Compassionate Conservatism Rules!

Ditto.

Hmmm, I would say that I am very happy. (no I don't think that implies a perfect score). I don't get that way be giving money or time away, either. I am happy with myself. I do what I think is right when I think it is right. Not sure why you think you should let what is happening in the rest of the world have such an effect on your personal happiness.

The Left has been rather successful at painting the Right as cold and greedy and out for themselves.

Not sure why you think you should let what is happening in the rest of the world have such an effect on your personal happiness.

Which seems to suggest something that I have long believed, which is that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals.

I think that the last 6 years have made conservatives very happy and liberals very unhappy...so there is some truth to this. Happier over the course of their lives, however? I don't think that overall happiness is based on political leanings at all.

Disclosure: I would consider myself a centrist - not that I am afraid to commit, I am very committed to those things that I do believe - but I feel that the whole right/left thing is a false dichotomy.

If you dwell on the problems of society

I believe this depends on your outlook, your attitude. If you look at "problems" as "opportunities to do better" then perhaps focusing on those things can lead to happiness. Ignoring problems does not make them go away, and neither does idle complaining.

you voluntarily contribute little to nothing except bigger government

I am not entirely convinced that this is the sole contribution of those who consider themselves leftwing.

Overall, I think your article is interesting. What I would like to know is what kind of causes are the people polled contributing to? What methodology did the author of this book use to find his data? Is that information easily available - if so, please post. I would be curious to see the whole picture, although I don't think I have the time right now to read the book.

Yeah I agree we will always have wackos, and people who take things too far, and exaggerate claims either for an agenda or for some psychological need.

In any case, its hardly restricted to the left, and the people who are dwelling on problems probably aren't the same people who are actually doing something about it.

There will always be a section of the population who has their pet causes they are "mad as hell" about no matter what - whether its minority rights, immigration, gun control, etc. But we are smart enough to not let the loonies characterize the majority, aren't we?

Thanks iarnuocon -- that's the link I had in mind and I think I couldn't find it because PD tagged it poorly. (Or maybe people who get booted from Newsvine don't show up in searches?)

My comment seems pretty in line with what you've mentioned here -- and it was completely off-the-cuff. I'm glad real numbers back up my guesses.

Conservatives tend to embrace family, faith and community Is this an assumption, or is there any evidence to back up the implication that Conservatives embrace family, faith and community more than liberals?

I tend to believe this I tend to believe the opposite when confronted by conservatives who rail against gay marriage or the availability of abortion as an option to pregnant women. I mean, c'mon-- those folks are totally unhappy because of actions that don't affect them in the slightest. So, we have conflicting anecdotal evidence. I wonder how we can resolve this dilemma?

Brooks stated point about this is... that by his conclusions, liberals would be happier not by becoming conservative, but by donating more and worshipping government less. For all the reasons I've stated above, I simply can't take Brooks' conclusions seriously. I'm a lot more likely to accept the findings of the SCCBS, which may or may not be substantively different from Brooks' "findings."

And we both know that your article is positing quite a bit more than the simple assertion that liberals would be happier if they were more charitable and less interested in government. Fundamentally, you're using spurious conclusions to bolster your prejudicial belief that conservatism are, by nature, "better" than liberals. I don't mind that you have that belief-- lots of folks believe things that I find completely silly-- but I sure don't find your assessment that Brooks' calculations support your notion convincing.

Brooks' methods make his conclusions inconsequential.

Is this an assumption, or is there any evidence to back up the implication that Conservatives embrace family, faith and community more than liberals?

I think you could look at the culture of the inner cities of most population areas in the country, and say yes. From what statistics say, the subset of people who have the weakest family structures (ie. multiple children with multiple fathers, end up in jail, drop-out rates, etc), tend to be in areas that are highly liberal-voting sections.

I think though, that a lot of these kind of people I described do have strong faiths, and possibly strong communities, but the strength of the families seems to lack.

And I'm not talking about one race, there are instances of both.

From what statistics say, the subset of people who have the weakest family structures (ie. multiple children with multiple fathers, end up in jail, drop-out rates, etc), tend to be in areas that are highly liberal-voting sections. Whose statistics? I'd like more evidence, please, instead of more assertion. I think we can all predict where Newsvine's resident conservatives are going to fall in terms of assumptions.

I want to see some actual numbers.

Now maybe we can divorce the inner cities from the rest of society for consideration, but then you're left with the question of whether the lack of charity is the result of this population's "liberalism" or from the disrupted social cohesion that is almost forced upon them by their lack of opportunity.

To resolve that question, you have to study the larger population in comparison. Again, when you go to the SCCBS study, what comes out is that political bias, education, and income have far less (if anything) to do with generosity than does social connection.

From what statistics say, the subset of people who have the weakest family structures (ie. multiple children with multiple fathers, end up in jail, drop-out rates, etc), tend to be in areas that are highly liberal-voting sections.

This doesn't really account for it though unless we assume that the majority of the people are voting, which is not the case. Liberals often live in the more urban and city areas of the country, which also happen to be more heavily populated and prone to poverty. Obviously, there's going to be more of these incidences where you have more people, and things like crime and the dropout rate tend to correlate with poverty.

At any rate, these aren't decent measures anyway. What is an accurate measure of how much someone "embraces" family? I could easily say that liberals value family more because we see a higher rate of divorce in areas that vote Republican, for instance. You can go back and forth on things like this all day.

I could easily say that liberals value family more because we see a higher rate of divorce in areas that vote Republican, for instance. You can go back and forth on things like this all day.

Granted, but you could probably also so you have more children born out of wedlock in areas that vote Democratic. Just look at the epidemic of younger women with multiple fathers for multiple children. It is increasingly a problem in hispanic communities, and in african american communities, and 56% of African American children are born into families where the mother is not married to the biological father. In 1998, single women headed 54% of African American households. http://ssw.unc.edu/RTI/presentation/PDFs/aa_families.pdf

While you can find faults on both sides, I would argue that even if conservatives may account for a higher number of divorce, maybe its because the others just dont get married? I still think a marriage and a divorce makes for a better family structure than having no family system at all.

I don't think the unhappy atheist is a valid point. I tend to me more pessimistic than most religious folks I meet... I am however, in my opinion, far more happy than most of the people I know, and most of the people do have faith in God.

As I am sure you will agree, happiness doesn't depend on a specific viewpoint of the world, it does however rely heavily on where you think you place is in the world. I personally believe that most of the devout followers I meet are not truly happy. Most seem to "sweat the small" stuff. I haven't quite figured out how the religious mind can fear death...

Sort of on topic, I do view religion as a means for dealing with mortality and I can see where religious people who believe that life is a stepping stone to other things are more content with their lives than secularists or athiests who see life as merely a birth to death scenario with nothing to follow.

If we're just guessing here -- you could also make the argument that Christians spend so much time worrying about whether they will get to Heaven that they forget to enjoy the time they have on Earth. Even if they're "not" worried about whether they'll get in -- they're so focused on doing so and the greatness of sitting on God's lap that they're squandering their time here.

Having no doubt that -this is the time I have- I'm spending it being happy.

But, that's only what I would say if we were making assumptions about other people based on personal observations.

I do view religion as a means for dealing with mortality

I could jump up and down about this statement but since you prefaced with "I do view" and you left it a little vague, I'll control myself.

Except to say that I don't need the threat of hell or the promise of heaven (or 70 virgins) to coerce a moral life out of me. I'm overly sensitive to being accused of being amoral because I don't believe in a god. I can be a moral person without mythology.

I can see where religious people who believe that life is a stepping stone to other things are more content with their lives than secularists or athiests who see life as merely a birth to death scenario with nothing to follow.

The "Unhappy Atheist" is a false assumption made by theists. I'm generally happy with my life primarily because I believe that I only have this life and I only have one chance to find meaning and to make a difference. I don't look forward to heaven and I don't live in fear of hell, I have to make it count now.

conservatives tend to be more devout than liberals

Although atheists tend to be liberal, I think it's a fallacy to say that conservatives are more devout. I think many devout liberal theists would take issue.

My last point is why are we talking theism/atheism when the topic is compassionate conservatism?

Have we generalized enough?

Oh, one more last thought... I would venture to say that churches benefit their own congregation at least as much as they benefit the outside community and thus donations benefit, at least partially, the donor.

My last point is why are we talking theism/atheism when the topic is compassionate conservatism?

I might have taken this discussion a little off course, and for that I apologize. I seem to throw conservatism and religion in the same "bag". I know it can be mistake sometimes, but I feel that most conservative ideals stem from religious viewpoints (for the, i believe, obvious reasons).

Except to say that I don't need the threat of hell or the promise of heaven (or 70 virgins) to coerce a moral life out of me. I'm overly sensitive to being accused of being amoral because I don't believe in a god. I can be a moral person without mythology.

Bingo!! For me, I'm rather happy with myself because (I believe) I'm a moral, honest person who does lots of charity work and giving, not because of the threat of Hell or the promise of Heaven, but because it's what I personally feel is the right thing to do.

Good answer Kevin!

Kevin,
you say

I could jump up and down about this statement but since you prefaced with "I do view" and you left it a little vague, I'll control myself.

Except to say that I don't need the threat of hell or the promise of heaven (or 70 virgins) to coerce a moral life out of me. I'm overly sensitive to being accused of being amoral because I don't believe in a god. I can be a moral person without mythology.

The comment you were responding to did not make the claim that religion was the ONLY means for dealing with mortality but A way.

Yes, if the statement was "religion is the only means for dealing with morality" my response would have been much louder.

Religion is a way for dealing with/teaching morality. I felt the need to respond because all to often people assume I (and atheists in general) have no moral basis because we have no religion. That is not true.

I think one of the primary functions of religion and mythology is to teach us about ourselves and about morality. I think Joseph Campbell said "mythology is a lie that reveals the truth". Meaning that the story is not true but the values taken from the story are - they reveal humanity.

Exactly, and that is why I can state that I am truly happy!

Again, most of the arguments seem to be based on personal views and/or anecdotal observations about what makes "other" people happy -- My personal observation is that conservatives are only happy when they can define the way in which -other- people can attain happiness.

At any rate, OTTO is demonstrating this by defining happiness (or latching onto someone else's definition) and applying it to people with whom he disagrees.

You state this as if it is conservatives who want to grow government, who want to use government to force society to live in their images. Bush is a liberal?

Which party is it, again, that is attacking marriage by preventing people from getting married?
Which party was it that said the appropriate response to terrorism was for Americans to go shopping?
Which party is trying to push Christianity into the science classroom?
Which party seeks to take away discretion from judges in handing out sentences?
Which party sought to put corporations' "rights" ahead of human rights?
Which party tried to push through the Total Information Awareness database?
Who tried to interfere with Canada's decriminalization of marijuana (not satisfied with controlling our own population)?
Who decided that it was a good idea to give public funds to churches?

And I haven't even moved beyond the year 2003. I think your personal observation is tainted, OttO.

Conservatives think that people are better than government until those people begin making decisions which conservatives think are wrong-- then it's time to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment, an anti-flag burning amendment, restrictions on free speech, suspension of habeus corpus, and massive wiretapping programs.

Funny how that works.

I'm happiest when conservatives mind their own business. Conservatism doesn't mean anything but unhappiness, IMHO. So far, reality paints a picture that is an exact negative of the portrait you present.

So far, reality paints a picture that is an exact negative of the portrait you present.

There you go, iarnuocon, bringing "reality" into the discussion. Typical liberal. Reality has a well-known liberal bias, so I'll thank you to please keep the bias -- and therefore the reality -- out of this discussion.

Wasn't it Reagan that said the scariest words in the english language were

I'm from the government and I am here to help you

something like that anyway.

--Higher minimum wage
--Universal or expanded health care coverage
--Higher quality child care options for working moms
--Environmental conservation
--More educational opportunities for children, teens and adults
--Stronger federal legislation protecting our food, water, air, etc.
--Expanded maternity leave and support
--Expanded early childhood education
--Increased research into green/alternative energy
--Stronger federal support for the arts and culture

Who do you feel these services should be provided by?

I believe that federal and state governments should be providing these services, or mandating these types of programs into legislation. I would be comfortable with a gradual start. For example, with universal health care, I don't think it's too difficult for any industrialized nation to provide basic health care for all its citizens. Since we haven't had that, I think we could phase it in by starting with children.

Where will funding come from? For some of these programs, we are already funding them...or funding the result of the lack of them. The healthcare thing is a good example of this. Without universal healthcare, taxpayers and communities are already subsidizing medical care, except it's people going to emergency rooms rather than getting the much less expensive preventative care. So in effect, we are already paying for universal health care...except it's in rising costs (80% since 2000) due to the entire medical system absorbing the cost of the uninsured using emergency room and other high cost services.

I would rather spend money on early childhood programs and family support rather than on the much more expensive and negative cost of prison. Family dysfunction, reduced educational and vocational opportunities, etc. are contributing factors for crime, which we are funding at a rate of 5-8 times that of similar industrialized nations (Canada and Western Europe). I won't cite numerous studies that link early childhood problems with incarceration rates, but here is one conservative estimate from a National Institute of Justice study:

Using carefully developed methods for eliciting retro-spective reports of childhood abuse and neglect, a new study of inmates in a New York prison found that 68 percent of the sample reported some form of childhood victimization and 23 percent reported experiencing multiple forms of abuse and neglect, including physical and sexual abuse. These findings provide support for the belief that the majority of incarcerated offenders have likely experienced some type of childhood abuse or neglect.

I know, many conservatives and Republicans are just cringing right now. I myself don't want to see our national debt keep rising, and government spending on social services is something we should do wisely, not just throw money to solve problems. But--I am a strong believer in innovation and solutions, and feel like if we make progress in these areas a priority, we can come up with ways to fund these initiatives and to make sure the government doesn't overstep its bounds, become overly socialists, or hinder the free market economy.

Investment in people, in strong and healthy communities, is like preventative medicine. It's much cheaper to have healthy societies and people, rather than deal with problems.

Maria G.,

I agree, and I'm an east coast atheist heathen liberal.

Truth is, once we get past the name calling, labels, and political polarities, we're not that far apart. We may prioritize in a different order but what's on our lists are closer than we realize. We may differ on some issues, but more often than not we can agree.

And I don't mean just you and me.

I don't think liberals want bigger government just to have bigger government (and we certainly don't base our happiness on the size of government). I think we see government as an extension of the country as a whole and see it as our responsibility to take care of our own. I would be willing to pay a higher tax if it were to eliminate poverty (although I don't trust our government to use my tax money for it's intended purpose). Just as conservatives are willing to donate to charities to help the poverty stricken. I think my view is that government can have a larger impact.

In all, I want smaller, more efficient government. And I'd like to see more governmental power at the state and local level rather than the federal level.

I'm conservative...

Welcome to the other side of the fence Maria!

=P

I think we see government as an extension of the country as a whole and see it as our responsibility to take care of our own.

Exactly. Government is what we make of it. Government is not separate from our society, it's an integral part of the society that we, the people, create. If we don't like the government, it's up to us to change it. If we neglect the government, we allow it to grow either ineffective or corrupt. Government must be held accountable by us, constantly, if it is going to operate up to its potential.

Welcome to the Democratic party c.2006.

I'm surprised to see these words showing up on the screen, but: I'm going to have to agree with Otto on this: Maria, if "most conservatives you know" agree with you on your list of issues, then "most conservatives you know" and you are actually liberals.

Don't believe me? Take a look at the social programs provided by the European social democracies like Sweden, Germany and France and compare them with your list. Then ask any of the conservatives here what they think about turning the US into one of those social democracies. Just be prepared for some harsh language. And, like MartinEZ, I also welcome you to our side. :)

Sorry to not respond to questions and very valid points several people made. My Mom has lung cancer, and we had an emergency this weekend.

evano: Maria, if "most conservatives you know" agree with you on your list of issues, then "most conservatives you know" and you are actually liberals.

Good point, evano. I should have clarified:

maria g.: most conservatives I know, especially if they are Christian, are involved in their communities (give time) and do contribute generously (give money), not just to the causes they believe in or to churches, but general charities also.

I was referring to giving, but not to the points/beliefs I discussed later. Though many people who are conservative would agree with me on some of those issues, I know I'm a far-left conservative.

I'd like to counter though, that conservatives who believe in social spending, poverty reduction and progressive policies shouldn't have to "convert" [my word] to liberalism, any more than liberals who believe in strong families, smaller government, national security or other "right-wing" issues must be labeled "conservative."

The OttO Show: Good points Martin - I'm interested in what makes Maria a conservative.

Here are a few other beliefs I hold:

--I am against abortion, except in the most extreme cases
--I am pro-business, in that I believe that the free market, capitalistic economy works well when properly regulated.
--I don't believe in handouts or welfare to people who are able-bodied and can work.
--I have no problems with restricting access and placing tighter regulations on media to protect children.
--I do not believe society or governments are the end-all solution to cure, support or change people. I know that bureaucracy is actually pretty helpless at times when dealing with social dysfunction. I am a strong believer in personal responsibility.
--I do believe in a strong, efficient (but not bloated) military, and I do think there are times when military action is warranted.

The OttO Show: But it does look like a list of Big Government initiatives to me.

Yes, I agree. I know what I'm for, but I don't have the answer to how all these things would be implemented. If we had leadership in government that was more committed to innovation, vision, trimming the fat, etc., there would be ways to find long-term solutions to these things without increasing our debt.

Exactly, I don't understand why people feel government will always screw everything up... Sure their track record is terrible, but part of "Liberalism" is not only "expanding" government but also "fixing" it.

I believe the private sector becoming entwined with government is far worse for this country than government running what most conservatives feel the private sector should deal with.

liberal strongholds such as Topeka and Austin

I think you mean Lawrence, KS. (Topeka might be slightly more liberal than average -- but Lawrence is probably the most liberal pocket in KS.)

:)

Oh, forgot to add - Anther problem with self-reporting comes up in the identification of the political ideology as well. It doesn't look like Brooks measured the person's political stances and determined the ideology based on that, it seems like they were just straight out asked if they were liberals or conservative. And, as illustrated on this very thread, it's not uncommon for someone to define themself as "liberal" or "conservative" because of one issue like abortion, or because they might be religious and feel that liberals are godless - but in reality they actually hold values that directly conflict with that ideology as a whole.

I think you mean Lawrence, KS. (Topeka might be slightly more liberal than average -- but Lawrence is probably the most liberal pocket in KS.)

Damn. I knew it was one of them and didn't double check. Because hey, who wants to spend time researching some flyover state like Kansas anyway? :P

Because hey, who wants to spend time researching some flyover state like Kansas anyway?

Damn you Malboooooon!

(For what it's worth, despite my nitpicky comment, I look forward to OTTOs response to a great challenge to his source material.)

Yes, putting standardized measures around concepts like happiness, compassion and care makes so much sense....

Daweb -- I think you've unwittingly hit upon a big flaw in the book: You can't really standardize (let alone generalize) happiness, compassion and care -- and the author appears to have done so.

If you can't define it and measure for it, using statistics to try to "analyze" it makes no sense whatsoever.

LOL you guys crack me up. really.

To say that because you can't but a 'number' on how happy or compassionate etc. you are does not mean that you can't use numbers to get some ideas or to help analyze these ideas. You just have to accept that the results will in no way be concrete.