Abstract of a new paper by Sam Pelzman:
Since 1972 the General Social Survey (GSS) has asked a representative sample of US adults “… [are] you …very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?” Overall, the population is reasonably happy even after a mild recent decline. I focus on differences along standard socio demographic dimensions: age, race, gender, education, marital status income and geography. I also explore political and social differences. Being married is the most important differentiator with a 30-percentage point happy-unhappy gap over the unmarried. Income is also important, but Easterlin’s (1974) paradox applies: the rich are much happier than the poor at any moment, but income growth doesn’t matter. Education and racial differences are also consequential, though the black-white gap has narrowed substantially. Geographic, gender and age differences have been relatively unimportant, though old-age unhappiness may be emerging. Conservatives are distinctly happier than liberals as are people who trust others or the Federal government.The biggest reason American are less happy than 50 years ago is that fewer of us are married; there are other factors, but none of them are anywhere near as important.
I think the point about income is also important. Poor people are unhappy, but it seems that they are not unhappy because they are poor, but unhappy for the same reasons that they are poor. The most important causes of both are probably mental health problems, physical health problems, and addiction.
5 comments:
I remain puzzled by the repeated finding, "Conservatives are distinctly happier than liberals" It seems to bear no relation to contemporary Republican Party politics, which seem entirely based on negative emotions, among them distrust of institutions and the Federal government.
One reads repeated rationalizations--and they do seem to be rationalizations, thinkings-out-loud on the part of the researchers, not findings of further research--that seem based on the idea that conservatives match a standard, presumed, somewhat dated American small-town persona. As I have said more than once and as my description implies, I'm skeptical. It certainly doesn't reflect the tone of the current Republican Party.
An NYT article on the abortion referendum quotes an Ohio voter: “Evil never sleeps . . . The liberals don’t like that Ohio is a red state, and they continue to attack us."
Perhaps Pelzman defines "a conservative" as a certain type of contented personality, and we should ignore the political implications of his use of the term?
Or perhaps, if Pelzman finds that (say) 60% of conservatives are happy, conservative political action and GOP slogans represent the other 40%?
Or perhaps it reflects the different way conservatives and liberals answer questions from people like Pelzman? Part of that dated, Norman-Vincent-Peale-esque persona that I see researchers often place under the label "conservative" is a custom or drive to "accentuate the positive."
Or perhaps right-wing (not the same as "conservative") personalities are structured in such a way that resentment, distrust, and embattlement makes them "happy"--gives them purpose, meaning, a sense of identity and trust in their cohort? Perhaps there is a kind of (wannabe?) master or boss personality that works that way?
I'll add, if conservatism is defined as "happy with the way things are, all we need are a few tweaks," then right now that seems to me to reflect centrist liberals more than the GOP. That's Biden, not Trump.
Two possibilities: first, angry MAGA types are still not the majority of conservatives, who are the contented type. Second maybe being angry is happier than being anxious, which is the left-wing vice.
Also, leftists have by far the highest rate of mental illness.
Yes, as I already suggested, MAGA types may be the 40% of conservatives who are not happy, in a notional 40/60 split. I also suggested that they may have personalities that are structured in such a way that being angry makes them happy (anger being the vice of bosses and masters, or wannabe bosses and masters).
I would stress again also my distinction between leftists and liberals. A huge gap yawns between Bidenism and leftism. Biden voters are people who find the enraged MAGA right more threatening than the woke or queer left, but both are foreign to us.
Most of my neighbors, I would say, are liberals of this sort. Our liberalism is less about seeking change or being anything remotely like "the left" than about preserving our quite delightful, suburban, heavily-government-cushioned world, which we have, almost uniquely in human history, without having to be angry bosses or masters. To us, that's what things like green energy, gun control, and removing unpleasant confederate symbols and race-based team names are about. It's like being Danish, and it's really quite miraculous.
Post a Comment