Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

flushd wrote:

Those are called moderates.
Name one famous moderate,and what did they accomplish?

Lincoln was undoubtably a moderate. I am sure there are others.

Foxfyre wrote:

Msolga you kind of reinforced George Will's thesis.

The George Will column was alsp also certainly posted in the many newspapers to which he is syndicated. RealClear politics is a collection of sources that speak to the headline news of the day and includes pro and con views on virtually all major issues plus some interesting commentary. They probably do tilt a bit right of center philosophically, but the sources they use are generally quite balanced with all available views.

Thesis? I wouldn't quite call it that.

I don't know about reinforcing his view, either. It's quite possible to be a contented with your own personal life, yet quite appalled by political events at the same time & to want to change things for the better. You don't necessarily have to be an unhappy person to recognize, say, a social injustice or an ill-advised invasion of another country. What does being "happy" have to do it?

Seriously, that site is considered balanced? It seems more than a little tilted to the right, to me.

How's that.

What a very happy thought, McG.

I read the report. The data for happiness by political party is for the "very happy" category -- there is no data for "pretty happy" and "unhappy" in the section for party affiliation. The report sayst that Republicans are more likely to report being very happy than are Democrats and Independents. This doesn't change when controlling for income or ideology. Interestingly, the authors of the report allude to religiosity as the possible controlling factor. I'd be interested to see what happens if you combine "pretty happy" with "very happy".

The report is here: http://pewresearch.org/social/pack.php?PackID=1

msolga wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Msolga you kind of reinforced George Will's thesis.

The George Will column was alsp also certainly posted in the many newspapers to which he is syndicated. RealClear politics is a collection of sources that speak to the headline news of the day and includes pro and con views on virtually all major issues plus some interesting commentary. They probably do tilt a bit right of center philosophically, but the sources they use are generally quite balanced with all available views.

Thesis? I wouldn't quite call it that.

I don't know about reinforcing his view, either. It's quite possible to be a contented with your own personal life, yet quite appalled by political events at the same time & to want to change things for the better. You don't necessarily have to be an unhappy person to recognize, say, a social injustice or an ill-advised invasion of another country. What does being "happy" have to do it?

Seriously, that site is considered balanced? It seems more than a little tilted to the right, to me.

I suspect you didn't follow the links for content at RealClear Politics or I think you would have to agree that all points of view are expressed there.

"What being happy has to do with it" is that the Pew Research poll--and Pew Research is nobody's idea of a rightwing group--has shown that conservatives have said they were happy more often than liberals say that they are happy and this has been consistent since the polls were first taken in the early 1970's.

Some of us find this interesting. For those who don't, there are all manner of other threads to participate in other than this one. It is interesting that it is only the liberals who are having a problem with the topic, and as yet nobody has put forth any argument to dispute the thesis.

Foxfyre wrote:

msolga wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Msolga you kind of reinforced George Will's thesis.

The George Will column was alsp also certainly posted in the many newspapers to which he is syndicated. RealClear politics is a collection of sources that speak to the headline news of the day and includes pro and con views on virtually all major issues plus some interesting commentary. They probably do tilt a bit right of center philosophically, but the sources they use are generally quite balanced with all available views.

Thesis? I wouldn't quite call it that.

I don't know about reinforcing his view, either. It's quite possible to be a contented with your own personal life, yet quite appalled by political events at the same time & to want to change things for the better. You don't necessarily have to be an unhappy person to recognize, say, a social injustice or an ill-advised invasion of another country. What does being "happy" have to do it?

Seriously, that site is considered balanced? It seems more than a little tilted to the right, to me.

I suspect you didn't follow the links for content at RealClear Politics or I think you would have to agree that all points of view are expressed there.

"What being happy has to do with it" is that the Pew Research poll--and Pew Research is nobody's idea of a rightwing group--has shown that conservatives have said they were happy more often than liberals say that they are happy and this has been consistent since the polls were first taken in the early 1970's.

Some of us find this interesting. For those who don't, there are all manner of other threads to participate in other than this one. It is interesting that it is only the liberals who are having a problem with the topic, and as yet nobody has put forth any argument to dispute the thesis.

Actually, I had a pretty good look at the site, Foxfire. I was very interested!

You can have a poll on anything at all ... The real point is why ask that particular question? Why bother? Whose interests does it serve?

Are you suggesting that if a person doesn't agree with the point of view advanced by a particular topic here that they shouldn't participate? I don't have a "problem" with the topic as such. I just find the proposition of "happiness" irrelevant to a political discussion.

From reading various posts by liberals on A2K, it is a wonder they haven't committed suicide as miserable as they are. Nothing but negativity spews forth daily. I know if my life were that miserable, I would try to change and maybe try to find something more positive to expend my energy on.

Yeah, it makes me happy when George Will rags on Bush and his cabal. He does have some redeeming features despite having a sense of humor akin to the Tasmanian Devil. I know, that's an extinct animal. Well...

Source?

I will but you guys go first. You're claiming you're happy while posting nothing but unhappiness. Just giving you a chance to make your point.

If I remember my developmental psychology from college... I am pretty sure it was Erik Erikson who talked about a state of "mental foreclosure".

Mental foreclosure is when you accept your beliefs as absolute truth without honestly questioning them. This is one of the states you can reach in your forming your identity.

The alternative to mental foreclosure is either a mature identity (where you have decided what to believe, but have honestly accept the problems with your viewpoint and continue searching), or a state of searching without having decided yet.

Studies have shown that people in mental forclosure experience the least stress (and I assume that this would make them the happiest). Very religious people who ignore any of the messy contradictions in their beliefs are certainly the happiest I know. [..]

A state of happy denial is a state of happiness.... but I don't want to be there.