• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why are Conservatives happier than Liberals?

Why are Conservatives happier than Liberals?

  • Because Cons are more religious

    Votes: 1 5.6%
  • Because Cons show more reverence for two-parent families

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Because Cons appreciate the benefit of working hard

    Votes: 2 11.1%
  • None of the above

    Votes: 5 27.8%
  • All of the above

    Votes: 8 44.4%
  • Other: Let me explain

    Votes: 2 11.1%

  • Total voters
    18
AlbqOwl said:
If we reduce the concept to any individual person, I would agree 100%.

Political ideology, however, is essentially a set of values applied to society as a whole. And on the theory that 'no man is an island', we are all mostly interconneced in the social fabric. This makes it virtually impossible to discuss sociopolitical issues without considering, at least to some degree, the 'group think' involved.

So I, for one, found the question interesting on a broad scale, big picture basis, which is different from the individual or anecdotal level. I understand that this kind of philosophical examination is not everybody's cup of tea.

So you are not talking about people at all but rather philosophies? The the question should be: Which philosophy is more conducive to happiness. or which one expresses happiness in a more complete manner. In this case we are dealing with an abstact concept. But if you answer one or the other then you must give the reasons for you answer and the ones in the poll do not treat the subject in that manner.
 
Stace said:
Wow, Deeg, family time really DID improve your outlook, huh? I like this new Deegan. Can he stay? :mrgreen:

Got any new pictures of that adorable granddaughter for us?


Why thank you, it was a wonderful trip, and we all got along famously, it's not always so smooth, as I am sure all of you know. I will have some more pictures to share when I get my camera back, I forgot it in Florida, Had to rush to the airport, only to be delayed for 6 hours. Still, that did not get me down, we just had more time to talk about the good time we had there. I do miss the weather as well, 80 degrees everyday was nice, but it's still very cold here at home(Chicago).;)
 
Inuyasha said:
So you are not talking about people at all but rather philosophies? The the question should be: Which philosophy is more conducive to happiness. or which one expresses happiness in a more complete manner. In this case we are dealing with an abstact concept. But if you answer one or the other then you must give the reasons for you answer and the ones in the poll do not treat the subject in that manner.

Of course I'm talking about people, but people in the broader view as opposed to the individual. And the question is okay as a spin off from the earlier question: "Who is happier: conservatives or liberals?" And the 'why' might be beyond the ability of this particular group unless we have some shrinks who have researched the topic.

Given limitations of understanding the source of something, I am content to evaluate the general results of something. The sun is a mass of intense heat. Why? Nobody knows, but we accept that this is the way it is. It can be useful to note the effects of the heat produced and, if we find them to be beneficial, seek ways to benefit us or, if they are not beneficial, seek ways to protect us or eliminate the negative.

Likewise we can look at the net effects of the practice of conservatism; and, without fully understanding why conservatives are happier, we can understand that happy feels better than unhappy, and choose to emulate that which more often produces happiness.

The same principle would of course apply to liberalism. But if one decided that the net effects of liberalism are general discontent, negativism, feelings of victimization, anger, etc. or otherwise manifestations of unhappiness, and we would rather be happy than unhappy, we can always choose to emulate that which produces happiness.

This I think is pretty much a process that works in most things affecting human nature and behavior.
 
Last edited:
ptsdkid said:
***Dear Ms Hillary Clinton,

Well, if libs are less happy than cons, then the next logical conclusion would be that libs are also angrier. Your job, should you decide to participate--would be to tell us why you're angrier than us Conservatives.

You talk like we're angry at everything, we are not, we enjoy our life and very happy. The only thing we're angry at is:

1. Corrupt republican...I love Tom DeLay, the longer he stays, the darker the cloud over republicans head.
2. WMD...where is it? We attack a country for god sake!!
3. Godly and above-the-law syndrom
4. Illegally listening to citizens conversation
5. Selling our Ports to a country that funnel terrorist money.
6. Exposing CIA op in retaliation.
7. Perjury...I love Libby too.
8. Bill Frisk...waiting for his stock scandal to explode.
9. Rep. Cunningham....enough said.
 
Hillary said:
You talk like we're angry at everything, we are not, we enjoy our life and very happy. The only thing we're angry at is:

1. Corrupt republican...I love Tom DeLay, the longer he stays, the darker the cloud over republicans head.
2. WMD...where is it? We attack a country for god sake!!
3. Godly and above-the-law syndrom
4. Illegally listening to citizens conversation
5. Selling our Ports to a country that funnel terrorist money.
6. Exposing CIA op in retaliation.
7. Perjury...I love Libby too.
8. Bill Frisk...waiting for his stock scandal to explode.
9. Rep. Cunningham....enough said.

And in the sociopolitical fabric of our lives, what are liberals happy about? Can you come up with at least 9 things there?
 
I think the question has no real answer. I am sure you all know happy people who are one or the other. If a person uses this yardstick to measure happiness that person has some serious issues and should get a real life. Maybe that's because I don't believe in voting party lines, I believe in voting for a candidate who can do something for me. I could care less if he or she is a conservative, a liberal or whatever. They only time I would be unhappy is if the candidate I voted for fail to complete their promises or did a complete turn around after getting elected. Of all the people who are die hard partisans and vote for one single party regardless of the issues only a very small percentage reap any benefit from the party itself.
 
Inuyasha said:
II don't believe in voting party lines, I believe in voting for a candidate who can do something for me.


***This is a perfect example of the fatal flaw that has inculcated the liberal mindset of this country. 'YOU' believe in voting for the candidate who can do something for 'YOU'. Never mind voting for the candidate that can and will do something for 'OUR' country, instead, 'YOU' feel the need to be selfish.

Whatever happened to JFK's slogan, "Ask not what your bloated government can give to 'YOU', rather, ask what you can do for your country?" Interesting how JFK's brother Teddy keeps winning elections because he promises the people of Mass all kinds of pork--and he (with the help of government) brings it home.
 
ptsdkid writes
***This is a perfect example of the fatal flaw that has inculcated the liberal mindset of this country. 'YOU' believe in voting for the candidate who can do something for 'YOU'. Never mind voting for the candidate that can and will do something for 'OUR' country, instead, 'YOU' feel the need to be selfish.

Whatever happened to JFK's slogan, "Ask not what your bloated government can give to 'YOU', rather, ask what you can do for your country?" Interesting how JFK's brother Teddy keeps winning elections because he promises the people of Mass all kinds of pork--and he (with the help of government) brings it home.

This is a big part of the 'happiness gap' I think. Conservatives somehow instinctively know they will be happier providing for themselves that they will be looking to somebody else or something else to provide it.

Excerpted from a recent George Will column:

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 to 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.

Such puzzles show why social science is not for amateurs. Still, one cannot -- yet -- be prosecuted for committing theory without a license, so consider a few explanations of the happiness gap.

Begin with a paradox: Conservatives are happier than liberals because they are more pessimistic. Conservatives think the book of Job got it right (``Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward''), as did Adam Smith (``There is a great deal of ruin in a nation''). Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile -- touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones.

Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect. Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver.

On Jan. 3, 1936, FDR announced that in 34 months his administration had established a ``new relationship between government and people.'' Amity Shlaes, a keen student of FDR's departure from prior political premises, says,

``The New Deal had a purpose beyond curing the Depression. It was to make people look to Washington for help at all times.'' Henceforth, the federal government would be permanently committed to serving a large number of constituencies: ``Occasional gifts to farmers or tariffs for business weren't enough.'' So, liberals: Smile -- you've won.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_23_06_GW.html
 
Last edited:
ptsdkid said:
Inuyasha said:
II don't believe in voting party lines, I believe in voting for a candidate who can do something for me.


***This is a perfect example of the fatal flaw that has inculcated the liberal mindset of this country. 'YOU' believe in voting for the candidate who can do something for 'YOU'. Never mind voting for the candidate that can and will do something for 'OUR' country, instead, 'YOU' feel the need to be selfish.

Whatever happened to JFK's slogan, "Ask not what your bloated government can give to 'YOU', rather, ask what you can do for your country?" Interesting how JFK's brother Teddy keeps winning elections because he promises the people of Mass all kinds of pork--and he (with the help of government) brings it home.

You are wrong and here is why. The "I" here represents a large portion of the American electorate. A portion that is made up of people who are more practical (in relation to their economic and social classes) than are the ideologues.

Here's a simple example so you will see what I mean:

I will vote for a candidate who's platform is truly small government. Why? Because IMO there are better and more practical ways to have my tax dollars spent. I see no need to spend money that creates even more bureaucracy than there is now. It even needs and can be smaller and more efficient.

If, for example, I see a candidate who wants to implement a social program that will help people like me I will vote for that person. Why not? Am I more patriotic if I vote for someone who doesn't have me and others like me in mind? Horse feathers!

You subtly try to demean my position with the JFK slogan yet you do not really know who I am or what i have done. Without blowing my horn I will tell you that my situation is not dissimilar to yours in a several of respects. Just because I don't agree with you 100% does not make my contributions to this nation any less valid than yous. Please have the common courtesy not to judge me unless you have all the facts. You don't. I would not do that to you and i expect the same in return. There is no law in this country that says I have to be a die hard ideologue, either left or right. I will continue to look at the right and the left as i have always done, on their relation to my situation. If you want to call me a "liberal" because I don't agree with every little thing you say, so be it. I could care less. If you want to call me an SOB because it makes you feel good, so be it, I could care less.

Many of the people here express the idea that the government is not supposed to take them from cradle to grave. I agree with that. And to avoid dependence on the government for basic needs one has to do what they see as fit for themselves. THAT is doing something for your country, politically. If you disagree so be it. I am not impressed with extremists, from either side of the aisle, name calling.
 
Well it's an undeniable fact that those who rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul no matter what party he represents.
 
Back
Top Bottom