Personally, I find it galling enough that the political extremes in this country make even the merest effort to follow, much less participate in, public affairs so intensely unpleasant. Now I have to deal with the idea that this makes them happier people than the rest of us.
There was a short op-ed piece in the WSJ today about a study indicating that the angrier and more extreme the rhetoric, the happier the citizen:
The strange fact of the matter is that the hard-core liberals and conservatives in America are actually some of our happiest citizens. According to the National Opinion Research Center in 2004, in spite of all their bile, 35% of people who said they are "extremely liberal" also reported being "very happy" with their lives — versus 22% of people who were just "liberal" and 28% of moderates. At the same time, a whopping 48% of people who were "extremely conservative" were very happy (compared with 43% of non-extreme conservatives).
And it’s not as if they deserve such happiness, on any moral scale:
Not surprisingly, there is also evidence that people with extreme views
are less empathetic and compassionate than others. They are less loving
toward family members, and less charitable with their money. They are
even less honest in everyday transactions.
Why does it make them happy? Who knows? In any case, the effect on more reasonable people is much like the effect on us nonsmokers of those who get their pleasure from puffing away in public:
Perhaps the intensity of their political views animates them in some
positive way, giving them a sense of purpose. Or maybe there is
something else about the life of the average extremist that brings lots
of joy. In either case, what we see is that the anger we associate with
the far left and far right is apparently compatible with their
happiness. The trouble is that, while radicals may be happy, they
undoubtedly lower the happiness of the rest of us through their
intolerance and antisocial ways — spewing out what economists call
"externalities" with every insulting bumper sticker and obnoxious
street demonstration. Political nastiness is something akin to
pollution.
Maybe it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of thing. We relatively calm people would be happier than the nutballs of left and right, except for the fact that they are so good at making us miserable. And somehow I suspect that they get even happier knowing they do that to us.
Related Posts
Heh, this is really too rich, Brad! Even you have outdone yourself this time. Far from blaming yourself for being so miserable, it obviously must be the fault of the people who are happy. Why don’t you look in the mirror sometime? You and your big-government ideologue ilk are miserable precisely because the rest of us are happy and don’t appreciate your constant efforts to get control over our lives so you can make us just as miserable as you are.
So are you saying you AND the "if you’re not outraged, then you’re not paying attention" lefties are equally deserving of bliss, or are you just claiming that right for YOUR side?
Somehow, I’m guessing it’s just your side. That’s the general trend, according to that same article:
Both sides are equally a pain in the posterior to the rest of us. Two cheeks on the same painful problem, you might say.
I’m just very happy I’m not part of the system that you love so much. Getting all tied up in the bureacracy of trying to use the government and other people’s money to solve society’s ills versus actually doing something tangible would surely make anyone unhappy. Having to support a system that gives us the DMV, the IRS, and the Department of Education would probably blacken anyone’s soul.
What “system?” You mean, civilization?
Things are so much better in a state of nature, red in tooth and claw.
I guess Lex is ecstatic daily.
Brad, as another study showed, people on the right are indeed happier than lefties:
Smile if (and Only if) You’re Conservative
By George F. Will
Thursday, February 23, 2006; A19
To bemused conservatives, it looks like yet another example of analytic overkill by the intelligentsia — a jobs program for the (mostly liberal) academic boys (and girls) in the social sciences, whose quantitative tools have been brought to bear to prove the obvious.
A survey by the Pew Research Center shows that conservatives are happier than liberals — in all income groups. While 34 percent of all Americans call themselves “very happy,” only 28 percent of liberal Democrats (and 31 percent of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47 percent of conservative Republicans. This finding is niftily self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals.
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.
People in the Sun Belt — almost entirely red states — have sunnier dispositions than Northerners, which could have as much to do with sunshine as with conservatism. Unless sunshine makes people happy, which makes them conservative……
Brad,
I get your point. And, I agree with you that people who are either extremely liberal or conservative seem happy because they seem to get such a kick out of picking at those who disagree with them. Of course the operative word here is: seem, because I don’t think that they are really as happy as they seem.
I also agree with you that some form of moderation is the best way to be.
I do try to respect other’s positions and do love to debate points with folks who don’t call me retarded. I try to be considerate, but am sorry to say that I’m a happy conservative.
I apologize to any and all who may be offended by my happiness, but I wish you no ill will. I just happen to recognize that I’m the captain of my ship and have to make the best of whatever happens as the tides drive me to the shoals.
Here’s another happy conservative. We can have fun while being serious.
Brad, I’m not quite sure I get your point here. Are you suggesting that you are politically a moderate??? The facts suggest otherwise. Moderates favor things such as a timetable on Iraq, medicinal marijuana. Also, most moderates are indifferent to the status of the Confederate flag. A majority of Americans resent government interference into the abortion issue. Moderates would also tend to leave the smoking issue alone as it stands now. Also, a true moderate would never support a complete ban on video poker.
It seems as though on quite a few issues you are an extremist. But that’s ok. Since you continue to bring it up (in different guises) it must trouble you deeply to recognize that you might actually be an extremist (or partisan) on some issues. Why can’t you just accept what you are. A pro big-government partisan, extremist. Perhaps it’s some kind of inner conflict that makes you unhappy. You want to be a moderate but when confronted with overwhelming evidence that you are actually an extremist it offends your inner self. But it’s really ok to be an extremist on some things.
From the description in the second quote, it sounds like the article is saying, politics aside, selfish people are happier. That makes sense: they only have to please themselves. Maybe Tony Robbins is right after all!
Lex, studies like the ones George Will cites do not surprise me in the least. Of course it’s easier to be happy if one chooses not to notice or to care about those who are less-well-off than oneself.
Using one example, to be somebody who feels some gnawing anxiety about the 45 million uninsured in this country (whether one is in that group or not) is to be somebody who’s a little less happy than the man who feels that “the system works for me, I don’t need to give this a second thought.”
Brad, I might not go quite as far as Bud and tar you with the “extremist” brush, but I’m afraid that each time you count yourself as a sensible moderate, it must be pointed out that moderation vs. extremism is in the eye of the beholder. For example, one would assume the doctrine of moderation would mean that the errors of extremism in action would eventually be corrected by the will of the sensible middle. But consider these words which I heard this morning on NPR from Andrew Bacevich, the noted war critic whose son was recently killed in Iraq:
“What kind of democracy is this when the people do speak, and the people’s voice is unambiguous, but nothing happens?”
You raise a good point, Phillip, and it goes to the problem of the inadequacy of our political vocabulary.
It’s really inadequate — actually, outright wrong — to say I am a moderate per se, or in the middle. That’s just the only shorthand way we seem to have of saying I can’t stomach either of the “sides” in this system we have that seems to offer only one pole or the other, and refers to everyone else as being “in the middle.”
The thing is, there is no LINE, no simple spectrum that runs from left to right, except in the popular political imagination. To the extent that there IS a line, I’m not on it. There are second and third dimensions. In fact, I’m not at any POINT, but at any one of many points, depending upon the question at hand. I think that would be a better way of explaining the politics of most thinking people who get lumped in rhetorically as “the middle,” but how do you characterize that in a phrase in the middle of any sentence in which you are also trying to say other things.
Sometimes, I AM a moderate — on this immigration thing, for instance. I’m turned off by both the “round ’em up and send ’em home” right (if right is the correct word) and the “we should guarantee a visa to each immigrant’s second cousins” left — once again, if that’s the word. I think immigration ought to be orderly and combine the best of both our national interests (economic needs, security) and our national values (being the land of opportunity).
I am not a moderate, in the generally accepted sense, on abortion, smoking, the war on terror, or a bunch of other things.
Of course, on some things my views are more nuanced that many folks want to accept. Take my “extreme” view on video poker for instance. It was our position that it should be regulated and taxed, but allowed wherever the local community wanted it. I was a little uncomfortable with that, but that was our position.
It took a couple of years of metastatic growth of the industry before we started to change. The thing that put us squarely in the “ban it” camp was the contemptuous ways that the industry was A) squirming around every reasonable regulation placed on it and B) buying up as much of the Legislature as it could, and intimidating much of the rest of it into submission — including the governor’s office.
People were spending more money in this state on video poker than on gasoline, and the profits (most of the money was profit) were being used to corrupt our government.
So we embraced the idea of getting rid of it. I may have some extreme positions, but that’s not one of them.
Brad –
I find your response extremely nuanced, and that’s what the world is really about. As a social conservative, economic libertarian, Groucho Marxists, atheist, I don’t expect to find folks who agree with me even 90%, but I do enjoy a frank exchange of ideas, exactly what you aim for on your blog. I more than most am distressed at the tone many adopt in their comments on your blog because they evidence an unwillingness to respect the positions of the other jerks here.
Ahem.
All I would like is honesty, coherence, and consistency in argument and civility in approach. But I remain happy nonetheless even though at times my circumstances might drive others facing the same situation bonkers.
I am a skeptic with a penchant for economic analyses and so, when considering Phillip’s quite valid concern about 45 million uninsured, I have to ask, who are they, why are they uninsured, and how can we get them the healthcare that they need? Not to digress, but there are two really big problem groups: those who can afford health insurance but don’t purchase it, and those who want it but can’t afford it. The former, in one sense, aggravate the situation of the latter because the real key to insurance is to get folks who won’t make claims for whatever reason to subsidize those who will for any reason.
As you might guess, a BIG problem is men, specifically young males who would rather buy a nice motorcycle or video gamebox than the health insurance they don’t need. In a recent column Cindi Scoppe noted the fact that females should spend more annually for checkups than males should. But should you, Warren, and Mike have to subsidize her healthcare requirements? When fairness meets economics, policy-mongers have to carefully assess the pitfalls. As Cindi noted, one young male decided against a fun vacation because he did not have insurance to cover an injury that could probably happen. I know of a similar situation and extrapolate that if individuals knew that were responsible for their actions — eating, drinking, smoking, sunning, shading, exercising, and personal orifice protection — they’d act somewhat differently. In one sense I don’t’ worry a lot about the uninsured because I know that emergency medical care is available to all. In another sense I do expect a kind folk like ours to have a safety net, but wonder how we can craft a narrow one for only those who really need it. But I digress.
I don’t think gambling is as much a partisan issue as it is an influence issue. As you know, I’m no fan of gambling, but I grew up in a house with a nickel slot machine in the basement. That’s the bad news, the good news is that we had a key. Casino gambling is a sucker’s game for everyone except the games’ owners.
As for your point on the folks on the outer limits, I did happen across a rather interesting contrast in contrast in events and attitudes regarding figures from SC’s past that I wrote about today.
People were spending more money in this state on video poker than on gasoline, and the profits (most of the money was profit) were being used to corrupt our government.
So we embraced the idea of getting rid of it. I may have some extreme positions, but that’s not one of them.
-Brad
Excuse me. Of course that’s the extreme position on that issue. Any time you take away a person’s freedom do voluntarily do something, that is, by definition, the extreme position. (The opposite extreme would be to allow the machines without any regulation or taxation.) It’s very much like alcohol prohibition. That was the extreme position in the 1900s. It came to pass and it failed. Same with banning video poker. It’s failed to curb gambling. It’s merely taken on a new form, the so-called education lottery. Defend the ban on video poker machines but don’t ever claim that is the moderate position.
I personally never put 1 penny in a video poker machine. So exactly how was the freedom to do so harming me or my family? I say bring back video poker, tax it and get rid of the lottery.
bub –
I too have a libertarian bent, but too few folks understand that the libertarian battle cry “free markets and free minds” presupposes fairness, what economists call the voluntary participation of informed consumers in a fair market; organized gambling ain’t fair. I’m emailing you a column of mine that the state published 2/28/1999 to provide more background.
Mike, I don’t dispute the potential for extreme harm to individuals that choose to engage in gambling. I’m sure many families have been destroyed and young children scared for life. But this issue goes to the very heart of personal freedom in America, a highly cherished asset to have. Once we start taking those freedoms away we soon find ourselves losing everything. So when someone, in this case Brad, takes the position that a particular freedom should be COMPLETELY banned, not just regulated, that becomes the extremist position. How much more extreme can you get than to COMPLETELY revoke a person’s privileage to engage in something that had previously been legal?
Brad, takes the very self-righteous and arrogant position that extremists and partisans are repugnant. Perhaps he’s being a bit tongue-in-cheek here but he goes so far as to assault what he calls extremists for being happy. Yet he fails to acknowledge that on many, many issues he is very extreme.
Video poker in particular is an area that Brad takes the ultimate extreme position. He would imprison people for playing video poker under ANY circumstances. A moderate position would allow playing the machines with a set dollar limit, or age limit, or time limit or some other restrictive limitation. But a total ban is, by definition, THE extreme position. I just want Brad to acknowledge in a forthright and honest way that he can, at times, be an extremist and to stop branding others for taking positions that he desides are extremist.
“How much more extreme can you get than to COMPLETELY revoke a person’s privileage to engage in something that had previously been legal?”
Heh. I guess Brad could impose grief counseling on those now-unable-to-gamble gamblers to make his position even more extreme? Just kidding, you’re absolutely right on this point.
Lex, don’t give Brad any ideas. I can see it now: fat counselors for those deprived of their Big-Mac. Sun counselors for those banned from sunbathing. TV withdrawal counselors. (Brad says he doesn’t watch TV, so a ban on that isn’t so far-fetched). All paid for by a tax on the State Newspaper, which will be required reading in the new world of Brad Brother.
Happy? You seem to be…
It’s the grim lot of the person who is NOT extreme, who does NOT imagine bizarre positions for people with whom he disagrees so that he can mock them to increase his joie de combat, to be deadly dull and explain himself in direct, non-ironic terms, which makes it all the more delightful for the extremists…
I resent that and — in spite of the fact that I spend a ridiculous amount of time I can’t afford on this blog trying to augment explanations and examinations — often decline to answer, decline to say such things as “I would never advocate counselors of any kind; I tend to find such things as ‘grief counselors’ and ‘conflict resolution counselors’ superfluous and faintly ridiculous, although I hesitate to mock earnest people who think they’re helping,” or “you’ll have to find somebody else if you want to ban fatty foods,” or “I certainly wouldn’t ban sunbathing, although I certainly would like to keep the ozone layer healthy while at the same time reducing greenhouse gases…”
Basically, it’s a no-win situation, and the extremists know that. If you ignore them (refuse to feed the trolls), they delight in saying, “I’m still waiting for your answer to (blah); obviously you don’t have one.”
If you do answer them sincerely, you sound like the kid who tells the bullies, “Don’t make fun of my galoshes; my mama says it’s important to keep my feet dry, and besides, she got them on sale…”
It’s particularly galling to have such folks attacking you for being authoritarian and wanting to ban things when you have put up with them for two years, repeatedly warning that nonproductive, ad hominem attacks will get you banned from the blog, and they are still here. Perhaps the two who were gone were not enough of an example (they are going to LOVE that sentence, because it makes me sound like the Nazi commander saying to the occupied villagers “Apparently I am too kind; I will have to shoot more of you”). I suppose such forbearance makes me seem as namby-pamby as those “counselors” they like to mock (“Oh, they’re good boys, deep-down; I’ll just replace the tires they slashed and give them another chance.”)
And here’s the cherry on top of the whipped cream, the ultimate irony: When I do ban one or more of them, after having forgiven them seventy times seven, I will be described in horrified terms as the big, bad extreme authoritarian.
Sheesh.
Brad, lighten up. I find it repugnant that the state of South Carolina has chosen to ban video poker. That’s a heartfelt and very MODERATE position to take. For many years video poker had been legal and hundreds of citizens in SC and in neighboring states enjoyed playing the machines. They personally did no harm to me, or to you. Yet you and your collegues at the State decided that government intervention into the market was needed to combat the ills of these machines. Then you describe this extrodinarily EXTREME position as MODERATE. Lex and I, who generally disagree, find this claim utterly flabergasting. The fact that we chide this ludicrous claim with a bit of levity shows we are not mean-spirited but simply we’re having fun at someone who makes a claim that cannot be defended on it’s merits. So ban me if you must but your claim that taking away a person’s freedom to engage in an activity that was previously legal as MODERATE cannot go unchallenged.