Are you ready for this?
Why Unhappy People Become Liberals
. . . and why liberalism makes them even unhappier.
That's the title right there. Are you done vomiting yet? Then let's rip this turd apart.
According to polls — Pew Research Center, the National Science Foundation — and studies such as Arthur Brooks’s Gross National Happiness, conservative Americans are happier than liberal Americans.
Liberals respond this way: “If we’re unhappier, it’s because we are more upset than conservatives over the plight of those less fortunate than ourselves.”
Already, the conversation is directed only toward people who are similar to Prager and his fellow conservatives rather than the "less fortunate" that make up a significant portion of liberals.
But common sense and data suggest other explanations.
For one thing, conservatives on the same socioeconomic level as liberals give more charity and volunteer more time than do liberals. And as regards the suffering of non-Americans, for at least half a century conservatives have been far more willing to sacrifice American treasure and American blood (often their own) for other nations’ liberty.And the fail ship lands. Conservatives—comprised mainly of white, heterosexual, Christian middle-class who favor privileging themselves at the exclusion of others. They give to charities to support . . . other white, heterosexual Christians. Oh, and they fight wars against non-white, non-Christian people. Liberals: comprised of white heterosexual, Christian middle-class AND all those other groups that conservatives hate, like people of color, feminists, atheists, non-Christians, gays, transexuals, the poor and other marginalized groups, who have to battle conservatives just for the right to exist. Apple meet orange.
Both of these facts refute the liberals-are-more-concerned-about-others explanation for liberal unhappiness.
So, let’s look at other explanations.
Put another way, both groups care only about themselves, but liberals are so inclusive, that includes everybody. Whereas the conservatives are so narrow in who becomes the recipients of their concern, that, well, it ends up being only them.
Now that I've debunked Prager's primary thesis, the rest of his article is irrelevant, but let's take a stab at it anyway, shall we? Let me get my pointy stick.
Perhaps we are posing the question backwards when we ask why liberals are less happy than conservatives. The question implies that liberalism causes unhappiness. And while this is true, it may be equally correct to say that unhappy people are more likely to adopt leftist positions.
Take black Americans, for example. It makes perfect sense that a black American who is essentially happy is going to be less attracted to the Left. Anyone who has interacted with black conservatives rarely encounters an angry, unhappy person.
Why?
Because the liberal view on race is that America is a racist society. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, a black American must abandon liberalism in order to be a happy individual. It is very hard, if not impossible, to be a happy person while believing that society is out to hurt you. So, the unhappy black person will gravitate to liberalism and liberalism will in turn make him more unhappy by reinforcing his view that he is a victim.
Hear that, black people? You're not unhappy because you're experiencing racism! You're unhappy because you THINK you're experiencing racism! Just stop thinking about it! Stop asserting your rights to be treated fairly and be happy that you're off the plantation. In fact, if you're good, the conservatives will let you join in their hate campaigns against other marginalized groups, like the gays or atheists. Aren't you glad that Prager was able to whitesplain that to you?
The unhappy gravitate toward the Left for a second reason. Life is hard for liberals and life is hard for conservatives. But conservatives assume that life will always be hard. Liberals, on the other hand, have utopian dreams. At his brother Robert’s funeral, the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy recalled his brother saying: “Some men see things as they are and say, ‘Why?’ I dream things that never were and say, ‘Why not?’”
Utopians will always be less happy than those who know that suffering is inherent to human existence. The utopian compares America to utopia and finds it terribly wanting. The conservative compares America to every other civilization that has ever existed and walks around wondering how he got so lucky as to be born or naturalized an American.
Life is hard for liberals and life is hard for conservatives. And Prager believes that there is no difference between the hardships faced by middle-class white people who have to find the time to take Billy to boy scouts AND cinch that million dollar deal, and people who can't get a home loan because of their skin color or who are beaten to death because they were born with the wrong set of genitalia. We all have the same problems dontcha know! And by "we", he means not those other people; the less fortunate ones that get liberals all frowny from being concerned about them.
There's actually a hint of Buddhist philosophy in Prager's words. One of the central tenets is that attachment (to material goods, ideals, physical experiences) leads to suffering. The way to end suffering is to let go of attachments and just experience life as it comes. Somebody better warn Prager that he's been tainted with heathen religion.
Of course, he's dead wrong in applying that philosophy to conservatives. These are, after all, the people who generally hold the “utopian” ideal of a Christian nation, in which white, heterosexual men hold all the power. If conservatives are happier, it ain't 'cause they have no utopian fantasy; it's because their idea of utopia is a hell of a lot closer to reality than the one liberals would like to see—you know, the one where all people have agency and are worthy of respect regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, disability or whatever differentiating marker the conservatives decide to get their panties in a bunch over.
Third, imagine two Americans living in essentially identical socioeconomic conditions. They earn $45,000 a year, they have the same amount of debt on their homes, and both have the same number of dependents. One seeks governmental assistance wherever possible; the other eschews any governmental help. Which one is likely to be the liberal and which one is likely to be the happier individual?
This is not a question only an oracle can answer. The one who yearns for governmental help is the one who is likely to be both liberal and less happy. Conservatism, which demands self-reliance, makes one happier. The more a man or woman feels like captain of his or her ship (as poor as that ship may be), the happier he or she will be.
Seriously people. Each paragraph makes it harder and harder not to start hurling things at the lappy. Or just hurling. Prager is making the typical conservative mistake of assuming that people are all the same: white, abled, middle-class—just like conservatives! You know, except for the poor conservatives that are on well-fare.
It's not like we have a system of institutionalized racism, misogyny, gay hatred, disablism, etc (perpetuated by conservatives) that actively prevents people from marginalized groups from being self-sufficient. Oops! We were supposed to put on big smiles and ignore all that! How about we let people have agency and captain their own ships, rather than protecting policies keep them poor? Or maybe conservatives could stop battling legislation that would help people become self-sufficient.
A fourth explanation for greater unhappiness among liberals is that the more people allow feelings to govern them, the less happy they will be. And the further left one goes, the more importance one attaches to feelings.
It is liberal educators and liberal parents who have clamored for protecting young people from the pain of losing games. The liberal world came up with the idea of giving trophies to kids who lose; they don’t want their children feeling bad. Conservatives, on the other hand, teach their kids how to lose well. They are less worried about their children feeling bad.
That's funny. I'm in school to be a teacher, and my program, which is pretty damned liberal, makes a big deal over how important it is to teach children the value of failure. And let's enjoy the paradox Prager presents: liberals love to feel feelings. Unless they're bad feelings. Then liberals don't want to feel feelings. But of course, liberals actively search out things to feel bad feelings about (like racism—where there isn't any!) . . . my head asplode.
A couple of years ago, I gave a speech on happiness to the students and faculty of a prestigious high school in the Los Angeles area. The subject was the need to act happy even when one isn’t feeling happy — because it is unfair to others to inflict our bad moods on them and because we will never be happy if we allow our feelings to dictate our happiness.
From what I experienced that day and learned later, liberal students and faculty generally loathed my speech; conservative students generally loved it (there were no conservative faculty to speak of). Why? Because conservatives are far more likely to be comfortable with the idea that feelings are not as important as behavior.
Let's rewrite Prager's conclusion:
From what I experienced that day and learned later, liberal students and faculty generally loathed my speech; conservative students generally loved it (there were no conservative faculty to speak of). Why? Because conservatives don't want to hear about the problems of brown people, gays, women, disabled, or anybody who isn't them. Why can't all these people just act happy so poor little conservatives won't have their smiles tugged down by frowny faces?
It's at least as valid as the conclusion he pulled out of his ass, with a lot more basis in reality.
Those who know that feelings must not govern us, but that we must govern our feelings, are far more likely to be happy people.
The upshot of all this? There is an amazingly simple way to defeat the Left: Raise children who are grateful to be American, who don’t complain, who can handle losing, and who are guided by values, not feelings. In other words, teach them how to be happy adults.
Hang-on, another rewrite is in order:
The upshot of all this? There is an amazingly simple way to defeat the Left: Raise children who are white, abled, Christian, cis and straight and slather them in privilege. They can't help but be happy!*
*solution may not apply to persons of color, gays, transexuals, non-Christians, atheists, the disabled or women who don't know their place.
I'd like to draw your attention back to the conclusion drawn in the title: unhappy people become liberals. Not “liberalism is the source of unhappiness” (although Prager suggests it adds to the misery). This is significant. This is beyond significant, and in all his putrid ramblings, Prager didn't manage to address it. Obviously, doing so would not support his bigoted world view.
People often do become liberals because they're unhappy. They're unhappy with the way they're being treated by a world that wants them to, at best, stop being who they are, and at worst, stop being. Either way, that makes life pretty damned miserable.
But liberalism isn't a pity club for people to moan about their problems, although people with similar ideals and/or circumstances will lean on each other for support. Liberalism is a means for accomplishing what needs to be done to fix the problem. It is a focus for political and social change to make the lives of people in marginalized groups significantly better.
If Prager is really interested in helping liberals be happier (hint: he isn't), he can use whatever means are at his disposal to help bring about changes that benefit all people, not just those in his privileged sphere.
I have to go wash my mouth out.
Posts
Ignorance is Bliss, amirite? :p
ReplyDelete