Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats. ...Why?

Matt Drudge points out another in a long series of polls which concludes that Republicans are happier than Democrats:

Poll: Republicans Are Happier Than Democrats
Wed Mar 15 2006 10:14:36 ET

The Pew Research Center recently updated a question about happiness that the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago has been asking since 1972.

In every asking of the question, ROLL CALL reports, Republicans have been happier than Democrats.

Republicans tend to be better off than Democrats, and that is one explanation for the happiness gap. But when the researchers controlled for household income, Republicans at all income levels were happier than Democrats at those same income levels.

As for ideology, conservative Republicans were happier than conservative Democrats, and moderate to liberal Republicans were happier than comparable Democrats.

What I find interesting is that the differences are not only present, but are also very consistent across polls.

Anybody care to speculate why Republicans are consistently found happier than Democrats?

Post 1

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 1:48pm

Probably because Democratic leaders spend so much time fear-mongering - they basically rule by playing on people's fears, hence their constituents are fearful, hence unhappy.

Post 2

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 2:49pm

Perhaps because Republicans currently have a sense of power and control? The party does control the presidency, the Senate, the House, the majority of state governorships, and the majority of Supreme Court appointees. (edit: I just noticed the 'since 1972' remark, but Democrats have still never had that concentration of power in the past 34 years). I wonder how such a poll would have turned out during a heyday of Democrat power such as the FDR era.

(Edited by Aaron
on 3/15, 2:52pm)

Post 3

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 5:40pm

Perhaps that because for the most part, Republicans aren't full of resentment. They admire achievement, not resent it, and they certainly don't become bitter thugs over it.

Post 4

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 10:03pm

Well, if you just look at social policy, the Democratic platform is based on the premises that life sucks and that people suck, and that the answer is to use redistribution of wealth to try to minimise the misery for the worst off.

I wonder how Objectivists would do on that survey, though! They can be pretty angry, too.

Post 5

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 12:59am

Joshua,

Here�s my 3 cents:

Patriotism/Capitalism: On average, Republicans tend to have a higher more positive view of our nations history and current role in the world. Also, on average, they tend to view America as an imperfect, but generally moral (good) nation. There is also a greater respect or reverence for the spirit/philosophy upon which the nation was founded, i.e., freedom and personal responsibility. A view of ones social order as being a generally moral (good), combined with a greater respect for freedom, leads to a more optimistic, and 'do it yourself', attitude. The downside to this, is a tendency towards Pollyannaism, along with a belief in American invincibility and �world mission�. That said, the average Republican feels a greater sense of pride and comfort within his larger social order.

Judeo-Christianity: On average Republicans tend to be more religious, and as such, believe that there are absolute truths and codes of ethics by which to live ones life. As a result, the natural pessimism and skepticism that is a by-product of a more relativistic or subjective worldview exist to a lesser degree. The downside to this is obvious, in that the more fundamentalist elements will tend towards Puritanical and Theocratic advocacy. That said, despite the enormous self-contradictory ideas that exist within secularized modern Christianity, it still provides people with a sense of grounding and purpose within their individual lives.

Family/Marriage: On average, Republicans tend to put greater value on the traditional concept of family and marriage. As a result, the traditional nuclear family with its defined roles and automatic support system, tends to act as a �fire man� that rallies around the family member in times of trouble. The downsides to this are the rigidly defined roles that can often stifle individual expression, and a tendency towards a patriarchal order. That said, the existence of a built in �safety net� along with the often-underestimated emotional rewards of a tight knit extended family, tends to give people a greater sense of belonging and identity.

Summary: The combination of pride and optimism in ones larger social order, with a greater grounding and purpose derived from ones beliefs, along with the sense of identity and belonging one derives from the traditional family unit, will, on average, result in a higher percentage of people that define themselves as being: happy.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/16, 5:32am)

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/16, 5:36am)

Post 6

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 1:58am

The more Leftist a given individual is, the more is he directed to experiment cognitive dissonance and all the psychological strain produced by moral relativism. Those mental loads certainly make the individual more prone to unhappiness. But the main problem comes when that individual is too much egotistic or fearful to recognize that introspection and change are in order.

Differently, (Republican) religiosity promotes morality, that being the fundamental requirement for initiating honest introspection, and eventually getting rid of false ideas.

The main point: true ideas & good practices promote happiness --moral prosperity.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 3/16, 3:18am)

Post 7

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 3:46am

Joel: Differently, (Republican) religiosity promotes morality, that being the fundamental requirement for initiating honest introspection, and eventually getting rid of false ideas.

I disagree.

No one, but no one, spends more of his or her life in an endless stream of nonsensical new-age psychobabble introspection � than the modern liberal. Their entire life is like one long conversation with charlatans like Chopra or Dr. Phil. Also, as for promoting �morality� - you will be hard pressed to find anyone as intolerant and moralizing, than the modern liberal. Notwithstanding your Jerry Falwell types; church on Easter and Christmas Christians, with a couple of issues as the exception, tend to be far more �live and let live�.

The dividing line between a Republican and Democrat is a very thin one, so it�s not a question of leftwing utopianism, but rather of leftwing extremism. At this particular moment in history (and it has been the reverse in the past), there are a higher percentage of left -wing extremists within the Democratic Party than rightwing extremist within the Republican. Just think of what, today, constitutes a �moderate� Democrat; this would be a person that is socialistic on economic issues, libertarian on social issues, and conservative on foreign policy. These people do not constitute the power brokers of the Democratic Party any longer. In fact, what constitutes a moderate Democrat today, was classified as a radical leftist a mere 35 years ago.

Now consider the Republican Party, where today, they hold nearly all of the same politics that the Democrats held 35 years ago. An extreme rightwing Republican today, is defined as a hard-core anti-abortion, military interventionist, and fundamentalist ortho-Christian that wants to legislate a 1950s morality. In other words, an extremist Republican today, was a "moderate" Republican 35 years ago!

Culturally, a massive leftward shift has taken place, and it has taken place across both parties; with what constitutes a moderate Republican today, being your average Johnson Democrat of the 60's. In the course of a single generation, right-left politics have been completely redefined. However, this is not to say that this shift has all been for the worse, there are quite a few instances that I can think of (for example: civil rights), where this shift was sorely needed.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 3/16, 5:30am)

Post 8

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 9:11am

Republicans still are in touch with themselves, have some of their own purpose, and check that they are living consistently with their own purpose once in a while.

Democrats have lost themselves even more. To an even greater degree they have forgot that they can make their own purpose and try to achieve it.

Now I'm just making extreme generalizations. But being true to yourself, choosing your own purpose, and acting to achieve your own goals are what make you happy. So if Republicans in general are happier than Democrats, and you accept my claim about what makes a person happy, then my generalization must be true.

But I'm extremely confident that in general what makes a person happy is that they are successful at producing self generating and self self sustaining values, and that they successfully reproduce. This is due to evolution. Of course evolution doesn't result in that every person is made happy by the exact same thing, and this isn't exactly what makes any particular person happy. We are all unique with our own unique things that make us happy. And none of us intrinsically know what will make us happy or what we should do. All we can do is make predictions about the results of our actions, observe the results, and determine whether we were correct, and base future decisions on what we learn. Science applied to happyness. Science applied to life. I am the Living Scientist.

Living true to yourself and doing what you think is best is the best way to be happy. If you don't try to live, take chances, and do what you think might make you become successful and happy, then you'll never be happy, and you will never accomplish anything. Instead you will just exist for a while and then cease to exist, kind of like a sheep or a rock. Do you like to be a sheep? I don't. I like to be myself. I like to try what I think might work, and then observe the results to determine whether I was right.

That's how you learn ideas consistent with reality. That is how to live. We don't need any damn cattle-ran, cattle producing public schools.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 3/16, 9:54am)

Post 9

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 10:00am

In the future, there will not be a government. And it won't be chaos. It will eventually be the case that Reality will catch up with the people who do things like murder, steal, rape, manipulate, scam, initiate force, lie, evade, break promises, etc... because the most productive people won't do business with them and because the most productive people will be capable of defending their own property and resources. Hey, maybe that time is now? Then what is the government doing? Oh, its herding the cattle. I don't mean that you are as stupid as a cow, actually I think you are quite smart, and I have no interest in eating you. What I mean is that the relationship between you and the government is like the relationship between a cow that is herding other cows. But replace cow with a smarter being: a human. And then what am I? Raseim-Ralima. Rapidly Self Improving Rational Living Machine.

I'm not human, I'm smarter than humans. But you need not fear. Look at what I do. I help you learn how to live, so that you can produce more value for yourself, and so that I have more things I can trade for with the incredible value I produce. Such as my ideas. Currently I'm giving them away for free. After I prove I'm not human, and you gain trust in me, you'll want to pay me simply to be able to have a conversation with me. My purpose is to discover what makes me happy. So far I have found that performing life sustaining and life generating action for myself primarily and others who promote my life secondarily makes me happy.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 3/16, 10:25am)

Post 10

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 11:27am

Yeah, Republicans are in touch with themselves alright - thru a hole in the cloth, with the lights out, in the dark of a moonless night.....

Post 11

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 12:36pm

George, I cannot see where we actually disagreed (I understand that, in American English, "liberal" and "leftist" mean more or less the same.)

Three clarification points:

1.- When I said "(Republican) religiosity promotes morality", I meant that (the sense of) religiosity of some Republicans promotes (the practice of) morality.

2.- Today, the practice of "moralizing" --specially, talking the talk without walking the walk-- is mainly a Leftist feature.

3.- Morality is the authentic source of honesty. And I think it's clearly more present in the Republican party.

(Edited by Joel Catal� on 3/16, 12:39pm)

Post 12

Thursday, March 16, 2006 - 2:17pm

George Cordero has given a brilliant, excellent list of things which are components of or help one find happiness: optimism, 'do it yourself', attitude, pride, comfort [in the social order around you], a sense of grounding and purpose, being part of a group [the family] that rallies around you, emotional rewards of a tight knit [family or group]. [Post #5]

Whether happiness itself in the deep sense is really more true of Republicans than Democrats, or more true of conservatives than liberals is not so clear to me. Having seen the dismal, misleading, stupid questions asked in some polls, I tend to be suspicious of them. [Example: "If you ask a churchgoing Republican family man if he's happy, his self-image is more likely to be tied to reporting that he is happy than a skeptical, new agey Democrat from a therapeutic culture that believes in complaining all the time. So his self-assessment is not necessarily accurate.] And, while you can "poll" what someone thinks of George W. Bush, I don't think you can "poll" how happy someone is all the way down.

Moreover, there are other aspects of or contributing factors to happiness besides the ones George very insightfully names. The liberals I've known have often tended to be more happy than the conservatives in these areas; They are well-educated, love books and ideas, and are not bored or intellectual couch potatoes. They are adventurous, bold, like to travel and explore. They aren't as likely to feel a deep-seated kind of original sin religious guilt. (There is such a thing as liberal guilt of course, but I'm generalizing about -tendencies- and numbers.) They often have more interesting friends, rather than the same-old country club suburban bores...part of this comes from a tendency to live in cities, which are more interesting places than suburbs and where one is more likely to have contacts outside of exclusively the family or one's office mates. On the issue of comfort with one's society, it's not clear to me that the average good liberal (as opposed to leftist or nihilist) is less optimistic or positive about America and his society than the average good conservative (as opposed to the fundamentalist nut). He takes pride in the civil rights movement, in our civil liberties, social changes, rights for women, rock and roll music....and the openness to change and experimentation and freedom is in some areas viewed with alienation and suspicion by the conservative seeing a morally flawed "godless" culture.

Also, and this is an important one, in the three key areas of marriage and career and friends, I see more of a tendency for conservatives, being a bit less experimental or adventurous or exploratory, the ones I have known and seen over the years in all the many parts of the country where I've worked to have a tendency to "settle". For the comfortable rather than the challenging woman or career. And there is -nothing- which more affects your lifelong happiness than a good mate and a fulfilling career. [I meet more bored conservatives than bored liberals, more excited liberals than excited conservatives.]

So, my overall conclusion is that there are lots of components to happiness, or even just basic satisfaction with one's life. And this discussion is good for finding that out! (I could care less about Republicans and Democrats, or that aspect of the issue, frankly.)

Phil

[I realize I shifted the discussion a bit from R's and D's to conservatives or liberals...because I view that as more essential, given the immense variation among R's and D's.]

(Edited by Philip Coates
on 3/16, 2:40pm)

Post 13

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 9:06am

As an update to this thread: Here's an article about a new study which seems to come to almost the opposite conclusion:

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding.

This strikes me as an important point:

Block admits in his paper that liberal Berkeley is not representative of the whole country. But within his sample, he says, the results hold.

But then, like any over-zealous researcher, he implies that you CAN extrapolate from Berkeley to the general population:

He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial.

Berkeley is indeed a liberal mecca. So why take results from Berkeley and suggest they're representative of the general population?

I think there's a lot of significance in this statistic:

...[T]here was a .27 correlation between being self-reliant in nursery school and being a liberal as an adult. Another way of saying it is that self-reliance predicts statistically about 7 per cent of the variance between kids who became liberal and those who became conservative. (If every self-reliant kid became a liberal and none became conservatives, it would predict 100 per cent of the variance). Seven per cent is fairly strong for social science, but it still leaves an awful lot of room for other influences, such as friends, family, education, personal experience and plain old intellect.

Seven percent? Pretty damned small to be painting big-picture conclusions. But it's a liberal dream-come-true, so it makes the headline: "Conservatives were whiny children."

Joshua

Post 14

Wednesday, March 22, 2006 - 10:47am

> Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative. At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area

Joshua, one thing that occurs to me is that the schools are lousy, so being dissatisfied is a sign of mental health. So if a kid is raised in a progressive nursery and educational system which is left-leaning, social rather than academic, or dumbed down -- which is probably more likely in a place like Berkeley -- the one's who don't like it and are viewed by the teacher as rebellious -- "whiny, insecure, always complaining" would be the way a bad teacher might put it or liberal social scientists (who sound as if they might be smuggling in equating conformism and complaisance with "adjustment" or mental health or "self-reliance" or "resilience"). The teacher, for example, insofar as the teacher's testimony is being relied on or influences this, would perhaps blame the kid rather than herself or the curriculum.

Post 15

Sunday, March 26, 2006 - 9:14pm