Mad Dems

Here all this time I thought it was just me. I guess I'm not a abnormal conservative.
In spite of being constantly described as mean and viscous, Republicans are shown to be quite a bit more likely to be happy than Democrats.

It also is not a new phenomena, Even after correction for income, Republicans are happy campers:

snip



Should this get any airtime from the MSM to dispel some misconceptions?


What would account for over 30 years of unhappiness, and is there hope?

Here is my take and it contains generalizations of course.

Republicans tend to be self reliant people. They don't believe in "government", they don't believe in "hand outs", and they belief that a society should reward individuals based on merit, individual character, and individual achievements. They believe that people are responsible for their own actions, their own choices, and their own behavior.

Democrats tend to believe in "groups". They look to the government and to other people for "help". They insist on special "rights" in order to "level the playing field". They focus on the injustice, unfairness, and downright nasty nature of our world. They strive to an idealistic society where everyone just (in the best Rodney King tradition) "can just get along". They believe in confiscation to punish those most successful in order to make sure those least successful get rewarded too. They don't believe in force (unless it's to coerce the "rich" and the successful to play along). And, they see a plethora of victims; people who due to no fault of their own were punished by the "system", by "society" or by "other people" in general.

Given those two distinct world views, it's no wonder that republicans are more "happy".

Happiness, after all, is something that comes from within, not from someone else.

Since Republicans are already wired to believe that they are accountable for their actions, their behaviors, and success, AND their mood (which includes happiness), they're better positioned to actually implement their own happiness.

Democrats, in contrast, are waiting for someone to "give" them their happiness, make them happy, and make all the bad things in the world go away.

Thats what I think anyway.

LH, even Ann Coulter couldn't have said it better.
I can reply with one quote of Ernest Hemingway, who said:



but of course that would be a generalization and quite offensive to many Republicans on that board, who indeed are very smart and intelligent people - and to them I say sorry for bringing up that quote.

But since it's impossible to even participate in that topic without generalizing to SOME degree, I'd just say that by being more compassionate and more sensitive to social injustices around them, Democrats make themselves more vulnerable to allowing the external "negative factors" affecting their personal emotional state.

Should this get any airtime from the MSM to dispel some misconceptions?

It hasn't changed much, so is it really news?


What would account for over 30 years of unhappiness, and is there hope?

The survey says it clearly: Republicans are more likely to be healthy, more likely to regularly attend religious services, more likely to be wealthy and more likely to be married. All of these are positive correlations to happiness.

In contrast, Dems are less likely to be in these categories.

I think that Democrats tend to focus more on the shortcomings of society instead of looking at the positive aspects. People are hungry, people are poor, people have no health insurance. Perhaps it has been the Democrats' frustration at not being able to solve these problems that leads them to unhappiness.

Perhaps Republicans are a bit more realistic as to which problems in society can be fixed and are not disappointed as much.

Let's look at the election map: all the "blue" states are the wealthiest states in the nation. On the contrary, red states include some of the poorest. I don't have any data regarding health of the population of Massachussetts or Connecticut vs. health of the population of Mississippi or Alabama, but something tells me that the higher income/wealthier residents translates to better health. With the exception of religious services attendance, I don't see how the electoral map jives with your assertion.

I didn't make that stuff up, the survey said it explicitly.



The election map is irrelevant. The survey did not correlate red state/blue state to happiness, but individual political affiliation to happiness which is a bird of a different feather.

This is from nighttimer's signature:


That sums it up perfectly: the world is imperfect full of sorrow and he's glad he isn't a Republican.

lordhelmet hit the nail on the head with the different world views of the different groups. While there are always going to be problems with using stereotypes and generalization, the fact that Republicans have more of an internal locus of control versus the external locus for Democrats.

How about those Independents? The problem with independents is that it's difficult to fit a stereotype to them. However, I can understand why they have the lowest levels of happiness. Speaking for myself, when you disapprove of both the major parties in your country it can be a bit discouraging.

Given the crowd that Hemingway hung out with while he got loaded on a daily basis, that's not surprising. And, the famous author was mentally ill, was he not? At least he was before he blew his own brains out with a shotgun. And did I find what you wrote "offensive"? No. Being overly thin skinned and easily offended is also a democratic trait. Republicans understand that THEY are in charge of what they they think of themselves and are not easily bruised if someone else tries to damage their self esteem. Again, their happiness is from within, it's not given (or denied) by someone else.

You actually confirmed what I just said. I could have added that democrats are more "emotion-based" than "reason-based" as well.

But, happiness is our own individual personal responsibility. It isn't something that comes from the outside.

Self reliant people understand the concept. They get it. Those who rely on "external" factors for their mental state, as you put it, will never be happy.

If one wants to look for injustice, pain, suffering, and misery in the world one can find it. And, one has been able to find it since the dawn of man and will be able to do so until some other species replaces us as part of the "intelligent design" or something.

In my own life, the people who are constantly the most miserable are the one's who lean (or in some cases lurch) to the left. There is just so much to complain and whine about. I've concluded that humans like to gripe. They like to complain. Why?
Because it's the path of least resistance. Making one's self happy can be HARD. It takes effort. It takes dedication. And it's not something that one can delegate to someone else.

What is the MSM?


There are so many variables here, but I will take a stab at answering.

1) Religiosity can be uplifting to people. I prefer to think that it is spirituality and not just the mechanics of attending church regularly that causes people to believe that there is a benevolent entity who loves them and won't let them down in times of trouble.

But within groups of religious people there are those who believe that more should be done by humans to actively improve the conditions of those less fortunate than themselves. I am sure that these folks become frustrated when they try to do something meaningful for God and humankind and find that there are limits to their abilities.

(It is interesting that Christians and not Jews or particularly Muslims were mentioned in this part of the survey. You might see a far different dynamic in this case--people who pray six times a day being chronically angry about social and political conditions, even here in the United States.)

To those who do try to make this world a better place and find themselves frustrated in being unable to effect as much change as they want to, I would suggest Reinhold Niebuhr's famous prayer:


2) It would make sense that people who wonder if the rent is going to be paid or if they can make their old car last a couple of months longer would be more anxious about the future and unhappier than those who have the confidence that even if their transportation goes belly-up they will be able to finance a new car without any trouble.

The GOP probably has a lot of members who don't make a lot of money, but it is traditionally the Democratic party that appeals to people in unfortunate circumstances. However, it is people with money and social status who are listened to more (by either party) and, while there may be large numbers of poor who would prefer to vote Democratic in elections, it is among these that we find people who are more easily discouraged and feel that it is useless to exercise their freedom to vote and try to get their government to address their needs. Further, it is easier to get $1,000 in campaign contributions from one contented Republican than it is to obtain that same $1,000 from ten or twenty disgruntled Democrats who don't have as much money. It is easier to trust your government leaders when you are in better financial shape.

I also think that the election map is irrelevant in this survey. Look at Michigan--a blue state. While there are indeed millionaires living here, the state has taken repeated hits from company outsourcing, layoffs, and corporate bankruptcies. I would assert that it is more the economic straits my state is in than the presence of the labor union vote that caused Michigan to vote Democratic.

Maybe that's why he was a famous author. Your worldview may explain why virtually all creative types - authors, composers, musicians, artists, actors - you know, people by whom the future generations will define our time (just like, you know, we say "Shakespearean England", or "Mozartean Vienna", or "Goya's Spain") - they all lean left.
Because in order to be creative you need to notice the "injustice, pain, suffering, and misery in the world". It has nothing to do with "the path of least resistance". To notice things around you means being compassionate.

Perhaps. Maybe one has to sacrifice common sense in order to hold that much talent in one's brain too?

I think I'm creative too. Not to the level of Mozart for sure. Hemingway? I think he's overrated. He'd make a good screenwriter today, but not much more.

One can be compassionate and I am. But, that doesn't change the basic fact that we are all responsible for our own happiness. Furthermore, liberals seen content to "raise the consciousness" of "issues" while republicans seem more inclined to actually perform some action designed to DO something. Raising consciousness is another form of "whining" in my view. It just boils down to "here's a problem, now do something about it!".

Saying you "care about the poor" is viewed as compassionate. Yet, those who claim to care the most don't do much to really change their status long-term. Instead of confronting the bad choices, bad behavior, and bad cultural patterns that doom individuals to poor status, they enable those bad behaviors by simultaneously rewarding them (via government welfare and handout programs) and assigning blame to society, the rich, or republicans who "don't care" as much.

That way of thinking is hogwash.

I want to help the poor and disadvantaged in this country MORE than liberals do. And, I want to do it in a way that is lasting, meaningful, and that uplifts our nation and our world in its entirety.

We are human beings which means we have brains sophisticated enough to control not only our entire bodies but our entire mood, outlook, and course of actions. WE can make CHOICES. Empathy is only valuable if it moves one to positive action. Moving one to posture, pontificate, and then actually enable the bad behavior of the individual being empathized WITH, is ultimately destructive to that person.

I'd have to disagree with your assertion about income and the electoral map. There are also a number of well researched articles on such topics:
population density
income, etc

Secondly, I would have to typically agree that Democrats are more concerned with social ills in society, etc. The irony is that considering the demographics of the party, the "ills" often are associated with their respective groups. For instance, Blacks are more likely to be democrats, as are feminists and the working poor. So if racism, sexism, or classism are "societal woes", they're obviously concerned with how the gov't reacts as it directly impacts their causes.

As the article stated, Republicans are more likely to be religious, be married (and hence have a more nuclear family), and as some of the information I've provided shows... more likely to be financially stable.

In some senses I'd agree with the notion that conservatives feel more empowered. This has been discussed with the notion that we feel more responsible for our actions, etc. I can't say that I disagree from a personal opinion stand point. I personally feel like a large component of the democrats that I know on a personal level feel as if their career problems, love lives, financial situations, and any other negative aspects of their lives are somehow a function of external factors. Consider the fact that we live in a society where fat people sue McDonald's before you argue that notion...

I believe that the debates on this board are great examples. I would suggest that the feeling of capability, having a voice, and being a part of the very thread of American society is something that some people don't believe that they possess. Posts like this scream of cynicism and the feeling of being "left out".

In a less scientific opinion, I'd have to say that the DNC in some part (maybe a large part) is comprised of a component of American society that feels a disconnect. This could include the working poor, minorities(really specifically blacks), and the elderly. How could you be happy if you wake up every day and feel like a second class citizen? I personally would have to assert that these feelings are nearly completely the choice of those individuals, but the posts on this board make my point time and time again.

I'd venture to state that it's not empathy or compassion that comprises the DNC's constituency, but more over a feeling of incapability to affect change without the intervention of a greater force (i.e. the government). This is the general difference between conservatives and liberals in the United States I'd suppose...

Can I get a source on this or are you stating opinion as fact?



So democrats are more likely to see the problems and try to fix them while republicans are more likely to avoid addressing them? Perhaps democrats and those who lean left can acknowledge the positives while not being blinded and still looking at what needs to be fixed.



What about the Terri Schaivo case? Was that not the right using an emotion-based argument with the whole "culture of life" thing? I don't want to derail this topic by bringing up something so polarizing as the Schaivo case, but I feel that the argument form the right had a large part of emotion-based components.



And this is a bad thing? Striving for a peaceful existence? Should we not, as humans, hold ourselves to the highest possible levels of civilization? There are cultures where people do get along and there are fewer problems. The Aka for example don't participate in war of any kind. This leaves them with more time to hunt, gather, and enjoy their family. Yes, it's more primitive in some ways, but I'd argue that they're far more advanced in others. Far beyond the US.

Should this get any airtime from the MSM to dispel some misconceptions?

What's MSM and what are the misconceptions? That democrats are usually the happier bunch? I'm not really sure what the questions is asking.


What would account for over 30 years of unhappiness, and is there hope?

I thinks this has been pretty well covered. Democrats see the injustices in life done by people to others and want to help (not that reps don't want to help). Also, I think that since most republicans are in a higher SES they have relatively less to worry about, and since I think the majority of republicans are white they have much less difficulty in America with racism. Overall the republicans should be happy right now. Their party is in power and their ideas are being pushed forward for better or worse.

I don't think this is inherent as lordhelmet stated where republicans come "hard-wired" with the Puritan work ethic. Why should we hold ourselves accountable for everything? Is there something wrong with asking for help from others? I feel like the Puritan/conservative work ethic is good that it teaches responsibility and control over ones life, but I also feel it ostrasizes people into being so self dependent that they cannot ask for help, making people an "island" unto themselves. Also, things are so culturally dependent that one is not born a certain way but molded by experiences; especially when this comes to values, beliefs, and politics. I understand the value of making my own choices and holding the responsibility of whatever outcomes there are. The problem is, where there is something to blame besides "just not working hard enough" or "not taking enough responsibility" I think the right usually trys to rationalize so it fits with thir opinion and blame the individual more often than need be. This of course goes for both sides and the independents.

Should this get any airtime from the MSM to dispel some misconceptions?

I can't really answer this qustion, since I don't really know to what it refers.

What would account for over 30 years of unhappiness, and is there hope?

I would have thought this was fairly obvious. In the last 30 years of American history, society, government and the media have broadly , but not uniformly or without deviation, shifted in the general direction of the Republicans.

If the same survey had been carried out when the general drift was towards the Democrats (or to the left) - say, in the three decades from the late 30s to the late 60s, covering the New Deal, the post-war consensus and 50s/60s technical and economic optimism, and the big wins for the civil rights movement - these poll results (which are significant but not dramatic enough to justify some of the triumphalist crowing that's been going on here) might well have been reversed, with Democrats edging the happiness race ahead of Republicans.

People are generally happy when things are going their way, and unhappy when things seem to be going against them. So if Democrats are unhappy, it's maybe it's because mainstream opinion in the USA has shifted away from them and towards the Republicans, which in turn would make Republicans more likely to be happy.

There's no further need to make value judgements about the superior character triats inherent in Republicanism and flaws in Democratism, unless the objective is to deliberately make Democrats more unhappy, is there?

In a playground context, the "self-reliance" motif here seems translate into "it's all right to poke fun at the wheezy fat kid who cries all the time, because he or she should lose weight and get fit". Never mind that it's the fun-poking that's making them cry, not their weight or their asthma.

What would account for over 30 years of unhappiness, and is there hope?

I think that Democrats undertake some grand missions (ex. universal healthcare, environmental clean-up, welfare) that are constantly met with resistance. The party has had to make MANY concessions over the past 30 years and much of their successes have gone unnoticed until much later on (1970 Civil Rights Campaign Led By Lyndon Johnson).
Today I think that party is quite broken and lacks leadership and confidence.

Wow Politica,

Lyndon B. Johnson left office on January 20, 1969 and came home to his Texas ranch a broken man.

He did manage, with the assistance of Doris Kearns Goodwin, to finish his memoirs before he died in 1973.

Johnson's signing the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act, along with his "we shall overcome" speech, (accomplishments in the early Johnson years before he got bogged down in Vietnam) seem like reasons to celebrate rather than go into some gloomy funk. Despite the fact that Johnson correctly predicted that the Democrats would lose the South for a quarter century, I think he thought he did the right thing. Those Democrats, like me, who are of such vintage to remember the era firsthand, have pride in Johnson's contributions to civil rights, although we bemoan the loss of power in Washington and in state and local governments.

Please provide us with a link verifying that he led a civil rights campaign in 1970.

BTW: My information came from presidential historian Robert Dallek's two volume set on Johnson. You might want to read it.

Are you saying that there was no point in the last 30 years that Democrats would have reason to be more happy than Republicans?

Because if you read the full study on page 14 there is a graph that shows the 33 year trend. At no point in the last 33 years have Democrats been more happy than Republicans. Your argument seems flawed.

In fact, the closest the two parties came in terms of happiness was during Reagan's second term which would seem to almost the low ebb of Democrat's political hopes.

Keep in mind that the happiness issue was the focus of the study and the party affiliation was asked at the end of the survey to deliberately seperate the two in the minds of the pollee.

I'm not sure exactly what it is that compels both Amlord and Aevans176 in his link to reference me. Apparently, there's just something about me that gets to people.

Maybe Eminem said it best:

Now this looks like a job for me
So everybody just follow me
Cuz we need a little controversy,
Cuz it feels so empty without me

I said this looks like a job for me
So everybody just follow me
Cuz we need a little controversy,
Cuz it feels so empty without me

"Without Me" (Eminem)

Yeah, I AM glad I'm not a Republican. I find most Republicans are overly enamored with the status quo even when the status quo doesn't work. They are overly deferential to authority. They see injustice, unfairness, the rape of the environment, the attempted subjugation of women, gays, non-whites and turn their backs instead of being moved to action. They can see the game is fixed, the cards marked and you can't win, break even or get out of the game, but they just yawn and say, "Well, it's your own fault. Work hard like I did and you can make something of yourself like me." What? And be blind like you to the ills of the world and be unquestionably and slavishly loyal to wealth and power? No thanks, but I'll pass.

Too many people in general don't want to be bothered with critical thinking and it's the Republicans and conservatives that are too often on the wrong side of the right issues.

But I'm not really interested in getting into a tit-for-tat exchange on why it's great to be a liberal or it sucks to be a conservative. People choose to be one thing or the other and the reasons why don't particularly concern me. Among my reasons are the following:

If you have ever breathed clean air or drank clean water, thank a liberal.

If no woman you know has died or been maimed in a back-alley Abortion, thank a liberal.

If you have ever used Medicare, thank a liberal.

If you've ever driven on an interstate highway, thank a liberal.

If your family benefited from the GI Bill of Rights, FHA Mortgages, and so forth, thank a liberal.

If you are not a land-owning white male, but have voted, thank a liberal.

If your workplace is safe and you are paid a living wage, including overtime; if you enjoy a 40-hour week and you are allowed to join a union to protect your rights without being lynched, thank a liberal.

In short, if you've ever enjoyed anything of the post-stone-age world, thank a liberal.

...And if not, become a conservative.

http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Thank_a_liberal

No this whole study is flawed Amlord, there are so many problems with the very premise of it that it is hard to even know where to begin.

First of all, what is happiness in the first place? Wouldn't you agree that happiness means different things to different people? That answer has absolutely nothing to do with a person's political party.

Secondly, where is the proof that these responses have anything to do with political party? Since happiness is subjective and there are numerous other factors that could potentially effect it such as race, income level, religion, area of the country you live in, education level, health, marriage, job satisfaction, how good your breakfast was this morning, we could go on for hours with this list. A person might say they are "happy" one day because they just got a raise and if you asked that same exact person the very next week they might say they are "unhappy" because they just got a speeding ticket and they are late on their credit card bill.

The suggestion that a person's actual or perceived political orientation has anything to do with their happiness is completely absurd.

This study shows that you can cook up pretty much any conclusion you'd like to in order to enforce or break stereotypes as you desire.

The question was: "Generally, how would you say things are these days in your life--would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy or not too happy?"

The listener comes up with their own definition of "happy". So your question is answered.

The survey went on to ask about a lot of other things--health, income, marital status, on and on and on.

The survey then correlates the first question--about happiness--with other factors.

The fact that you don't believe the results does not invalidate them. The interesting thing to me is that Republicans have been happier than Democrats in every survey since 1972 (the year I was born ).

In relation to the questions at hand, it is interesting to see that Republicans are happier than Democrats in every income group (page 15). So it ain't money.

Pew is a pretty well-regarded research center. If you have some specifics why you think this is flawed, let's hear them.

I've already posted them Amlord. Your posts have related to stereotypes about Democrats and Liberals you feel are true, but are for the most part false. That aside you have no idea who was interviewed for this survey and since you have already admitted that each person defines their own "happiness" I fail to see how it can be correlated to political party when the idea of happiness is not universal and measurable.

Just because an institution is well regarded doesn't mean their results are accurate if they are based on a flawed premise in the first place. The study suggests that politics are correlated to happiness, yet they have not sufficiently proved any sort of relationship between happiness and the political label one identifies with.

What they have done is they have taken some individuals over the course of 30 years and they've asked them if they are happy. Then they have tried to find out some ways to segment those individuals by various things like how much money they make, whether they are religious, etc. But doing that doesn't do anything to answer the question of why they are happy or unhappy in general.

Just because someone is a minority doesn't mean they will be less likely to be happy, the individuals they studied who were minorities happened to be X% happy and Y% unhappy. The reason for that has nothing to do with their race it has everything to do with how that individual defines happiness and the specific circumstances in their life, their story in other words. The study doesn't even touch that. It doesn't ask these people why they are happy or why they are unhappy, it simply takes a response and then adds a bunch of labels we are all familiar with that are in no way causal.

Someone who goes to church is capable of being happy equally as well as someone who does not. Someone who is wealthy is capable of being happy equally as well as someone who is poor. You can say the same for every factor they measured. The study is bunk.

CubeJockey,

I guess we can leave it on the note that you don't believe in surveys. That surveys can never be correct since they don't survey everyone. Statistically, we know this is incorrect, but you are free to believe whatever you want.

You've basically said that if I tell a pollster I don't like Bush and that I'm a Republican and they ask 1000 others and 900 agree with me that it doesn't mean anything, because it is just 1000 individuals.

This survey shows correlation, not causation. Maybe happy people are just more likely to be Republican. Maybe unhappy people choose to be Independents. The survey doesn't hazard a guess and all I've expressed is my personal explanation of what might be happening. What you've done is deny the results of the report, which doesn't answer the questions for debate.

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it is impossible for a survey to determine what causes happiness or what factors are more likely to lead to happiness. The reason for that is because happiness is different things to different people. Happiness is not some monolithic object we are all striving for it is found in different places.

This is about as ridiculous as saying that a 30 year survey has found the meaning of life. That would make for a good Onion article but nothing that should actually be taken seriously.

In short, if you've ever butchered history to suit your cynicism... you might be a liberal???
(Nixon formed the EPA, back alley abortions aren't caused by pro-lifers, Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway act into legislation, etc, etc... this isn't a history debate!)

...All from the man who quotes Eminem as if he's some sort of cultural patriarch.

I think it's far easier to make snide remarks than to argue the fact of the matter. Frankly, I only used your post because it aided my argument.




Wow... eloquence or ignorance? I'm not sure.
What I will say, is that if any debater made similar comments about other demographics, say black people for instance, we'd be hung out to dry.

Frankly, stereotypes in such fashion are neither productive nor accurate. It would be like me stating that all liberals are lazy and uneducated. It's just not true.

If you believe the "game is fixed", then it's your right. The problem is that if we're perpetuating a cycle of inadequacy and mediocrity based on the "system", then there's a problem. I don't believe that all liberals see it this way. Some liberals do a great job with aiding in protecting the environment, the elderly, the working-poor, etc. However, if we all believed in across-the-board equality then we'd be socialists.... and we all know how well that doesn't work.

I believe that America needs people to stand on both sides of the aisle, but also believe that the original post's study had some interesting points. The unfortunate part is that the DNC seems to attract some of the malcontent, cynical, and at times the apathetic components of America. This is of course coupled with the fact that the GOP often attracts zealots, militants, and fruitcakes of asst kinds as well.

The point, and I think it's a good one, is that there probably are good reasons that this study keeps coming to the conclusion that democrats are less happy.

In today's society, Democrats (statistically) are less likely to be college educated, statistically are lower paid, less likely to be married, often less likely to be religious, etc. Doesn't seem to be a complicated notion to grasp... they SHOULD be less happy...

Assuming for just a second that what you say is even true (no sources are posted here) why does that matter. That may be your definition of happiness, why does it have to be anyone else's definition? Or is the world only allowed to be happy based on your worldview?

Aevans176 I probably have two college and/or graduate hours for every one most of the Republicans on this board have. Yet you are right. I am unhappy and I have a reason to be. When I can't get to sleep at night I don't count sheep. I try not to, but I see images of Bush, Cheney, Hastert, Frist, Nay, Lay, DeLay, Rove, Abramoff, Brownback, Dobson, Robertson, Fallwell and oh so many others jumping the white pickett fence. It's almost like an army of wolves in sheep's clothing. What a nightmare! Although, that's a lot of reasons to be unhappy, I could name many more.

Edited to add:

Ken Mehlman...oh right Ken Melhman...how could I possibly forget a bad dream like Ken Mehlman?...a lawyer who talks like he's got mush in his mouth.

What would account for over 30 years of unhappiness, and is there hope?

I am convinced that people who live in similar conditions tend to have similar attitudes. I have found, albeit unscientifically, that democrats tend to live in more densely-populated areas. There appear to be more republicans in the suburbs. Less dense states appear to have more republicans. It's refreshing when visiting the south from the northeast, because everyone seems to be so happy all the time. Even stopping for a bite to eat in a fast food place and you can see the difference. Up here, you're lucky to get a "That it?" and "Next!" while down there its all smiles and "What can I getchya?" and "Enjoy your meal." This does not appear to reflect their political affiliation, but rather the simple fact that they have more elbow room. There appears to be a correlation here.

Political parties are not run by the people, but are more so pressed upon them. The ideologies are designed to appeal to certain groups in order to get their votes. It just so happens that the democrats' target audience is, for whatever reason, not in the brightest of moods.

What does it matter whether or not happiness is a monolithic phenomenom with objectively determined parameters? The survey asked "are you happy?", leaving it to the interviewee to apply their own (i.e. subjective) definition of happiness. The survey also establishes a clear correlation between certain factors and happiness. Whether or not the factors are the cause of the happiness isn't the subject of the survey.

Uh, the study doesn't say what causes happiness. It just correlates a bunch of obvious factors with whether people are happy. Apparently, you don't like the results, but that doesn't make them wrong.

Amlord may have been a little curt in his statement, but I think he's dead on. You disagree with the findings of a survey so it's "bunk." Just yesterday, you dismissed a FoxNews / Opinion Dynamics telephone poll of 900 registered voters as "a poll of people who watch Fox News. Talk about bunk. Feel free to click the links, read the questions and criticize them, but this type of inaccurate dismissal really hurts your credibility.

Sure "are you happy" is a complicated question. But if you ask 3000 people a year for 30 years "are you happy" the findings are pretty darn interesting. Religiosity and marital status correlated positively with people being happy (or, if you must, people *saying* that they are happy). I find this interesting, and frankly, intuitive. I also think that this survey backs up much of what some liberals here say regarding quality of life issues. Yes, money buys happiness to a point. But money can't buy increased happiness, perhaps because we have to make trade-offs to get it? Working more, maybe 2 jobs, etc.
As the study puts it:

Make any comment you wish, aevans176. But if you do just be prepared to defend it and don't whine about it. Your statement implies I receive some kind of special deference for my remarks. Not that it's any of your business, but I can assure you that I am treated no differently from anyone else on this board and that's just the way I like it.

Feeling insulted? Perhaps you should report the offending post to a board Moderator. Or just come back with a better formed reply than snide insinuations that I am treated differently for whatever reason you have dreamed up.

The premise of this entire thread is ridiculous on its face. Who gets to determine what "happiness" is? How do you quantify happiness? What makes someone happy? Money? Great sex? A fast car? A big house? What makes you happy might depress the hell out of me. As Cube Jockey has maintained, one man's joy is another's misery and all the polls in the world can't be accurate when it is asking something that is so nuanced and subjective as happiness.



Why use the word "statistically" twice in the same paragraph and then provide no statistics to support such a grossly vulgar smear? Can't you even be bothered to defend your absurd assertions, aevans176?

You've posted on long enough to know there are no stupid people on this board and unsupported statements like these convince few and impress no one. If you have some credible evidence to back up your assertion then post it. It's not that it's a complicated notion to grasp. It's just a complicated notion to intellectually defend.

On the other hand, maybe (some) conservatives and Republicans ARE happier than (some) liberals and Democrats.

After all, ignorance is bliss.

Perhaps you're right, night timer. Us happy folks are ignorant clods who fell off the back of the turnip truck or something.

That's ok.

Because, along with taking accountability for our own happiness, our behavior, our choices, and our attitudes, we also take personal accountability for our own self esteem.

Therefore, we aren't insulted when others attempt to insult us and also, frankly, could care less what others in "AD" think of us.

I do feel compassion and empathy for those less fortunate who don't realize that the key to their own success, happiness, and future was right between their ears all along. If I can help even one person see the light, I will think it worthwhile.

I'd like to pose a simpler hypothesis to this exercise:

Before doing so, I'd like to make clear what the author of the topic failed to. First, the numbers did not reveal that Republicans are 50% happier than Democrats. Rather, the number is closer to 15%. Second, the inference from much of this debate implies that all Democrats are unhappy, which simply isn't the case. If nothing else I can vouch for one authentic exception: me I suspect at a minimum there are a few more empirical examples on AD as well.

Perhaps the reason more Democrats are very unhappy is as a party Democrats seek to improve upon the existing state of the world (admittedly the improvement is subject to interpretation), as opposed to Republicans, who traditionally seek to preserve the status quo. Now, if we accept this generalization, then its understandable that a higher percentage those seeking change might have the most to gain from it. Ie. perhaps they seek/support a raising of the minimum wage because they are in fact working for minimum wage. The government does serve as an agent of change for the disenfranchised so its only natural they would align themselves with the party that supports such an idea.

Frankly, I wish I were a Republican. I wish I had such a satisfaction with the state of things in our society that I would prefer the status quo. I don't. Do I think the government is the best agent of change in all these cases? No. I think nearly everyone on this board would agree the government is largely inefficient in that regard. But its the best we have at the moment.

So rather than abandon the concept, I would rather focus on improvement and inclusion. I know its tougher to fix something that is broken, than kick it under the bus and tell it "life is rough, deal with it". That doesn't mean I hold your hand for the rest of your life, but I might just help you stand up and give you the tools to take that walk on your own.

If you wish you were a Republican, then why not BE a Republican?

See, it would be "liberal" to state that you "wish" for something then fail to take action.

Yes, government is inefficient. But that's because it's a vast bureaucracy. That's inherent in such an organization independent of the orientation of the management of such.

And, if you really are focused on "improvement", you really SHOULD become a Republican because, in the year AD 2006, Republicans are the people who are trying to change things for the better rather than cling to obsolete and outdated ideas like the reactionary "just-say-no" democrats have been doing in the USA.

Education? Health Care? Social Security? National Security? Crime and Punishment? Technology? Business Growth? Strong and stable families? Healthy child rearing?

In every one of these areas, Republicans are out in front with progressive ideas while democrats, playing the role of the reactionaries these days, cling to the past, the status quo, and try their darndest to impede, obstruct, and prevent any progress by undermining, attacking, and preventing the implementation of good IDEAS.

Welcome aboard.

Nice try, but I do more than wish. Play with my words all you like, but I do take action. When was the last time you participated in our system?

Wow, Karl Rove would be proud the way you twisted that one. Unfortunately, I know better. Lets take a snapshot at some of your "progress" in 2006:

Education - No Child Left Behind...right. I will give Bush credit on increasing funding overall, but he's made some horrible choices on student loans and rural funding in my book.
Health Care -Oh, you mean the proposed medicare cuts that are going to increase the burden on 13 million taxpayers and knock 100,000 plus from having health care altogether? Is that progress?
Social Security - Luckily that one didn't even make it out the barn door. Not that we didn't spend millions of dollars trying to convince people otherwise. Reducing people's benefits so they can lose the money on wall street isn't progress.
National Security - You mean like the REAL ID act and warrantless domestic surveillance. You call that progress?
Technology - You mean like the latest energy bill, that spends more money on present fuel sources and than future ones and gives tax credits to oil companies that don't need it?
Strong & Stable Families and Healthy Child Rearing - Wow, what a lovely wolf in sheeps clothing this one is. Translation: Ban same-sex marriage and don't let them adopt. Yeah, that's progress all right.

Democrats are reactionaries? Wow, now there's spin. Trying to stop bad legislation isn't reactionary, its sound policy.

Nice try LordHelmet, I'm not buying. Oddly enough, I'm still happy too. Go figure.

It has nothing to do with whether I like or dislike the results, I really don't care about them because they are flawed. Your political association is not an "obvious" factor that determines whether you are happy or not.

Even though it does have a lot of reasonable factors like employment, health, income, etc you can't claim correlation even despite all of that. The interviews never asked why a person was happy or unhappy.

So you've got all these pieces of data about a person like their age, their job, their health, their marital status, their political leanings, etc and if a person simply says "I'm happy" then bingo this survey says well it must be all of these things when in fact it is likely one or a few of them depending on that individual's definition of happiness.

Based on this methodology if they'd asked things like "what is your shoe size" which is about as equallly "obvious" a factor in your happiness as your political party then we might be reading something ridiculous like "Men with larger feet are 25% happier than men with average feet." It has no meaning.


I don't consider FoxNews to be a reliable source of information regardless of the topic and I never will so I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to prove with this statement. Their bias is well documented.

LH this sounds a lot like Amraham Maslow's theory of self-actualization, which has been around for decades--so, try not to pat yourself on the back too hard.

http://psikoloji.fisek.com.tr/maslow/self.htm

I find little evidence that Republicans are any more self-actualized than Democrats. Sorry, to bother you with complex psychological theory.

Edited to add:



This sounds almost like an evangelical invitation in a tent meeting. If I wanted to BE a Republican (which I don't) what "liberal" sins would I have to repent of to be accepted? I can see why Arlen Spector is suspect in Republican circles.

Did everyone miss that part of the report?

I'm not sure because of all the horse apples in this thread.

During a given day, my personal moods can swing from being very happy with things to being very dissatisfied. Most of my time is spent somewhere between the two extremes.

Just as hate is not the opposite of love, unhappiness is not the opposite of happiness. I define the opposite of love to be a complete lack of feeling and the opposite of happiness to be dissatisfaction. If I am dissatisfied about something, that implies I can do something about the situation. If I can't, then I'm unhappy and that's that. Move on.

Being in a perpetual state of happiness is unhealthy, IMO. To be this way, one needs to deny a great deal of reality. This might point to pathological lying or cowardice or both. Whatever, I don't trust people who smile for their mug shots.

I also don't trust people who constantly bang on others' heads. This goes for both libs and conservs.

But as the survey found, nobody is happy if in physical pain. From personal experience, same goes for emotional pain. Heh, as if we didn't know.

Now Repubs might register as more happy than Dems and Indies. Could this be because they have health insurance? Better food? More vacations? I suppose that whatever contributes to good health is the primary key.

Conversely, why might Dems and Indies not have good health? Lack of health insurance, crummy food, two or three part-time jobs? I suppose that whatever contributes to poor health is the primary key.

Health is the primary key in both cases.

Nope. The survey - as you point out - is saying that Democrats haven't been happier than republicans in the last 30 years. Are YOU saying that since 1972 there has been significant and long-lasting lurch to the left that SHOULD have made the Democrats happier than the Republicans but didn't - beacuse that's the kind of thing that would disprove my speculative argument. (Speculative because there might have been.)

But put it another way, the survey also finds that people living in the "sun belt" are a bit happier than those living elsewhere. During the lifetime of the survey, air conditioning has been mostly affordable and has been installed in most homes, offices and public buildings. If, however, the survey stretched back to the 1930s, when aircon was a luxury only available to the very wealthy, it might be conceivable that the difference would be less pronounced.

Perhaps sunnier states would have been happier in winter, when Northern climes have dark evenings and cold weather, but in summer, when it's pleasant in the North, non-aircon sunbelters would have been unhappy because it's too hot and humid to get a good night's sleep, do anything very constructive, etc. This survey wouldn't have pick that up because it only surveys people once per year.



The graph on page 14, right? I think you're reading it wrong - the two green lines represent Democrats & Republicans; the second Reagan term is when Independents and Republicans were closest.

The closest the Republican and Democrat lines get is in late 1977/78, the mid-term of the Carter administration (Reagan wasn't elected for his FIRST term until 1980). This supports my argument - especially since after 1980, the Democrats get progressively unhappier until towards the end of 1984 (the election campaign?) when they perk up a bit, then once Reagan's feet are until the Oval Office desk once more they get down in the mouth again.

Then they cheer up again from 1988 onwards during the GHW Bush term, getting sad again from about 1990 until 1994. Then they have their most prolonged and sustained upward trend in happiness, which coincides with the two Clinton terms, get fed up again when GW Bush comes in, and finally start to perk up again when his administration starts fumbling a little in mid 2002.

What is interesting is that Democrats appear to be sensitive to such things, but Republicans don't, or at least not to the same extent.

Superficially this could support the "self-reliance" argument advanced by, among others, lordhelmet - that rugged square-jawed Republican types generate their own happiness (presumably by standing on sunlit mountain tops looking determinedly into the middle distance while stirring music swells in the background) , while sickly dependent Democrats rely on other people to make them happy (between sit-ins, picket duty and flag-burnings).

But let's look closer - the only point on this chart where Democrats were getting happier at the same time as Republicans were getting unhappier was back in the Carter era.

Carter was arguably the "leftiest" Democrat in this period - he was the only Democratic president in this survey who had the Congressional mandate to be able to do anything that could really hurt Republican interests (Clinton mostly didn't have such a mandate).

So perhaps that too is broadly consistent with the idea that people - ALL people - are happiest when things are going their way. It's a pity that the survey doesn't publish the long-term trend for other groups - blacks/hispanics/whites, for example, or different age groups. Then we might be able to explore this further.

Doc, just to clarify - the best way to phrase this is to say "Republicans are 50% more likely to be happy." (or technically to *say* that they are happy). As the study puts it - 45% of all Republicans report being very happy, compared with just 30% of Democrats. 45% is 50% more than 30% [0.3 X 150% = 0.45]. In laymans terms, for every 2 "very happy" Democrats, you are likely to meet 3 "very happy" Republicans.


You either don't know what "correlation" means or you are trying to mislead us here. For the benefit of the reader: correlation

Correlation does not equal causation. Something that was acknowledged in the study, and acknowledged by me. Your statement is false. The study did prove correlation - money was positively correlated to claimed happiness, graphing at nearly a straight line. What seems to have upset a few people here is that party affiliation was positively correlated with claimed happiness even after they corrected for other factors like income. From the study conclusions:

...most robust correlations of all those described in this report are health, income, church attendance, being married and, yes, being a Republican. Indeed, being a Republican is associated not only with happiness, it is also associated with every other trait in this cluster. Even so, the factor that makes the most difference in predicting happiness is neither being a Republican nor being wealthy - it's being in good health.


Apparently something "has no meaning" when you say so, and has no bearing on statistics or science. Even your attempt at being faceitious gets it wrong. IF larger feet was positively correlated with claimed happiness, a scientist would want to know why, and could actually do some research to find out. I'm aware that bigger feet positively correlate with height, and that height positively correlates to many success factors in life. link




What I did prove is that you have, in the past 2 days, mis-stated the definition of correlation, mis-identified a telephone poll to 900 registered voters as "a poll of people who watch Fox News," and shown a complete disregard for a piece of research because you have your own personal definition of happiness. So excuse me if I don't find your personal take on this subject to be the last word.

As I mentioned, the study itself notes that the correlations are fascinating, but not causal.

Sorry Cubejockey, but I'm gonna have to disagree with you in this thread.

I think the survey is probably accurate. In general, liberals are less happy than conservatives. Speaking again in generalized terms, liberals are concerned with the problems of the world, whereas conservatives tend to be concerned about only the problems of their own lives. Of course there are so many exceptions. I consider myself a very happy liberal. I have met more than a few very unhappy conservatives.

But the study does show a correlation, and I don't think it's a bad thing, though the author of this thread perhaps saw it as another way to bash liberals. I think it's a good thing. We liberals shouldn't be satisfied with the way things are. Look what happens when the conservatives run the show - the rape of the environment, perpetual war, slashing veteran benefits and other social programs, building pipes of pork to carry yet more pork to the already-fat businesses. Hey, they may be happy, but they suck at running the country!

Here's a few other studies that apply to this topic. And since most of the conservatives posting in this thread have defended the verity of the first study, I am sure they will join me in endorsing these.



Golly, that's an interesting one, isn't it? Here's another!



Well, there's two interesting studies. So far, let's see... liberals are less happy, less racist, and more complex thinkers. Alex, I'll take "Thank God I'm a Liberal" for 1000, please!

If you study this document from the US Census, you will see further that divorce rates are higher in 'red' states than in 'blue' states, as are unwed teenage pregnancies. The area with the lowest divorce rate? The liberal Northeast!

But really, what does all this say? Absolutely nothing about any given individual. It only describes generalities. Liberals are less likely to be happy than conservatives. They are less likely to be racist. They are more likely to weigh more complex issues while forming their opinions. They are less likely to get divorced. But any individual conservative or liberal may buck any or all of these trends and correlations. I will continue to judge people individually, not by assuming any of these things before engaging them - and I urge us all to do the same.

As someone pointed out earlier, we're talking about a 15% difference, 45% of republicans .vs. 30% of democrats.

Anyone consider the religious factor?. Born-again Christians are happy, deliriously so. They have no worries as they've turned them all over to Jesus, they're saved and going to heaven. They are also overwhelmingly republican. They could easily be that extra 15%.

Sorry for the lack of clarity then Carlito, I thought it would be assumed what I'm talking about. Perhaps correlation isn't the right word and I'm not going to search the dictionary for the correct one. My point is that political affiliation has absolutely no relationship to being happy or unhappy because it is an irrelevant factor and the study by the way, does speak to cause as you just cited. How are they able to determine that a person's health is what makes most people happy? Because it has the highest correlation? That isn't really a valid statement because they never once actually asked why people were happy, even a limited subset of people as a control.

If they had asked you for data like your shoe size, how many car accidents you've had in your life, whether you drink alcohol or not they could have made the claim that all of these are correlated to being happy based on the way they conducted the study. The problem is all of these are irrelevant factors when discussing happiness.

Quark also makes a point here that I feel is relevant because I think I fell into the same trap. Rather than looking at what correlation actually means I started debating the interpretation of the results:


I do still maintain that knowing how someone's political beliefs correlate to happiness is a pretty useless measure.

I simply presumed that these things were common knowledge... but about education... here

This distribution states plainly states that off those polled, about 24% of Republicans (strong and not) have bachelors degrees or more, and 15.16% of democrats (strong and not) have similar educations.

I didn't think that was necessary. I figured it was common knowledge...

Again, if you're attempting to make snide remarks please feel free... but it proves nothing.

Your posts, NT are often flush with such opinionated (a polite way of saying it) remarks. I don't suppose they mean anything.

On numerous occasions, I've made mention that liberals are a postive force in society, and necessary to have a functioning government. Frankly, I don't believe that most liberals believe that all conservatives are ignorant or "slavlishly" enthralled with financial wealth (or whatever other interesting remarks you've made).

BOF, while I believe that you probably do have a large number of credit hours accumulated, that's not the norm (as I've mentioned and now supported). I neither believe that the liberals on this board are uneducated nor ignorant. I was simply referring to the study posted and the questions mentioned.

QH, you said:


Did you ever consider why this probably is true? This notion is