At the outset of his presidential run of 1968, Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey called his ill-fated campaign "the politics of happiness, the politics of purpose, and the politics of joy."
What exactly does the "politics of happiness" mean? You might be tempted to dismiss it as nothing more than utopian flapdoodle from a doomed Democratic candidate, or maybe a contrast inspired by the unlovable Richard Nixon. But might there be something more to the idea--a better, higher approach to politics, and one to which we can aspire, regardless of our ideology? Perhaps if our politics were "happier," we could enjoy a climate of mutual respect and understanding; maybe even genial compromise between the parties? Heading into a presidential election year in our current climate of ideological acrimony, the "politics of happiness" might sound attractive to you.
When it comes to politics, the standard intuition is that anger and happiness are incompatible. For example, today's foam-flecked, furious liberals appear to advertise their own misery with their catchphrase, "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." (This, by the way, is now official Democratic policy: The Democratic National Committee's Web site asserts that, "outrage must be taken to the ballot box.") If we had a politics of happiness, we could have a constructive dialogue about our differences. In short, a thousand political flowers would bloom, right?
|
Perhaps if our politics were "happier," we could enjoy a climate of mutual respect and understanding; maybe even genial compromise between the parties. |
Wrong. The strange fact of the matter is that the hard-core liberals and conservatives in America are actually some of our happiest citizens. According to the National Opinion Research Center in 2004, in spite of all their bile, 35% of people who said they are "extremely liberal" also reported being "very happy" with their lives--versus 22% of people who were just "liberal" and 28% of moderates. At the same time, a whopping 48% of people who were "extremely conservative" were very happy (compared with 43% of non-extreme conservatives).
As much as you might prefer not to believe it, the "politics of happiness" is actually the politics of intolerance, nasty sloganeering and the screaming pundits on cable television. Think this is hyperbole? Consider data from the University of Michigan's National Election Studies, which asks respondents to rate other people on a 0-100 scale (where 100 is best and zero is worst). These so-called "feeling thermometers" are useful for revealing intolerance and bigotry, because they measure feelings about other groups of people, not just about ideas or institutions.
In 2004, "extremely liberal" folks gave lumpen "conservatives" a freezing average temperature of 23; "extremely conservative" people, in turn, gave liberals an average score of 27. The temperature for these groups from the non-extreme populations was 61 and 56, respectively. To put this into perspective, note that North Korea and Iran--avowed enemies of the U.S.--receive similar temperatures to those which extremists give their fellow citizens who just happen to disagree with them politically.
Not surprisingly, there is also evidence that people with extreme views are less empathetic and compassionate than others. They are less loving toward family members, and less charitable with their money. They are even less honest in everyday transactions.
So how on earth could these people be happier than the rest of us? Perhaps the intensity of their political views animates them in some positive way, giving them a sense of purpose. Or maybe there is something else about the life of the average extremist that brings lots of joy. In either case, what we see is that the anger we associate with the far left and far right is apparently compatible with their happiness. The trouble is that, while radicals may be happy, they undoubtedly lower the happiness of the rest of us through their intolerance and antisocial ways--spewing out what economists call "externalities" with every insulting bumper sticker and obnoxious street demonstration. Political nastiness is something akin to pollution.
As 2008 approaches, we can expect to endure plenty of this pollution if, as generally happens, politicians tailor their primary rhetoric to the extremes. I'm unhappy to predict that we appear to be in for a year of the "politics of happiness."
Arthur C. Brooks is a visiting scholar at AEI.
