Conservatives happier than liberals?

[Desertdog]

Conservatives happier than liberals?
Chad Groening - OneNewsNow -
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=135784

A New York Times best-selling author claims his new book debunks the liberal stereotyping that conservatives are angry, uneducated, and narrow-minded.

In his book Makers and Takers, Peter Schweizer says the evidence that conservatives are actually happier than liberals is quite clear. "Conservatives are happier. They're more productive. They're more generous with their money. They have closer families," he explains. "Essentially I contend that conservative ideas are good for you, and modern liberal ideas often bring out the worse in us."
 
Schweizer says he chose the title of the book to illustrate a major difference between conservatives and liberals. "... [C]onservatives are the ones who are making and producing in our country, and liberalism creates a mindset of taking or a sense of entitlement," he elucidates.
 
The author says when compared to conservatives on a long list of personality and moral traits, modern liberals consistently come up short.

[The Annoyed Man]

huh.  They were right.  Ignorance IS bliss.

[The Annoyed Man]

huh.  They were right.  Ignorance IS bliss.

My advice - when jogging, run in the middle of the road - by doing so, you can swerve to the left or right as necessary to survive.

[K Frame]

I'd say probably true, if only for the simple fact that conservatives don't spend vast amounts of time looking for things over which they can be offended.

[Ben]

I've always found this to be the case, at least compared to dyed in the wool intense liberals, who always seem to be angry and yelling about something. Case in point, yesterday at the gas station, a woman pulls in behind someone else who was just getting ready to leave. The pump next to her is free, but for some reason she wants the pump at the front of the line. She honks her horn, then even as the person is pulling away, starts yelling obscenities about how they should *%*$#*% #%$(@ #$(%$ out of the way. When she pulled to the front, I saw the back of her car was full of eco hippie and feminist stickers.

As a Republitarian, I usually only get unhappy when someone tries to butt into my business to tell me how to live, what to drive, or why they need to raise my taxes.

[Tallpine]

You mean the drugs aren't keeping the liberals happy    

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It makes perfect sense.

Liberalism depends upon you being dissatisfied with society as it is.  Otherwise there's no motivation for constantly trying to reinvent society.

Conservatism depends upon you being satisfied with society as it is.  You don't resist change unless the current situation is to your liking.

[MicroBalrog]

HTG, that applies only to Burkian conservatives. Creedal conservatives DO want to change society.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You've been reading too much David Brooks.

[De Selby]

The psychobabble that has come to bear on politics will go down in history as a more modern phrenology-looking to silly, result oriented factors in order to support the author's conclusions about the psychology of the subject.

I can't believe 'work' like this would get serious consideration for even a moment from anyone, even the lowly Mainstream media. 

I see in these kinds of stories the deep connections between the modern world and the third world-I have flashbacks to hearing rural cambodians sincerely telling me that drinking rice wine brewed with a cobra would cure diseases.  It's that same sort of mindset that produces "psychology" like this.

[MicroBalrog]

You've been reading too much David Brooks.

What?

I'm a creedal conservative and I'm perfectly happy with life.

[Iain]

I'd say probably true, if only for the simple fact that conservatives don't spend vast amounts of time looking for things over which they can be offended.

There's plenty of evidence right here on this forum that contradicts you.

[LadySmith]

I see in these kinds of stories the deep connections between the modern world and the third world-I have flashbacks to hearing rural cambodians sincerely telling me that drinking rice wine brewed with a cobra would cure diseases.  It's that same sort of mindset that produces "psychology" like this.

I would've believed those rural Cambodians sooner than the MSM and most psychologists.
This is just more media banter. But since it presents conservatives in a rare positive light, I'll probably read that book.

[Firethorn]

As others have said, 'conservatives' are perhaps, at least by some averages, more content with the way things are.

I think it also has to do with outlook on life.  It's much more part of the conservative ideal to 'take care of business'.  A slightly gloomier view of life, a disdain for reliance on others, results in a level of preperation that helps prevent serious crashes in personal happiness.

Your standard liberal, being a progressive sort, is more likely to be deeply upside down on their home loan at the moment, looking at the interest rate jump coming up, costing happiness.
A standard conservative might have been living in a not so nice house - but he can afford his fixed 30 year loan payments.  Sure, his house might be 'upside down', but he's less likely to be looking to sell.  He has a home, he can make the payments, he's happy.

[Jamisjockey]

huh.  They were right.  Ignorance IS bliss.

Ignorance is certainly the bastion of the left.  Liberal idealisim doesn't work in the real world.

[xavier fremboe]

[rant]

"Essentially I contend that conservative ideas are good for you, and modern liberal ideas often bring out the worse in us."

Brings out the 'worse'?  Use the superlative, not the comparative.  I hate agreeing with an article that wouldn't pass Comp 101.
[/rant]

[xavier fremboe]

huh.  They were right.  Ignorance IS bliss.

Ignorance is certainly the bastion of the left.  Liberal idealisim doesn't work in the real world.

WFB,jr. said it best "Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality the cost becomes prohibitive."

[taurusowner]

huh.  They were right.  Ignorance IS bliss.

Why again were you (if you're telling the truth) ever a member of the Republican Party?

[Jamisjockey]

huh.  They were right.  Ignorance IS bliss.

Why again were you (if you're telling the truth) ever a member of the Republican Party?

I'm sure its a great story over green cocktails with his DU friends.

[taurusowner]

Seriously.  I'm not attacking him, I just can't find a single shred of evidence in any of his posts ever that would lead me to believe he ever identified with any of the ideals held by the republican party, past or present.

[The Annoyed Man]

Seriously.  I'm not attacking him, I just can't find a single shred of evidence in any of his posts ever that would lead me to believe he ever identified with any of the ideals held by the republican party, past or present.

Look at some of my earlier posts here.  Or, if you're really interested, my posts over at THR.   My name over there is R.H. Lee.  You'll find ample evidence of my identification with the(so-called) 'conservative' values of the Republican party.  I drank the KoolAid for a long time, but had an epiphany sometime during 2006.  I began questioning the entire direction and philosophy of modern 'conservatism'.  I discovered it doesn't stand up under close, open minded investigation.

For example, here's a post of mine from 2004

George Bush's record on terrorism can only be considered weak if you include his continuing appeasement of the left. (bipartisanship?). It was the dem/libs who wanted Homeland Security made a cabinet position, for example. Then there's the embrace of illegal immigration, and failur to lock down the borders, etc., et yada. I suspect all of this is for re-election points only, and we're going to see some proactive, pre-emptive action during his second term.

In any case the President's record on terrorism is far stronger than ANY democrat's would have been. Kerry's first action would be to surrender U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. But he's not gonna get a chance to do that.

Another one from 2004

It is George Bush's election to lose. If he continues to abandon his base and pander to anyone from whom he thinks he can get a vote, he may just give away the presidency. Sentiments such as those expressed by bud wiser seem to be gaining ground. If those voters in swing states just stay home on election day we may have a demoncRAT president come next January. {{shudder}}

You think we got problems now........

and

The more fetid leftist drivel that goes unchallenged, the more it becomes the "norm". I never miss an opportunity to skewer/tweak/annoy/pissoff a hardcore dem/lib/socialist leftist, and firmly believe that extreme liberalism IS a mental disorder.

and

It's the "Lowest Common Denominator" reaction of the left.
The left is completely devoid of the notion of personal responsibility (except when it comes to GWB). They profess (although they don't believe) in the equality of all people, and that .gov is the great equalizer, administrated by themselves, as they are obviously caring, and intellectually superior.

It's a classic mental disorder.

You get the point.  I can't believe I was so gullible back then.

[K Frame]

I'd say probably true, if only for the simple fact that conservatives don't spend vast amounts of time looking for things over which they can be offended.

There's plenty of evidence right here on this forum that contradicts you.

READ what I actually wrote, Iain.

In my experience Liberals seem to be most happy actively ferreting out things about which they can scream; actively seeking, or inventing, issues over which they can expend huge amounts of angst.

That is by and large not the case with conservatives.

Yes, conservatives do get pissed about things. That's natural.

But I submit to you that conservatives manufacture, and that's the key, MANUFACTURE far fewer scenarios over which to become engaged and enraged.

The government supplies us with a more than steady diet -- we don't feel the need actively seek out and create new angst vectors. That's a liberal trait.

[taurusowner]

So when did you "realize" that big benevolent .gov and all of their social programs are really here to save you?

[xavier fremboe]

Seriously.  I'm not attacking him, I just can't find a single shred of evidence in any of his posts ever that would lead me to believe he ever identified with any of the ideals held by the republican party, past or present.

Look at some of my earlier posts here.  Or, if you're really interested, my posts over at THR.   My name over there is R.H. Lee.  You'll find ample evidence of my identification with the(so-called) 'conservative' values of the Republican party.  I drank the KoolAid for a long time, but had an epiphany sometime during 2006.  I began questioning the entire direction and philosophy of modern 'conservatism'.  I discovered it doesn't stand up under close, open minded investigation.

Wait a minute.  I asked you a similar question on another thread and you responded with this:

First, I do not support Democrats.  I've never voted for a Democrat and most likely never will. The goal is not that a Democrat win, but that the Republicans lose.  And I think they only need to lose big one time.  Then they'll get it and begin representing their constituency again.  But they're confused as to who their constituency is. The problem is you who continue to vote Republican yet continually bitch about them as they continue to act like Democrats.

You'd rather 'hold your nose' and vote Republican.  So, accept the consequences and quit complaining.  Instead, look in the mirror and you'll see the source of your unhappiness.  If you keep doing what you've always done, you always get what you always got.  You're fear based.  You've drunk the rightwing neocon fearmongering KoolAid that without Republicans in office, the Dems will eat your lunch, take your guns, kill your kids and lock you up.

I want change.  I want representation.  I want Republicans to act like Republicans and repent and turn away from their big government, big spending, corporated asskissing, freedom grabbing ways.   The only way I see to get there is to spank them, and spank them hard, by letting nature take its course and withdrawing support for them.  And, I'm hoping there are millions of disaffected Republicans like me who will do the same.

You know, one day you quivering, fear based automatons will  thank those of use who won representation in government back for you.  Think of me as your Rosa Parks.

Is your problem with the direction of Republican party or conservatism?  The terms aren't equivalent.  In your response to my question, you specifically state that you want 'Republicans to act like like Republicans', and go on to outline goals of most fiscal conservatives.  But on this thread, it sounds like you've gone over to the left entirely.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm not a proponent of 'big benevolent .gov and all their social programs'.  That characterization comes from your own ideology.  There have been three historic expansions of .gov in the last 45 years; two of them under Republican administrations.  The first two were LBJ's Great Society/War on Poverty and Reagan's unprecedented deficit spending.  Bush has put them both to shame however.  Under his administration, .gov has grown exponentially, and national debt has tripled to 9 trillion dollars!  And that doesn't even include costs of Medicare Part D, the largest social welfare program ever (wasn't that passed by a Republican congress?)  How is any of that 'conservative'?

The American people are not helpless halfasses.  We don't need a nanny state .gov dictating the minutia of our lives.  OTOH, we damn sure don't need a .gov representing interests other than our own.  There were historic transfers of wealth during the above three administrations.  Under Reagan and Bush, especially Bush, the our money is being transferred to multinational corporations by way of the WOT.  Under LBJ, public money (taxes) was returned mostly to Americans by way of social programs.

I don't want the nanny state LBJ provided and I damn sure don't want the nanny state Bush has given us.   I want the size and power of .gov on all levels reduced, and I want what remains to see to the interests of the American people.  That's all.