Posted on 05/08/2008 7:00:29 AM PDT by Ouderkirk
There is a news report starting to make the rounds amongst the MSM on a study that claims to have discovered why conservatives tend to be happier than liberals and it is just the sort of bilge that the MSM loves to promulgate. We may see more of it over the next several days because, while it is titled “Conservatives Happier Than Liberals,” it is basically saying that the reason conservatives are happier is because they just don’t care about other people. This purported research claims to pinpoint the reason conservatives are happier and it is because they have theirs and they don’t care if everyone else is poor and downtrodden. In contrast they claim liberals are less happy because they care more about people and are all heartbroken that people suffer “inequalities.”
Yes, they are telling us that if you’re a happy conservative, it’s because you are a hateful, meanie. Thank you New York University.
The two “researchers,” John Jost and Jaime Napier of New York University, claim an interest in understanding why religious extremism is connected to conservatives. Both have interests in “political conservatism and religious fundamentalism” wherein they seem to assume that conservatives are but fascists in deed if not name. On her webpage, for instance, Napier says that she is interested to “explore the relationship of political conservatism to ’system justifying’ ideologies, such as opposition to equality, fair market ideology, economic system justification, and right-wing authoritarianism.” Why are conservatives fascists? Jamie wants to know.
Obviously these two researchers have predetermined that conservatism is an evil, oppressive ideology and they have set out to prove their thesis. With this in mind we can turn to the results of their recent “research” that claims that conservatives are happy because they hate everyone else.
Even though Jeanna Bryner of livescience.com puts a happy face on the story with her headline, the text following clearly casts conservatives in the worst possible light. Her very first line provides the context of the “research” upon which she reports.
Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.
In other words, conservatives are happy because they ignore the “economic inequalities” of their fellow citizens and don’t worry themselves over other’s troubles. They just don’t care about other people. This is exactly what this “research” claims.
Let’s look at the key word they use as the fulcrum of their study. Here’s what “rationalize” means:
-to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as
a: to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of
b: to attribute (one’s actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for
-to provide plausible but untrue reasons for conduct
In other words to “rationalize” is to lie to oneself and everyone around you, to explain away reality with a false but reasonable seeming explanation.
This is what Bryner, Jost and Napier are positing that conservatives do: lie. And that lie makes them happy. Not a very noble action is it?
However, the very notion that conservatism is all based on a lie proves that “open minded” is not a phrase that one could possibly associate with the work of these people. They start out at the beginning with the premise that conservatives are bad people. All subsequent results are geared to prove that thesis.
Bryner goes on…
Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person’s tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.
So, conservatives merely “explain away” the fact that some Americans are poor? They shrug their shoulders and just happily ride off into the sunset. Oh, mean, nasty old conservatives.
Even the questions of this study are skewed to get a predetermined result.
The rationalization measure included statements such as: “It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others,” and “This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are.”
Of course, this very question is divorced from any REASONS that “some have more of a chance than others,” doesn’t it? It seems that the researchers simply take at face value that “inequalities” is simply an obvious evil, quite despite why these inequalities might or might not exist. This study completely discounts any explanations as but mere “rationalization” which completely reveals their own rationalization and makes the lie to any pretense to scientific research and places this thing itself squarely in the camp of pure justification.
Thomas Jefferson was one of the most widely recognized liberals of his day and one of his most formative concepts is that there is a “natural aristocracy among men,” by which he meant some people will simply be better at some things than others. Some may end up with more in life because of these natural abilities that others may lack. In fact, this reality undergirds our entire system of liberty by which we are all free to exploit our own abilities to succeed. But Jost and Napier obviously discount this philosophical idea as an evil from the outset.
More proof of their own bias is in the next paragraph of Bryner’s piece.
To justify economic inequalities, a person could support the idea of meritocracy, in which people supposedly move up their economic status in society based on hard work and good performance. In that way, one’s social class attainment, whether upper, middle or lower, would be perceived as totally fair and justified.
Notice the obvious assumption that people really don’t “move up” in economic status when she writes, “in which people supposedly move up…” What’s with the “supposedly”? If people really didn’t move up the economic ladder due to their hard work, then we’d all be making the same amount we made when we first joined the work force as teenagers or young adults! Obviously people DO move up the economic ladder and it can only be because of their personal efforts.
Next we get the words of the researchers further revealing their bias.
“Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives,” the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, “apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light.”
Ah, we see. Those liberals are so loving and caring that they just can’t stand to see someone in need and it just tears them up inside. They can’t explain away those darn ol’ “inequalities” and frame them in a “positive” light as the uncaring conservatives are able to do.
So many things wrong with just one little paragraph.
First of all, conservatives don’t explain away inequalities and go off on their merry way unconcerned over the plight of their neighbors. Conservatives do feel there is no way around a certain amount of inequalities, but no conservative is “happy” because of inequality and they also have no particular interest in fostering it among others. Further, they do not see inequality in any “positive” light. Inequality lacks any moral value in this instance. It just is. It is also, on an individual basis, not a permanent state. Inequalities can be changed by individual effort as far as conservatives are concerned. This is where some level of satisfaction comes in for conservatives. The notion that it is within the power of the individual to change inequality brings a hope for the future that cannot help but cause a sunny outlook. And this is also a good reason why liberals are unhappy. After all, liberals wallow in a victim mentality, they assume everyone is against them and nothing can be done to address inequalities in life. How can such a dark view of the world not make them unhappy?
But, to explain why their central assumption that liberals care more and that they get more upset about inequalities is wrong headed thinking, one only needs to look at the statistics of charitable giving. Conservatives give far, far more to help people out than liberals. It begs the question that if liberals are so torn up inside about people doing badly, why then don’t they try to do anything about it by trying to help others like conservatives do? And if conservatives can so easily “explain away inequalities” why do they bother to give so much of their money and time to help others? If there are any lies being told, it seems that liberals are doing it more often than conservatives.
There are substantive reasons why conservatives believe as they do but this study relegates any reasons to automatic assumptions of evil and moves on from there. Unfortunately for any efforts at “science,” this particular study is so bound up in preconceived notions that any results are useless to any greater understanding of why conservatives are happier than liberals in the U.S.
But, since it makes liars and uncaring louts of conservatives everywhere, the MSM should love this badly skewed “research.” Thus far it has appeared on Fox News, Yahoonews and MSNBC as well as its original source, livescience.com, so we just might be seeing more of this report.
And worshiping the Earth isn't a religion? Psh.
How do you tell the difference between a liberal and a conservative? The conservative will have no issues taking money out of his own wallet to leave a 10-15 percent tip for good service. The liberal, on the other hand, will take money out of the conservative's wallet, keep half of it, and then leave a 5 percent tip, all the while complaining that the conservative is stupid for leaving a tip.
“On the contrary, instead of just “feeling” about the suffering of others, they take action and give not only their money but their time to actually bring relief to those people. These ministries often help suffering people be able to help themselves better as well.”
You hit the nail on the head. A conservative takes care of his or her family first, does what he or she can to help others and then realizes that is all they can do.
A liberal wallows in worry and is miserable over things that he or she can’t change.
#1 reason conservatives are happier than liberals is...
Personal responsiblity.
You are responsible for your own ‘happiness’ (and most importantly, you are able to determine what makes you happy)
Conservatives have been taught to help those in need, to show them the path to prosperity, but you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink.
Liberals teach others that they are miserable because they can’t be happy until liberals tell them they are.
Success is a habit.
I know if I give a conservative assistance, they will correct the situation and then ‘pass it on’.
If I give a liberal assistance, they will just be back for more and there will be no improvement.
‘Teach a man to fish....
It’s the love of independence and liberty vs the entitlement mindset.
You’ve got that right.
I’ve had libs actually get angry when I give them “the rules”:
Your first responsibility is to ensure that YOU are not an involuntary burden on others.
After that is achieved, you can think about having a family, if you can ensure that your family will not be an involuntary burden on others.
At that point, you are personally obligated to do what you can to help others in need.
If everyone followed these rules, there’d be a lot less “needy” in the first place.
Liberals are dangerous to the continued existance of our great country..
Why are conservatives so opaque to liberals. We understand them perfectly.
_______
LOL. The FR version of liberals is [donning asbestos suit] as cartoonish as DU’s version of conservatives. Both sides are equally guilty of painting the vast middle with the tiny extremes.
It’s what makes it fun.
I am honestly perplexed that my liberal Christian brothers and sisters think that God wants us to deal with the poor by outsourcing our Christian charity to the government which is by definition and by law godless.
I don't care to make them do what I want.
I don't agonize with guilt because they are lazy or unlucky.
I don't seek out their approval or cry when they disapprove.
But I certainly don't hate them.
A great portion of the atrocities committed in history have been by people who seek some version of utopia. Every time you hear someone who seeks power promising to use government to make it all better for everyone, BEWARE!
Instead of reacting and defending ourselves, we should be attacking and destroying the “Universities” and “researchers” that promote this bilge.
Who is paying these guys? And why?
This simple "explained away" reason is not something liberals are able to grasp because liberals lack the capability to process reality. My theory for why liberals can’t process reality is because of a missing gene but that is a discussion for another time.
For all liberals who wish to strain the limits of their comprehension here is the reason that “explains it away”. The rich are rich and the poor are poor because of the same reason. They both keep doing the things that make them what they are.
Leftists in general think they know better than everyone else about how they should live their lives or spend their wealth, or about their personal decisions.
True, a given lib may have more general knowledge than any given poor person,
but they damn well do not have more knowledge than all the poor people collectively do nor do they have the specific knowledge of each person’s situation to make decisions on their behalf.
When I expressed this to some of my co-workers....my DEMOCRAT, liberal-leaning co-workers....they all expressed amazement that I, as a Republican, would vote for a Black Man.
I just let it go...not worth arguing with fools. BUT - I haven't decided yet if their holding views like that is 1) Sheer Stupidity on their part. 2) Sheer ignorance on their part. 3) Sheer bigotry on their part. or D) All of the the above. Might be D), as far as I'm concerned.
Great statement. That's tagline material!
Even as we fulminate on our excess and ill gotten gains, Bill Moyers is explaining in the MSM how we have constructed an improper reality; that, only by having the saintly liberals reconstruct a proper reality will we all be happy without hate (or religion, or a constitution, or capitalism, etc.)
Remember, you fantasy weaving conservatives, religious extremism is connected to conservatives, and the sooner we become atheists, the better we all will be.
Leftists have killed more people and destroyed more wealth during the last 100 years than in any time in history. They are not slowing down.
I can foresee a day when there will be re-education camps in this country - and they will be full of white, Christian, conservatives.
I’d gladly vote for a black person, but not THAT black person.
I’d gladly vote for a woman, too, but not THAT woman.
My favorite recent conversation with a Democrat went something like this:
Her: “I’m supporting Hillary”
I: “Our family is on the ‘giving’ end of socialism, so we will not support her or Obama”
Her: “Oh, I don’t like socialism either.”
What do you say after that?
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls.
The French hate the Germans, the Gemans hate the Poles.
Italians hate Yugoslavs, South Africans hate the Dutch.
And I don't like anybody very much. -- Kingston Trio, Merry Little Minuet
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.