posted April 24, 2008 01:39 PM            

Perhaps this is one of the factors in Dr. Rossiter's psychiatric evaluation that "liberals/leftists are clinically insane".

Gross National Happiness
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, April 24, 2008

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Arthur C. Brooks, the Louis A. Bantle Professor of Business and Government Policy at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, and a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. The author of the 2006 book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism, Dr. Brooks writes widely about the connections between culture, politics, and economic life in America, and his work appears frequently in the Wall Street Journal and other publications. He is the author of the new book, Gross National Happiness.

FP: Arthur C. Brooks, welcome back to Frontpage Interview.

Brooks: It’s great to be with you again, Jamie.

FP: What inspired you to write this new book?

Brooks: This book asks who the happiest Americans are, and how we can all get happier by changing our politics, government, and culture in constructive ways.

As we all know, the American Declaration of Independence enshrines the “pursuit of happiness” as a fundamental right. I believe we have an ethical responsibility to exercise that right, and to express our values as a nation in a way that makes it possible for our fellow citizens to pursue happiness as well.

FP: Why does happiness matter for America?

Brooks: The reason happiness is so important is that happy citizens are the best citizens. This book shows in detail—using large amounts of data collected over many years by nonpartisan survey organizations—that happy people treat others better than unhappy people. They are more charitable, have better marriages, are better parents, act with greater integrity, and are better citizens than unhappy people. Happy people work harder than unhappy people, but volunteer more as well—meaning that they increase our nation’s prosperity and strengthen our communities. Happy citizens are vital to making our nation strong and prosperous, and a strong and prosperous nation can and should be a happy example to the world.

FP: In terms of political views, who are the happiest people in America today? Tell us about the "happiness gap".

Brooks: It turns out this is an easy question: conservatives are happiest, by far.

In 2004, people who said they were conservative or very conservative were nearly twice as likely to say they were very happy as people who called themselves liberal or very liberal (44 percent versus 25 percent). Conservatives were only half as likely to say they were not too happy (9 versus 18 percent). Political conservatives were also far less likely than liberals to express maladjustment to their adult lives. For example, adults on the political right were only half as likely as those on the left to say, “at times, I think I am no good at all.” They were also less likely to say they were dissatisfied with themselves, that they were inclined to feel like a failure, or to be pessimistic about their futures. Further, a 2007 survey found that 58 percent of Republicans rated their mental health as “excellent,” versus 43 percent of political independents and just 38 percent of Democrats.

FP: Why are political conservatives so much happier than liberals?

Brooks: About half the “happiness gap” is explained by two demographic differences. Conservatives are far more religious than liberals, on average, and much more likely to be married. Faith and marriage both strongly improve life quality for most people.

The other half of the gap is explained by differing worldviews. Conservatives generally look at society and see a collection of individuals. They naturally believe, therefore, that personal action is the right focus for our attention. Liberals are much stronger at the level of the collective. For many on the left, individual action is a silly, futile focus if we want to make any meaningful social change; the community or all society requires change (even by force) in order for real progress to be made.

This worldview difference dramatically affects happiness levels. Simply put, it is easier to be successful in relying on your own actions for things that are important to you than to rely on the actions of everyone else. Conservatives feel more in control of their world than liberals do; liberals are more likely to feel like victims when others don’t behave the way they “should.”

FP: Is traditional family life the secret to happiness? What about religious faith?

Brooks: We have heard a lot of bad things since the 1960s about marriage. Don’t believe it. In 2004, 42 percent of married Americans said they were very happy. Only 23 percent of never-married people said this, as well as 20 percent of those who were widowed, and 17 percent of divorced people. Married people were six times more likely to say they were very happy than they were to say they were not too happy. Meanwhile, people who had lost their spouses or had their marriages break up were more likely to be not too happy than very happy.

Children don’t generally raise happiness by themselves (in fact, they tend to lower the happiness of a marriage, on average). However, they are nearly always part of an overall “culture” of happiness. Consider this: 52 percent of married, religious, conservative people with kids are very happy--versus only 14 percent of single, secular, liberal people without kids. Kids are part of a happy lifestyle.

Religious people of all faiths are much, much happier than secularists, on average. In 2004, 43 percent of religious folks (those attended a house of worship almost every week) said they were “very happy” with their lives, versus 23 percent of secularists (those who seldom or never attended a house of worship). Surveys show that religious people are a third more likely than secularists to say they are optimistic about the future. Secularists are nearly twice as likely as religious people to say, “I am inclined to feel I am a failure.”

FP: Some say money can’t buy love, but can it buy happiness?

Brooks: Economists find for the most part that money does not buy happiness. First, when countries get richer over time, above basic levels of subsistence, citizens on average do not get happier, even when prosperity gains are spread fairly evenly across the population. Second, richer countries do not have happier citizens than poorer ones, except in cases of countries that are miserably poor. Third, individuals adapt very quickly to income increases, and do not get permanently happier when they get richer.

Still, there is one way to “buy happiness”: charitable giving. The evidence is clear that gifts of money—as well as gifts of time—to charitable organizations, houses of worship, and other worthy causes, brings authentic happiness to givers. The bottom line is that if you want $100 in authentic happiness today, you can buy it easily—just give the money to your church or favorite charity.

FP: What about income inequality? We always hear this is rising and that it’s making us miserable as a nation. True or false?

Brooks: False. The data tell us that economic mobility -- not equality -- is associated with happiness. One survey asked Americans in 2004, "The way things are in America, people like me and my family have a good chance of improving our standard of living -- do you agree or disagree?" The two-thirds of the population who agreed were 44% more likely than the others to say they were "very happy," 40% less likely to say that they felt "no good at all" at times, and 20% less likely to say that they felt like failures. In other words, those who don't believe in economic mobility -- for themselves or for others -- are not as happy as those who do. Some studies even find that the happiness of workers increases as the incomes of others climb relative to their own, because they see the incomes of others as evidence of what they themselves can achieve.

Policies that redistribute income just to get more equality tend to get the opposite of what they seek, in terms of happiness. These policies reduce incentives to create wealth, which means less economic growth and fewer jobs, and less charitable giving -- all of which especially hurts people lower down on the income scale. Furthermore, redistribution can, as the American welfare system has shown, turn beneficiaries into demoralized long-term dependents.

FP: Europeans say they “work to live,” while we “live to work.” Your interpretation?

Brooks: It’s true. Europeans work less, and relax more, than Americans. We work 25 percent more hours each year than Norwegians or the Dutch. The average American worker takes just 16 days of vacation each year, less than half as many as the Germans (35 days), the French (37 days), and the Italians (42 days).

Europeans might not be happy if they worked as much as we do, but we certainly would not be happier if we started goofing more. In 2002, an amazing 89 percent said they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their jobs. Only 11 percent said they were not too satisfied or not at all satisfied. You might think this is only true for those with high-pay, high-skill jobs. But this is not true. It turns out that people of all classes and job types are satisfied with their work. There is no difference at all in job satisfaction between those with below- and above-average incomes: Eighty-nine percent are satisfied in both groups. Similarly, 88 percent of people without a college education are satisfied, as are 87 percent of those who call themselves “working class.” Americans like or love their jobs, and working brings us a tremendous amount of joy, on average.

FP: Are you happy?

Brooks: Yes, I really am. Through good fortune, I have a lot of the lifestyle and worldview characteristics of happy Americans. But writing this book has helped too. When it comes to happiness, knowledge is power. Knowing that money does not buy happiness; that taking spirituality seriously brings life satisfaction; that dwelling on victimhood brings misery—these types of facts can really change one’s behavior and attitudes, and they’ve helped me a lot. One interesting factoid about happiness is that the average low point in a man’s happiness is age 44, according to research. My 44th birthday is next month! So writing a book on happiness was definitely very timely.

FP: Well, if I don’t speak to you then, Happy Birthday!

Arthur C. Brooks, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.

posted July 23, 2008 06:19 PM            

"I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their political duties, they lead their country, by a short route, to chaos." So said Robert Bolt's Sir Thomas More in A Man For All Seasons.

The opposite side of that moral coin is explored by Peter Schweizer in his book, Makers and Takers -- namely, the personal consequences of a moral compass that points unswervingly to the political left. Schweizer's answer is given in his extended subtitle -- a list of declarations that clearly suggest the royal road to happiness isn't paved with fervent commitment to government health care.

In this short, generously spaced work Schweizer debunks the popular notion that liberals are better people than supposedly tight-fisted, hard-hearted, mentally unstable conservatives. After providing a gut-wrenching sample of popular elite opinion -- from tendentious "studies" that classify Stalin as a conservative to the vacuous blatherings of Bill Maher -- Schweizer proceeds to demolish those opinions with peer-reviewed sociological data that show liberals are generally more selfish, more focused on money, less hardworking, less emotionally satisfied, less honest, and even less knowledgeable about politics than their conservative counterparts.

In addition to anecdotal evidence (like Bill Clinton's 957-page monument to self-obsession) Schweizer cites his favorite source, the "highly regarded General Social Survey," to show that self-described strong conservatives are much more likely than their liberal counterparts (55-20%) to say they get happiness by putting another person's happiness ahead of their own. Similar results were obtained in response to queries about caring for a seriously ill spouse or parent. Another study found that students who called themselves "very liberal" or "radical" tended to have a "narcissistic pathology" that exhibited itself in "grandiosity, envy...and a sense of entitlement." Not surprisingly, these students were not only the most power-oriented but also the most pot-oriented.

This professed gap between liberals and conservatives when it comes to self-centeredness also carries over into practice. While liberals tout their generosity and berate conservative greed, the hard facts (and IRS data) tell another story. That Al Gore gave just $353 to charity in 1998, out of an adjusted gross income of $197,729, appears to be a common occurrence among the former V-P's ideological associates. The 1040s of leftists like Robert Reich, Andrew Cuomo, Ted Kennedy, and even Franklin Roosevelt tell a similar tale. Indeed, as Schweizer notes, Al Gore looks "downright benevolent" when compared to John Kerry, who gave none of his 126,179 taxable dollars to charity in 1995.

SCHWEIZER'S GENERAL SOCIAL SURVEY shows that this anecdotal evidence corresponds with the tendency of conservatives to donate more money than liberals and to volunteer more time to charitable causes. Even after eliminating church activities, conservatives still volunteered for charitable work more frequently than liberals (27-19%). Prof. Arthur C. Brooks, author of Who Really Cares? (and the incoming president of the American Enterprise Institute) , calculates the annual giving gap between religious conservatives and liberals at $2,210 to $642. This disparity suggests the accuracy of Merryle Rukeyser's witty definition of a liberal as someone who's liberal with other people's money.

Since liberals squeeze their greenbacks so tightly, it follows that they also value money more highly than conservatives when it comes to job satisfaction, a conclusion born out by Schweizer's statistics (36-24%). Consistent with their entitlement mentality, liberals also put twice as much value on leisure time than conservatives and considerably more value on a low-stress work environment (56-36%). It clearly takes a government-run Wunder-Village to produce these labor conditions -- high pay, leisure time, no pressure. Add to these job priorities the fact that conservatives value hard work more than liberals, and it's easy to see why Schweizer tells employers to "think long and hard" before hiring someone wearing a Che Guevara T-shirt.

Unrealistic workplace expectations doubtless foster another unpleasant characteristic that pervades the left -- envy. This trait is perfectly illustrated by an anecdote Schweizer provides about a student who traded his $15-an-hour pizza job for one paying only $6.25-an-hour. The reason for this counterproductive economic decision was envy over the fact that the enterprising student who started the business was making $50-an-hour. Such reasoning coincides with the thought-patterns of that Russian who, given only one wish by a genie, wished that his neighbor's barn should burn down.

It should come as no surprise that liberals don't score as well as conservatives on honesty, since leftists frequently subscribe to a "higher" morality that covers a multitude of stained blue dresses. As radical organizer Saul Alinsky put the matter, "Ethical standards must be elastic to stretch with the times." Such flexibility is certainly helpful when it come to rationalizing the biographical liberties taken by poet Quincy Troupe, Professor Edward Said, and Yale Professor Paul de Man -- to say nothing of the dialogical liberties taken by Robert Reich in his recent "memoir." Not surprisingly, this ethical flexibility only extends in one political direction.

ON ANOTHER STATISTICAL front, Schweizer provides data that show Michael Douglas' angry character in Falling Down should have been a liberal with a UN-WORLD license plate. It turns out that "very liberal" folks are three times more likely to "let fly" than corresponding conservatives. That lamp-shattering stat corresponds with another from the General Social Survey that shows extreme liberals six times more likely than extreme conservatives to have reported a mental health problem (30-5%). Schweizer notes that the left's emphasis on victimization contributes to this psychic distress -- as does the idea that individual initiative counts for nothing against a "lottery of life" rigged by and for conservatives. Beyond those political factors, the left's sympathy for philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre also contributes to the frustration of folks who find an absurd universe mentally taxing.

Probably the most distressing assertion in Schweizer's book, for liberals, is the claim that conservatives generally know more about politics. Indeed, the gap between the political knowledge of strong Republicans and strong Democrats, based on the calculations of George Mason law professor Ilya Somin, equals several years of formal education. "Independent" and "weak" Republicans also scored higher on Somin's scale than their ideological counterparts. So much for Thomas Frank's assumption that folks in Kansas are too dumb to know what's good for them.

Perhaps the most unexpected findings in Schweizer's statistical and anecdotal compendium were those related to the paranormal: that liberals are more likely to believe in ghosts than conservatives (Gallup, 42-25), that they are more likely to believe in communication with spirits (CBS, 43-29) and that they are significantly more likely to say UFOs have visited the earth. Actually, those ratios shouldn't come as a surprise -- given Hillary's chats with Eleanor Roosevelt and Dennis Kucinich's stated views on extraterrestrials. (Note to aliens: Dennis is ready for beaming.) Schweizer explains this data by noting that many liberals, absent a belief in God, have gravitated toward superstition, thus confirming G. K. Chesterton's assertion that those who don't believe in God will believe in anything.

In sum, Schweizer has created a compact sociological tour de force that is destined to meet the same fate among the MSM as Dr. Brooks' book on giving -- malign neglect. I suspect that those few leftists who deign to acknowledge its existence will focus on methodological flaws that are bound to exist in any large collection of social science data. But then, what else would one expect from a group of thin-skinned, stingy, ill-informed, and mentally unstable journalists?

posted July 23, 2008 11:33 PM            

So, we know this survey was done with loving concern and therefore it's right across the spectrum of issues surveyed.

We also know it's right given the fact leftists do tend to not be concerned with individuals. They're tight fisted with their own money...but will find a way to spend every cent of everyone else's on their favored causes. Take for example, John Traitor Kerry, who had no, absolutely no charitable giving whatsoever though married to a very rich woman at the time. Then, there's Algore who was embarrassed when his paltry giving was exposed.

Further, we know leftists are the narcissists whiners this survey says they are...from direct observation...even here.

So, don't be knocking this survey done with loving concern to advance societal understanding.

posted July 24, 2008 02:50 AM            

Yeah, the sample sizes were infinitesimal when compared with the population. Something like a thousandth of a percent.

posted July 24, 2008 11:58 AM            

I understand the pique leftists feel when they read the results of this societal survey. The report destroys every leftist myth about their intellectual, philosophical, moral and spiritual superiority. Of course, you heard this from me...first.

I also understand how distressing this paragraph from the report must be for leftists.

"Probably the most distressing assertion in Schweizer's book, for liberals, is the claim that conservatives generally know more about politics. Indeed, the gap between the political knowledge of strong Republicans and strong Democrats, based on the calculations of George Mason law professor Ilya Somin, equals several years of formal education. "Independent" and "weak" Republicans also scored higher on Somin's scale than their ideological counterparts."

I agree with you thirteen. I know a lot of people and I don't know any leftists who are happy. On the other hand, my experience with conservatives and Republicans is that for the most part, they are far happier with their lives than their opposites, the leftists.

posted December 22, 2008 07:41 PM            

Bleeding Heart Tightwads
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.

(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.

Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.

posted December 23, 2008 03:18 AM              

If you compare liberal rants for entitlement it is a complete rip off of Narcisism - which incidentally is the most common psychiatric personality disorder ailing americans...well the liberal ones, who want everything for nothing.

posted December 24, 2008 10:51 AM            

How embarrassing for Algore to have been exposed as only giving about $400 to charity when he was running for Prez. One would have thought John Traitor Kerry would have learned a lesson when he ran for Prez but then he and his billionaire wife were found to be pikers in the giving department as well.

And how about the current Prez elect who preaches..."We are our brother's keepers"...then, we find this multimillionaire has a brother who is subsisting on $12 PER YEAR in Kenya and brother O'Bomber hasn't lifted a finger to send his brother even $12 to double his annual income. It gets worse when it's known "brother O'Bomber" also has an aunt in the US..illegally...who was/is living on public assistance in "public housing" and brother O'Bomber hasn't lifted his little finger to help her out with a few of his millions of dollars.

In the meantime, O'Bomber's Marching Mushroom Army continues to believe O'Bomber is going to take care of them...when O'Bomber won't even take care of members of his own family.

What leftists incessantly preach almost never matches what they actually do in their own lives.

Leftists, champions of the poor and downtrodden? Don't make me laugh.

'Born Liberal' author on C-SPAN
Bradley to tell nation why you gotta raise kids right
Posted: December 23, 2008
2:02 am Eastern[/b]

WASHINGTON – Reb Bradley, author of WND Books' latest release, "Born Liberal, Raised Right: How to Rescue America from Moral Decline – One Family at a Time," will be on C-SPAN's "Book Notes" program twice more this week.

The broadcasts are slated for Saturday, Dec. 27, at 9 p.m. Eastern; and Sunday, Dec. 28, at 7 a.m.

Bradley, an expert on child rearing, says Rush Limbaugh is right about liberals – they are turning America into a nation of victims, dependent, covetous and incapable of the kind of self-government the nation's founding fathers envisioned.

Author of the previous best-selling book, "Child Training Tips," Bradley recalls listening to Limbaugh more than a decade ago and having an epiphany about the societal impact of permissive and indulgent parenting.

"I noticed that all of the societal ills Rush talked about were really manifestations of people who really never grew up – never matured," he explains. "Ultimately, that is what the worldview of liberalism is all about. And we won't escape its dire ill effects until we learn how to parent."

Bradley contends that liberalism is the natural condition of the human heart and for people to be capable of self-government, they must be trained against their own nature.

"In this age of technology, one might say that liberalism is our 'default' operating condition," he writes.

"Throughout our childhoods, our parents must work hard and change our settings to keep us from operating in our default mode. If parents are successful, we enter adulthood with our new settings fully locked in. Left untrained, all children would grow up liberal in their outlook."

Listening to Rush Limbaugh describe what he saw as the traits of liberals led parenting expert Bradley to his conclusions that liberals were, in effect, children who never really grew up.

"Liberals are merely inadequately trained children who grew up and now lead using principles they gleaned from their upbringing," he says.

All people are born liberal, Bradley writes, meaning they are ruled first by their emotions and passions.

"We come into the world determined to survive, and we vehemently express ourselves to get what we need: 'Waaa!' and Momma feeds us," he writes. "'Waaa!' and our diaper is changed' 'Waaa!' and we are put down for a nap. As infants, our strong will can keep us comfortable and alive – the more outspoken we are, the more our needs are met. However, as we start to grow, we no longer cry for our necessities –we crave pleasure, too."
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84273

posted December 30, 2008 10:05 AM            

The last eight years have seen the political left, from the loony moveon.org fringe to Democrat Congressional leaders, engage in destructive juvenile invective and surreal fantasy rather than in the sort of useful political criticism the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. In the next four years, conservatives will have an opportunity to show the country how adults do dissent: offering criticism based on philosophical coherence, an awareness of the lessons of history, and a respect for the world as it is rather than the world of our fantasies.

The attacks on President Bush and his policies were striking in their childish ignorance. The slogan “No blood for oil,” for example, was remarkable in its disconnect from the real-world functioning of oil markets and the mechanism of supply and demand. And even if the left had been right about oil being the prime mover of the war in Iraq, such an idea collapses before the scrutiny of mere common sense. For if insuring a supply of cheap gas for greedy Americans and their SUV’s had been the President’s aim, then cutting a deal with Hussein that relaxed the sanctions in exchange for access to oil––what France and Russia were trying to do––would have been fiscally and politically cheaper than going to war.

Indeed, sheer ignorance, as much as willful distortion of fact, typically laced the assaults on the President. And this is the key to our current political predicament: the failure of the educational system for the last forty years has finally produced a critical mass of voting-age adults who lack a basic knowledge of history and the principles of coherent thought, at the same time that their self-esteem has been inflated and stroked into blind arrogance. Hence the typical tone of the leftist commentariat: a self-righteous moral bluster accompanied by a lack of rudimentary facts and the basics of sound argument.***This sounds vaguely familiar.***

Even worse consequences follow. As Socrates taught long ago, in the absence of knowledge, unexamined opinion will dominate people’s thinking. They will then believe to be true not what they know to be true based on evidence and coherent argument, but what they believe to be true, the ideas that they have picked up from their environment––these days teachers, blogs, television, movies, cable news, etc. These opinions are then held and repeated not because they are true or coherent or even arguable, but because they gratify the person’s self-image by fitting in with his lifestyle or peer group, and flatter his belief that he is better than everybody else.***Those attempting to don the mantle of intellectual, moral and spiritual superiority. This too sounds familiar.

The consumption of such prefabricated opinions accounts for the astonishingly banal orthodoxy of most leftist political ideas. Liberal-leftist clichés about evil corporations and their Republican minions––those old, repressed white men secretly plotting in a “vast, right-wing conspiracy” to rule the world, plunder its resources, and enslave the Third World “other”–– are indulged and repeated without any awareness that most of these hoary stereotypes are getting on two centuries old and have been discredited by the facts of history. Worse yet, when these clichés appear in popular movies or the commentary of television pundits, the liberal establishment treats them as daring dissent and sophisticated analysis.

Two clichés of such received wisdom repeatedly lurked behind the leftist commentary of the last eight years––Vietnam and Watergate. Vietnam provided for leftists the model of the unjust war prosecuted to serve corporate interests and camouflaged by lies that preyed upon the national security anxiety of simple-minded Americans. Hence this mythic scenario––false to the facts of Vietnam, by the way––rather than reality lay behind all the “scandals” peddled by the left and the media for the last eight years. The “doctored” intelligence about Hussein’s WMD’s, the mantra “Bush lied,” the “outing” of Valerie Plame, the “profiling” of innocent Muslim dissenters, the “illegal wiretaps” and “shredded Constitution” of ACLU fantasy, the “torture” of suspects in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib––this litany of Bush’s “abuses” began in the liberal-left fairy-tales of Vietnam and Watergate, a pleasing narrative eagerly consumed by those ignorant of fact but anxious to display their moral superiority to all those bourgeois rubes who actually believe America is a force for good in the world and hence worthy of loyalty and spirited defense.***Each delusion repeatedly punctured, shredded, mutilated and spindled by facts...and time.***

I hope that we will see something different from conservatives in the coming years, and that they demonstrate why they are the party of ideas and thought rather than of clichés and received wisdom. Most conservatives know that politics is not about policy technique, but about the philosophy underlying policy. They know that a quirky, unpredictable human nature is a constant, visible in the record of history, which provides the parameters of what is possible for such flawed creatures and their aspirations. They know that utopia is indeed “nowhere,” that perfection is not in the cards, that every good has a tragic price, and part of being an adult is being willing to pay that price. Conservatives thus will challenge the new administration’s policies on the bases of philosophy and history, rather than on the delusions of children petulant over a world that doesn’t answer their desire.

posted January 05, 2009 04:09 AM              

And jwhop's still ranting nonsense?

I've moved far ahead in my "political" understandings. And it goes a little something like this:

"What a bunch of garbage -- liberal, Democrat, conservative, Republican. It's all there to control you -- two sides of the same coin! Two management teams bidding for control of the CEO job of Slavery Incorporated! The truth is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of lies. I'm sick of it, and I'm not gonna take a bite out of it! Do you got me?"

posted January 11, 2009 06:40 AM            

I think by far the people who are happiest are the ones who live their own life on their own terms, without the boxes

No formula to happiness, unfortunately. Well, except some good food and if you like good wine, then maybe some of that as well, and if not wine, then maybe some Tang, but definitely not Koolaid

posted January 14, 2009 08:32 PM            

If there are figures involved, there must be an element of Truth.