-to-nothing in income tax.

 

[Danoff]

Surely they deserve a tax break, but they've yet to receive one

It's hard to give a tax break to people who don't pay taxes.

My only beef is, like with YSSMAN, how so many people are forced to work ten times as much as others just to stay in place, or how even deserving, hardworking people fall into poverty.

How hard someone works is irrelevant. All that matters is how much value they can get from their efforts. Someone who works 3 jobs doing something a machine can do isn't creating nearly as much value as the guy who invents the machine. Working with your brain is way harder than working with your muscles. Anyone can dig a ditch, not everyone can invent a ditch digger.

Edit: Many people would say that a nurse should make as much as the doctor that I mentioned above (same hours, same environment, same customers). But there are some critical differences between those roles.

 

[YSSMAN]

It's hard to give a tax break to people who don't pay taxes.

Feel free to tell that to my Mom who has been a militant conservative, GOP-backing woman all of her life and isn't making enough to balance the budget but is making too much to get any kind of assistance whatsoever. For the first time in her life, she (much like I) will be voting Democrat.

Its not all about lowering taxes for lower income families, at least in my opinion. Its about relieving the burden of taxes on the middle class, those who are being effected the most in our current situation... Conservative or not, they're feeling the crunch, and they're not happy. Its when those inequalities that they had passed blame onto those who "don't work hard enough" or "don't have an education" catch up to them that we're seeing big problems. Especially with "safe" jobs in education, healthcare and civil service.

 

[milefile]

There are many conservatives who used lto be iberal, leftist even. The reverse is the exception. The need to find peace is at work here. Liberalism lends itself to perpetual (inner) conflict. Conservatism lends itself to the ability to mind one's own business. Liberalism lends itself to totalitarianism, where everyone is equally oppressed and nobody is allowed to mind their own business.

I became much happier when I thought my way out of the leftist box and realized there was a world out there.

 

[Pupik]

I think the very definition of "liberal" means you're requesting changes, which stems from unhappiness. Conservatism basically states that you're satisfied, Maybe card-carrying Democrats will ask for Prozac discounts.

(Um, maybe?)

Are Libertarians and Social Worker's Party and Green Party members even more unhappy? Or just meh?

 

[Danoff]

Feel free to tell that to my Mom who has been a militant conservative, GOP-backing woman all of her life and isn't making enough to balance the budget but is making too much to get any kind of assistance whatsoever.

Assistance is not the same as not paying tax.

Are Libertarians and Social Worker's Party and Green Party members even more unhappy? Or just meh?

Libertarians share an attitude of personal responsibility with conservatives, but even more so. So I'd expect libertarians to be the most happy (well, except that the rest of the country keeps voting the other way). Green Party members are extreme left, so I'd expect them to be the least happy.

 

[YSSMAN]

I was referring to the whole we pay taxes and can't relieve any of those benefits, which is frustrating.

I'm also under the assumption that Libertarians would share the same sentiment, frustration, with the idiots who are running the GOP who are essentially socialists to begin with.

 

[Danoff]

I was referring to the whole we pay taxes and can't relieve any of those benefits, which is frustrating.

If you're having trouble making ends meet because of income, you don't pay taxes. If you're having trouble making ends meet because of expenses, that's your problem. I submit that there is no group that pays high tax rates but doesn't make enough money to make ends meet. Too large a portion of the population pays ~0 taxes for that to be true.

According to the IRS, in 2005, the average federal tax rate for the bottom 50% of earners (that's half the people you see) is 3%. 3% ~= 0%. Roughly half of voters do not pay taxes. Something like the bottom quarter actually MAKE money on the income tax system. The income split point for 50% is $30k AGI. So a family making $60k/year still pays very little tax.

It doesn't get much better in the next quarter. Folks between the top 50% and top 26% of earners pay on average a ~7% tax rate. The individual income split point for that tier is $62k/year. So a household subsisting on over $120k/year is still not paying a huge tax burden.

Edit: In fact, according to the IRS, for your total tax rate to go over 10%, you need to be in the top 10% of earners. But if you're in that 10%, your taxes start to skyrocket. The top 10% of earners on average pay DOUBLE the average tax RATE of the next 15%. No, the tax burden in this country lands on a tiny portion of the population.

I'm also under the assumption that Libertarians would share the same sentiment, frustration, with the idiots who are running the GOP who are essentially socialists to begin with.

Probably not the same source of frustration. It's the socialist policies that I'm against. If you're willing to vote democrat, it's not because the republicans are too socialist.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm voting Democrat for reasonable foreign policy, Mom is voting on the social welfare issues. I still consider myself a fiscal conservative (somewhat socially liberal, still not keen on all forms of welfare), but I'm for giving the system a good hard look and reforming it... Its why I'm very excited that we have a referendum on the ticket in the fall to get rid of the state income tax and have a flat 9% consumption tax. Its not fair to everyone, but as of now, its the best option we have.

 

[niky]

There are many conservatives who used lto be iberal, leftist even. The reverse is the exception. The need to find peace is at work here. Liberalism lends itself to perpetual (inner) conflict. Conservatism lends itself to the ability to mind one's own business. Liberalism lends itself to totalitarianism, where everyone is equally oppressed and nobody is allowed to mind their own business.

I became much happier when I thought my way out of the leftist box and realized there was a world out there.

Oddly, I don't see it that way.... re: Liberalism and Totalinarianism. I had a lot of left-wing classmates in college (card-carrying communists, actually) and I can still tell the difference.

Liberalism touts equal rights, freedom of speech and equal opportunity. The idea is not to bring down the rich, but to afford all, rich or poor, equal opportunities and avenues of development, both social and economic.

Communism touts complete equality by the removal of the right to own property. In communism, personal wealth is an anathema. Soomething that should not happen. It absolutely removes your right to wealth but assures you will never starve.

Unfortunately, in practice, this means that a Communism very easily turns into a totalitarian state. The state holds all the rights to everything, and no dissension in ideologies are possible.

Liberalism, on the other hand, touts freedom as one of its ideals. While it may still tax people more than a conservative policy in order to fund social programs geared to ensure freedom from want, it does not deny people the right to become wealthy.

And it's still not as taxing as socialism... and a truly far cry from communism and totalitarianism. You've got to keep them all straight...

----

As for how it all applies in practice... God only knows. Political realities and the need to court voters means that the words "Liberal" and "Conservative" apply to "Democrat" and "Republican" in the sense that they're only "Liberal" and "Conservative" in relation to each other, and each party makes concessions to social realities in order to maintain their support base and not alienate swing votes.

 

[Solid Fro]

I'm voting Democrat for reasonable foreign policy, Mom is voting on the social welfare issues.

That is not what you said in October of 2007.

If Congressman Paul doesn't get the nomination, I'll likely back Guliani (again). But as I've told many people before, if Romney or Thompson (or any other candidate besides McCain) gets the nod, I'm voting Democrat. I guarantee it.

Why is McCain no longer viable? He has not changed his views or opinions since October.

Poor Ron Paul, no one likes his zeppelins anymore.

 

[FoolKiller]

Poor Ron Paul, no one likes his zeppelins anymore.

Odd, I punched in a vote for him just this morning, and passed two cars with Ron Paul bumper stickers on my way to work.

 

[YSSMAN]

Why is McCain no longer viable? He has not changed his views or opinions since October.

I'll blame it on a change in my own personal views of foreign policy and on social issues... I just don't buy into the GOP game anymore. They sold-out, and in the end, will lose-out. I think McCain would have been a great President eight years ago, but not now. I can't help but become increasingly frustrated while listening to him talk about the issues at hand... Issues that he claims to understand and clearly does not.

I backed Guliani back before we had the economics of the day come into question, and when it became increasingly clear that he was stuck back in 2001, it seemed evident that a different candidate was in order. I still buy into the Ron Paul game, but even then, it seems that even in his own frustration, hes been pushed out onto the fringe as well.

So, meh, I changed candidates and parties. I did my part in voting for Paul in the primaries, and he did his part in making certain topics a part of the political discussion in this country. I'll admit that I've been caught up in the excitement under Obama, but it seems well within reason that he should be celebrated and in the end, gain my vote.

Others may not, and that's their own deal. I just can't vote for McCain and his ass-backwards politics. I'll keep my congressional ticket GOP for the most part, and I'm voting conservative on the referendums here in MI, but President is a very different game. Guess that makes me an independent these days.

 

[ing2ning]

McCain is the lesser of two evils. I fear Obama in office enough to have decided to vote for McCain this fall instead of not voting at all.

 

[Swift]

McCain is the lesser of two evils. I fear Obama in office enough to have decided to vote for McCain this fall instead of not voting at all.

This is an excellent post for the Election 2008 thread in this forum. You'll probably find it interesting.

 

[milefile]

Oddly, I don't see it that way.... re: Liberalism and Totalinarianism. I had a lot of left-wing classmates in college (card-carrying communists, actually) and I can still tell the difference.

Liberalism touts equal rights, freedom of speech and equal opportunity. The idea is not to bring down the rich, but to afford all, rich or poor, equal opportunities and avenues of development, both social and economic.

Communism touts complete equality by the removal of the right to own property. In communism, personal wealth is an anathema. Soomething that should not happen. It absolutely removes your right to wealth but assures you will never starve.

Unfortunately, in practice, this means that a Communism very easily turns into a totalitarian state. The state holds all the rights to everything, and no dissension in ideologies are possible.

Liberalism, on the other hand, touts freedom as one of its ideals. While it may still tax people more than a conservative policy in order to fund social programs geared to ensure freedom from want, it does not deny people the right to become wealthy.

And it's still not as taxing as socialism... and a truly far cry from communism and totalitarianism. You've got to keep them all straight...

----

As for how it all applies in practice... God only knows. Political realities and the need to court voters means that the words "Liberal" and "Conservative" apply to "Democrat" and "Republican" in the sense that they're only "Liberal" and "Conservative" in relation to each other, and each party makes concessions to social realities in order to maintain their support base and not alienate swing votes.

I see your point. At it's core America is a liberal Democracy. I encounter in non-Americans a different understanding of the word liberal, one that is devoid of American political baggage.

Personally I have nothing against liberals. I am one in some ways. What I have contempt for is radical leftism, which goes more toward hard left socialism and communism, both of which claim institutionalized freedom, but of course it is a lie.