Liberals "can't get no Satisfaction"

In my continuing efforts to clarify fact from fiction of some common social misnomers (growing out of the Americans Generosity posts) I found a slue of articles or studies done on happiness, contentment, satisfaction in life.

It would appear that low and behold self proclaimed liberals have a very different life view than do self proclaimed conservatives.
Some of the people I have discussed these ideas with insist these are just labels or generalities.
Yes they are but the point is "SELF PROCLAIMED" whereby people interviewed or who took part in a study identified themselves.
They were not assigned anything.
This is not a generality it is a belief expressed by someone in response to questions.
I know liberals refuse to believe any of this because of the negative reaction I get while discussing these ideas with liberal friends.
For the group who is supposed to be so open-minded they exhibit quite the opposite when confronted with this information.

In reviewing the message of my last post the Generosity of Americans part 2 " you can not legislate charity it is a personal act."
Self proclaimed liberals seem to think charity is political and self proclaimed conservatives see it as a personal act.
It is a different mind set.
So while sp conservatives on par donate alot more money and time than sp liberals it only follows that there is also a difference in life view.

Washington Post.com

by George F Will
Thursday February 23, 2006

Smile if (and Only if) You're Conservative

You can look up the entire article so I will only quote some of the more interesting paragraphs.
I also want to include several others.

"A survey by the Pew Research Center shows conservatives are happier than liberals - in all income groups.
While 34% of all Americans call themselves "very happy" only 28% of liberal Democrats (and 31% of moderate or conservative Democrats) do, compared with 47% of conservative Republicans.
This finding is nifitly self-reinforcing: It depresses liberals."

"Election results do not explain this happiness gap. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since this survey began in 1972. Married people and religious people are especially disposed to happiness, and both cohorts vote more conservatively than does the nation as a whole."

It would seem that there is a paradox among conservatives which accounts for their overall happiness.
"Conservatives understand that society in its complexity resembles a giant Calder mobile - touch it here and things jiggle there, and there, and way over there too. Hence conservatives acknowledge the Law of Unintended Consequences, which is: The unintended consequences of bold government undertakings are apt to be larger than, and contrary to, the intended ones"

In the face of things this would seem to be rather pessimistic or is it really an expression of pragmatism of I believe living more in the moment.
Being centered where you are - not where you were - or where you want to go - but in the here and NOW.
Another component of this I believe is contentment or satisfaction.
Part of being in the now is contentment with ones self not fretting how unfair everything is.

"Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways.
First, they are rarely surprised - they are right more often than not about the course of events.
Second, when they are wrong, they are happy to be so.
Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes - government - they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself.
They believe that happiness is an activity - it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness."

"The right to pursue happiness is the essential right that government exists to protect.
Liberals, taking their bearings, whether they know it or not, from President Franklin Roosevelt's 1936 State of the Union address, think the attainment of happiness itself, understood in terms of security and material well-being, is an entitlement that government has created and can deliver."

That statement alone blows me away in that Roosevelt's intentions were and went far beyond the depression.
This probably accounts for present pervasive attitude of entitlement everyone seems to have in this country just because they are here????
Prime example of how liberalism could not account for this unfortunate unintended social consequence.

Other interesting articles - there are many more too.

The Economist
March 27, 2008
The joys of parenthood
Why conservatives are happier than liberals.

PottsMerc.com
August 7, 2008
The difference between conservative and liberals
by Tony Phyrillas, tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

Scientific American
June 24, 2008
Why Are Conservatives Happier Than Liberals?
Conservatives have a greater subjective life satisfaction than liberals, according to a Pew Research Center survey. Two New York University researchers performed three studies to find out why.
Christie Nicholson reports.

LiveScience.com
May 7, 2008
by Jeanna Bryer, Senior Writer
Conservatives Happier Than LIberals

Us News & World Report
May 5,2008
by Bret Schulte
Why Conservatives Say They Are Happier Than Liberals
Q&A with Arthur Brooks, whose new book says the liberal agenda takes a personal toll.

This is worth quoting some of because Brooks' book is very interesting.

"What's the key to happiness? Liberals might tell you a hot latte, vivid expressions od diversity, and a copy of the New York Times. That doesn't sound bad, but in data mined for his new book, Gross National Happiness, by Arthur Brooks a professor of business and government at Syracuse University, finds that conservatives are twice as likely as liberals to say they are happy.
That's not necessarily because of politics but because they are statistically more likely to be married, go to church, and be optimistic about their future - boosting personal happiness.
For liberals, the rates are lower. The author suggests that while liberal equity agenda may be honorable, it exacts a personal toll. Indeed happiness is full of surprises: Political ideologues are positively joyful - by making others miserable. Brooks explains to US News the quirks and politics of happiness."

Why are liberals so bummed out?
"Liberals are more likely to feel like victims and feel that collective action is the best way to make things happen. That might be right, but it's a frustrating way to live. The Democratic Party is a coalition of oppressed groups. These are legitimate grivances in a lot of cases, but that does not make for a happy party."

And the interview goes on and Mr Brooks holds his own with a skeptical interviewer.

And finally from the:

Examiner.com
June 2, 2008
by Peter Schweizer
Conservatives more honest than liberals?

This is good.
Very explosive question for an election year.
But you will not hear about this in the main stream "LIBERAL" media.

"There is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty."
"Consider the results."

"Is it OK to cheat on your taxes? A total of 57% of those who described themselves as "very Liberal" said yes in response to the World Value Survey, compared with only 20% of those who are "very conservative."
When Pew Research asked whether it was "morally wrong" to cheat Uncle Sam, 86% of conservatives agreed, compared with only 68% of liberals."

"The World Value Survey found that those on the left were also much more likely to say it is OK to buy stolen goods that you know are stolen. Studies have also found that those on the left were more likely to say it is OK to drink a can of soda in the store without paying for it and to avoid the truth while negotiating the price of a car."

And the examples go on and on right into the attitude of college students beliefs in ethics, or lack there of; cheating in school;etc.

"Liberals were more willing to "let others take the blame" for their own ethical lapses, "copy a published article" and pass it off as their own, and were more accepting of "cheating on an exam" according to still another study in the Journal of Business Ethics."

Witness Barack Obama and Joe Biden who think nothing of ripping off other peoples speeches as their own "LIARS"

"Now, I"m not suggesting that all conservatives are honest and all liberals are untrustworthy. But clearly a gap exists in the data. Why? The quick answer might be that liberals are simply more honest about their dishonesty."

"However attractive this explaination might be for some, there is simply no basis for accepting this explanation. Validation studies, which attempt to figure out who misreports on academic surveys and why, has found no evidence that conservatives are less honest. Indeed, validation research indicates that Democrats tend to be LESS forthcoming than other groups."

Here is the crux of the matter.

"The honesty gap is also not a result of "bad people" becoming liberals and "good people" becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with the idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective."


“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.- George Orwell

Generosity of Americans part 2

In my continuing quest to uncover misnomers which pervade our culture I found this article on the net I want to share with you.

American Spectator

Liberal Scrooges by Peter Schweizer (published 6/6/2008)

For those of you who want to read more:

Peter Schweizer is a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the author of a new book:

Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic And Envious, Whine Less.........and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals (Doubleday).

Samuel Johnson once reported on a man who was privately stingy but publicly touted the merits of sharing. Dr. Johnson said sarcastically that the man was a "friend of goodness". What he meant was that flesh-and-blood goodness is very different from supporting "Goodness" in the abstract.

Many modern liberals like to openly discuss their altruism.  Garrison Keillor explains that "I am liberal and liberalism is the politics of kindness."  But it rarely seems to turn into acts of kindness, especially when it comes to making charitable donations.

Consider the case of Andrew Cuomo, current New York Attorney General and advocate for the homeless. He has, according to his website, " compassion toward the most vulnerable of us."  And this how the New York Times described the courtship of Kerry Kennedy (of guess which family): "Ms. Kennedy-Cuomo, 43 said she fell in love with Mr. Cuomo, 45 when he took her on tour of a homeless shelter on their first date and agreed to fast for the labor leader Cesar Chavez."

But advocacy should not be confused with actually giving to the less fortunate. Cuomo was a homeless advocate throughout the 1990's, but according to his own tax returns he made NO charitable contributions between 1996 and 1999.  In 2000 he donated a whopping $2,750.  In 2004 and 2005, Cuomo had more than $1.5 million in adjusted gross income but gave a paltry $2,000 to charity.

Cuomo made no charitable contributions in 2003, when his income was a bit less than $300,000.

CUOMO IS NOT alone in this Scroogery of course.  Barack Obama has a rather poor track record when it comes to charitable contributions.  He consistently gave 1% of his income to charity.  In his most charitable year, 2005 he earned $1.7 million (two and half times what George W. Bush earned) but gave about the same dollar amount as the President.

The last two Democratic Party nominees for President have come up short on the charity scale. Al Gore has been famously stingy when it comes to actually giving his own money to charities. In 1998 he was embarrassed when his tax returns revealed that he gave just $353 to charity.

Gore's office initially defended the action, claiming that the Gores had often given "food and clothing to the homeless."  But when no one showed up in cast-off clothes, Gore's spokesman Chris Lehane offered a typical "friend of Goodness" response saying that you could only "truly judge a person's commitment to helping others" you needed to see "what they have done with their lives."  In other words, POLITICS was charity work.

Senator John Kerry likewise has a poor record. In 1995 he gave zero to charity, but did spend $500,000 to buy a half stake in a seventeenth century painting.  In 1993, he gave $175 to the needy.  Later, of course, Kerry married the rich widow Theresa Heinz, and today is active in charitable causes using the Heinz foundation as his vehicle.

Senator Ted Kennedy has clearly relished his role over the years as a liberal Robin Hood.  He once told Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, "I come from an advantaged life, and I'll be goddamned if I'm get re-elected to the US Senate by taking food out of the mouths of needy children."  But this should not be confused with Senator Kennedy actually giving money to needy children.

Kennedy's tax returns are obviously a closely guarded secret. But when he chose to run for President in the 1970's, he released some of them.  With a net worth of more than $8 million in the early 1970's and an income of $461,444 from a series of family trusts, Senator Robin Hood gave barely 1% of his income to charity.  The sum is about as much as Kennedy claimed as a write-off on his 55 foot sailing sloop Curragh.

Robert Reich, once Bill Clinton's Secretary of Labor and now professor at Berkley, has been outspoken about how greedy conservatives are.  Conservatives believe in "reviving social Darwinism" and because of conservatives, "America has placed to high a value on selfishness."

But when he ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, he was forced to release his tax returns.  It's not a pretty picture.  Reich's 1040 reveals an income of more than $1 million, much of it giving speeches to corporations and universities for up to $40,000 a pop.  He contributed just $2,714 to charity or .2% of his income - note the decimal - and not all of that was cash.  Part of it was the value of a donation of a used drum set to an organization calle City of Peace.

Jesse Jackson has often claimed that he operates from a "liberal spirit of compassion and love" while conservatives are "heartless and uncaring toward the silent poor."  But according to his publicly released tax returns, he regularly donates less than 1% to charity.

Jackson and his family have also established a charitable foundation called the Jackson Foundation to support the underprivileged.  According to tax records, the foundation board is controlled by family members and they receive large  contributions from corporations like McDonalds, Anheuser-Busch, and GMAC.

When asked on the tax form to decribed "direct charitable activities, " the foundation responded: "none."  From the close to million dollars collected, they gave away only $46,000 to a couple of colleges.  The Jackson Foundation spent nearly twice that amount - $84,172 - on a "gala celebration" in honor of - you guessed it - Jesse Jackson.

NOR IS THIS liberal tightfistedness anything new.  The greatest liberal icon of the 20th Century is Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He is regarded by many on the left as the personification of charity and compassion, but FDR actually has a silm record when it comes to giving to charity.

Roosevelt has an average income of $93,000 ($1.3 million in todays money) but gave away about 3% of his income to charity.  In 1935, during the height of the Great Depression, when people really could have used it, he donated just 2%.

The evidence of liberal hypocrisy is damning enough, but what really amazes is how poorly these liberal do in comparison to so-called "heartless conservatives."

President Ronald Reagan, for instance, was often called heartless and callous by liberals. 

Unlike Roosevelt or JFK , Regan was not a wealthy man when he became president.  He had no family trust or investment portfolio to fall back on.

And yet, according to his tax returns, Reagan donated more than FOUR TIMES more to charity - both in terms of actual money and on a percentage basis -  than Senator Ted Kennedy.

And he gave more to charity with less income than FDR did.  In 1985, for example, he gave away 6% of his income.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have continued this Reagan record.  During the early 1990's, George W. Bush regularly gave away more than 10% of his income.  In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney gave away 77% of his income to charity.  He was actually criticized by some liberal blogers for this, who claimed he was getting too much tax deduction.

The main point of liberal compassion appears to be making liberals feel good about their superior virtue.

Such are the rewards of being a "friend of goodness."

These misnomers have to be made more public.

I am soooooo tried of liberal whining and the people who I have the chance to question who are liberal are do nothings and give nothings or very little.

Why is it so hard to understand that EVERY person has to take responsibility for themselves and that CHARITY is a PERSONAL PRIVATE act and NOT A POLITICAL act.

LIBERALS should be responsible for themselves first and not shove responsibility off on the government like in other instances such as the increase in parental responsibility being shoved off on our teachers and the people WONDER why schools are poor and nobody wants to be a teacher anymore. (besides lousy pay which needs to be increased for sure)

SUPPORT:  Peter Schweizer and buy his book it seems to be well worth the read I am going to and will report later.

I have also been gathering info on Happy and Honesty as it pertains to Conservatives and Liberals which will be my next post.