Miserable Liberals Accuse Happy Conservatives Of Wanting To Ruin Happiness

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Miserable Liberals Accuse Happy Conservatives Of Wanting To Ruin Happiness

Written By : John Hawkins

For whatever reason, a few of the liberal blogs have gotten all worked up about a fairly innocuous quote from Kay Hymowitz.

“Before [today], the fact is that primarily, a 20-year-old woman would have been a wife and a mother,” author Kay Hymowitz told the crowd of about 100 for the Manhattan Institute in New York City. Men would have been mowing lawns and changing the oil in their family sedans instead of playing video games and watching television. In previous decades, adults in their 20s and 30s were too busy with real life for such empty entertainment, Hymowitz says. “They didn’t live with roommates in Williamsburg in Brooklyn and Dupont Circle in D.C.

Is it controversial to note that people in their twenties are a lot less grown up and responsible than they used to be? Yes, it’s nice that so many Americans can waste their twenties clubbing and playing Madden — and I mean that. The fact that so many young Americans even have the option to do that shows we have an extremely prosperous society.

Of course, there’s also a price to be paid for that prosperity: Percentage wise, we have a lot of “adults” in this country who think like children because they’ve never been forced to grow up and deal with the real world the way Americans did in past generations.

Pointing this out apparently infuriates liberals, who in their ignorance, tend to confuse hedonism with happiness.

Matt Yglesias wrote a post on this called, “Conservative Opposition To Human Happiness.”

Hymowitz�s argument, essentially, is that not only has feminism opened up new doors of opportunity to women, but it�s helped contribute to the growth of a society in which young men are less crushed down with family and household obligations and are spending more time enjoying themselves. Except she means this as a bad thing! In both cases the conservative conceit seems to be that a decline in human suffering is a bad thing because it leads to a corresponding decline in admirable anti-suffering effort. John Holbo memorably dubbed this Donner Party Conservatism.

Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon wrote a post on this called, The War on Joy.

I think it�s important to remember that no matter how much huffing and puffing and rationalization goes on, a great deal of conservative ideology can be summed up as �the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy�. Or even just the fear that someone might just be having fun, at least without clearing it with the authorities first that they�re the right race and income level to feel pleasure.

…I often find myself wondering, and today more than most days, how things can get this bad. It seems to me that if wingnuts put a tenth of much effort as they do into resenting others into improving their own home and sex lives, they�d be too busy being happy and blissful to give a f*ck what anyone else is doing. It�s just basic logic, and I wonder why not just do the math and go for it.

This is intriguing on more than one level because studies consistently show that married people are happier than single people, religious people are happier than non-religious people, and conservatives are happier than liberals.

Put another way, the married, responsible 20 year olds are probably happier than the kids their age who drink themselves into a stupor every night and play Killzone until they fall asleep. And the religious people that lefties detest so much because they’re always coming up with ways to “ruin people’s good time?” They tend to be happier than the atheists who don’t have all those restrictive Commandments to worry about.

Additionally, Marcotte’s tired jabs about conservatives hating sex aren’t surprising coming from someone whose philosophy could be fairly summed up as screw everything that moves, follow that with an abortion, and accuse anyone who raises an eyebrow about it of “slut shaming.” However, it’s worth noting that if you had 100 random people who ideologically agree with Amanda Marcotte in one room and 100 random people who agree with Kay Hymowitz in another, the chances of the Marcotte room being happier than the Hymowitz room would statistically be pretty close to zero. So maybe, just maybe, it might make more sense to listen to people like Hymowitz than Matt Yglesias or Amanda Marcotte if you want “joy” or “happiness” in your life.

Hat tip to Memeorandum for the story.

Anonymous

Leftists are such children. Their thinking on international affairs, economics, and social issues always seem to parallel something a 12 year old girl would come up with; Unicorns and fairy dust.

An entire ideology built on wishful thinking and masquerading as a strange combination of over-simplification and convoluted logic.

Soldout

This from followers of failed trickle-on economic theories.

StanW

As opposed to the Liberal “Trickle-Up Poverty” plan?
StanW

As opposed to the Liberal “Trickle-Up Poverty” plan?
StanW

As opposed to the Liberal “Trickle-Up Poverty” plan?
StanW

As opposed to the Liberal “Trickle-Up Poverty” plan?
StanW

As opposed to the Liberal “Trickle-Up Poverty” plan?
StanW

As opposed to the Liberal “Trickle-Up Poverty” plan?
StanW

As opposed to the Liberal “Trickle-Up Poverty” plan?
Anonymous

flagged for strawman and threadjacking
Anonymous

flagged for strawman and threadjacking
Anonymous

flagged for strawman and threadjacking
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Nothing about trickle down failed. The poor in this country are still quite well off by the standards of every other nation on Earth.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Nothing about trickle down failed. The poor in this country are still quite well off by the standards of every other nation on Earth.
http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Nothing about trickle down failed. The poor in this country are still quite well off by the standards of every other nation on Earth.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Of course it failed. There are still some people who have more than others and that is so unfair. You know you’re right. Liberals do sound like little children.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Of course it failed. There are still some people who have more than others and that is so unfair. You know you’re right. Liberals do sound like little children.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Of course it failed. There are still some people who have more than others and that is so unfair. You know you’re right. Liberals do sound like little children.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Of course it failed. There are still some people who have more than others and that is so unfair. You know you’re right. Liberals do sound like little children.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Of course it failed. There are still some people who have more than others and that is so unfair. You know you’re right. Liberals do sound like little children.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Of course it failed. There are still some people who have more than others and that is so unfair. You know you’re right. Liberals do sound like little children.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Of course it failed. There are still some people who have more than others and that is so unfair. You know you’re right. Liberals do sound like little children.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Of course it failed. There are still some people who have more than others and that is so unfair. You know you’re right. Liberals do sound like little children.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Of course it failed. There are still some people who have more than others and that is so unfair. You know you’re right. Liberals do sound like little children.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_YWXM6Q6QGELGTT334IQMWB774Q David

Of course it failed. There are still some people who have more than others and that is so unfair. You know you’re right. Liberals do sound like little children.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Nothing about trickle down failed. The poor in this country are still quite well off by the standards of every other nation on Earth.
Anonymous

Wow. You find it impossible to stay on topic, don’t you. Children do that, too.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yeah its a pretty typical sign of the intellectually and emotionally immature to yell “look over there!!!” when they are losing an argument.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yeah its a pretty typical sign of the intellectually and emotionally immature to yell “look over there!!!” when they are losing an argument.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yeah its a pretty typical sign of the intellectually and emotionally immature to yell “look over there!!!” when they are losing an argument.

Anonymous

Wow. You find it impossible to stay on topic, don’t you. Children do that, too.
Anonymous

Wow. You find it impossible to stay on topic, don’t you. Children do that, too.

Soldout

This from followers of failed trickle-on economic theories.
Soldout

This from followers of failed trickle-on economic theories.
Soldout

This from followers of failed trickle-on economic theories.
Soldout

This from followers of failed trickle-on economic theories.
Soldout

This from followers of failed trickle-on economic theories.
Soldout

This from followers of failed trickle-on economic theories.

Anonymous

Leftists are such children. Their thinking on international affairs, economics, and social issues always seem to parallel something a 12 year old girl would come up with; Unicorns and fairy dust.

An entire ideology built on wishful thinking and masquerading as a strange combination of over-simplification and convoluted logic.
Anonymous

In a very real way, Yglesias and Marcotte are much more Hymowitz’s ideological kindred than either side might wish to acknowledge. In both cases, living a sound, productive, life is setting up against happiness. Hymowitz insists we should choose the former out of some stale sense of duty, while Yglesias and Marcotte would have us wander through life in an orgy of mindless pleasure-seeking.
But, neither side considers the nature of human happiness. Man as man achieves happiness through the realization of his (or her) goals and values. That is why, as you note, the religious are more likely to be happy than the irreligious, married are more likely to be happy than singles, and conservatives are more likely to be happy than liberals. In each of those cases, the former is more likely to be engaged in activities and living under conditions that actively advance their values and goals in life.
The pleasures in life Yglesias and Marcotte seem to champion are not values in and of themselves, but rather the trappings of happiness. A one night stand with someone you don�t particularly admire or respect is not the same thing as genuine love. A drunken bender at the local bar is a shoddy substitute for the actual celebration of an achievement. Like ignorant savages, though, Yglesias and Marcotte seem to think that, by mimicking the realization of goals and values, they can somehow or another gain the values or achievements that gives that realization meaning.
But, Hymowitz engages in a similar evasion. She seems set to insist that happiness is irrelevant. We should hearken back to glory days when men and women married young and settled down into the routines of adult life. Not as a means to our own happiness, but as the means to the happiness of some nameless other. Implicit in her analysis is the notion that the routine is itself the value. But, toiling away mowing the grass and changing the oil divorced from one�s values and goals is mere drudgery. As much as Yglesias and Marcotte wants us to ape the realization of values and goals, Hymowitz would have us ape the struggle for their achievement.
Yglesias, Marcotte, and Hymowitz all ignore the nature of human happiness. By pretending that it is divorced from the realization of our goals and values, they set a false dichotomy between happiness and responsibility that, in the end, makes happiness impossible.

Anonymous

Very nicely done!
Anonymous

Very nicely done!
Anonymous

Very nicely done!
Anonymous

I think you read too much into Hymowitz’s position. She wasn’t suggesting that mowing the lawn is a path to happiness. She was suggesting, however, that happiness is not dependent upon constant entertainment nor is it a product of having a lot of free time. Her point is that young adults who actually stand on their own feet are by and large going to be happier than idle louts.

I don’t know where you came up with your statements that Hymowitz seems to “insist” that happiness is irrelevant and that doing menial household jobs are really meant to make �some nameless other� happy. Frankly, Hymowitz never even hints that she believes either of these things. I�m pretty sure she hasn�t confused, �doing chores incidentally to a happy life� with �doing chores as the cause of a happy life.�

Anonymous

I don’t know where you came up with your statements that Hymowitz seems to “insist” that happiness is irrelevant and that doing menial household jobs are really meant to make �some nameless other� happy.

Except, she specifically says,

In previous decades, adults in their 20s and 30s were too busy with real life for such empty entertainment�They didn�t live with roommates in Williamsburg in Brooklyn and Dupont Circle in D.C.

She�s clearly comparing the two to the detriment of the latter. Yet she provides no reason to support the former other than that �Men would have been mowing lawns and changing the oil in their family sedans instead of playing video games and watching television.� She provides no particular context to decide the latter superior. In short the sum total of her argument for the former is nothing more than services rendered. But, mowing lawns or changing oil aren�t, in and of themselves, inherently more worthwhile activities than playing video games or watching television. Absent the context of advancing goals and values, they are just as much worthless drudgery as Yglasias�s and Marcotte�s suggestion is mindless pleasure-seeking.

Anonymous

I agree with you that she compares the two and that she clearly favors engaging in responsible adult behavior over a life dominated by empty entertainment. Where I disagree with you is that I don’t think she needed to state a context for her comparison or to make any further explanation of it. Her failure to do so does not necessarily mean she thinks a responsible life is, in and of itself, the source of happiness.

However, I admit I haven’t read “Manning up…” so I can’t really say what Hymowitz’s bottom line is regarding the source of human happiness or how the daily toil of living a responsible life fits in. You may be right about her. But without more, I just think you’re making an unwarranted assumption based upon this one small comment.

Anonymous

Her failure to do so does not necessarily mean she thinks a responsible life is, in and of itself, the source of happiness.

That’s just it, though. Happiness doesn’t enter her discussion at all. All that does enter is a discussion of what you’re calling responsible adult behavior. She simply decries the fact that young people don�t engage in such behaviors. But, what value is there in such behavior absent happiness? Is it really responsible or adult to be changing the oil in the family sedan if you�d rather walk? Does mowing the lawn make you responsible or adult if you get no pleasure from your yard, have neighbors you detest and a cold, unappreciative family?
I can only judge her comments on what she says. That is to say, I can only judge her comments on a stand-alone basis. As you suggest, perhaps she goes into more detail on the value of such actions elsewhere. But, the comments, on a stand-alone basis, treat happiness as beside the point.
Anonymous

It seems to me that you�re confusing “happiness” with “pleasure.” The answer to your questions is that responsible behavior is its own reward. It has inherent value apart from whatever happiness is derived from it. Happiness isn’t the goal of responsibility but human experience shows that happiness is more often a result of a responsibly lived life than it is of a life used up in the pursuit of pure pleasure. The reason for this is because happiness does not come from pleasure.

Not that I have anything against pleasure. It�s certainly a vital part of a happy life. But it is humanly impossible to become happy from a pursuit of pleasure.
Anonymous

Her failure to do so does not necessarily mean she thinks a responsible life is, in and of itself, the source of happiness.

That’s just it, though. Happiness doesn’t enter her discussion at all. All that does enter is a discussion of what you’re calling responsible adult behavior. She simply decries the fact that young people don�t engage in such behaviors. But, what value is there in such behavior absent happiness? Is it really responsible or adult to be changing the oil in the family sedan if you�d rather walk? Does mowing the lawn make you responsible or adult if you get no pleasure from your yard, have neighbors you detest and a cold, unappreciative family?
I can only judge her comments on what she says. That is to say, I can only judge her comments on a stand-alone basis. As you suggest, perhaps she goes into more detail on the value of such actions elsewhere. But, the comments, on a stand-alone basis, treat happiness as beside the point.
Anonymous

It seems to me that you�re confusing “happiness” with “pleasure.”

No, I don�t think I am. As I said at the outset, �Man as man achieves happiness through the realization of his (or her) goals and values.� That is to say, happiness is the state of realizing those goals and values.

The answer to your questions is that responsible behavior is its own reward. It has inherent value apart from whatever happiness is derived from it. Happiness isn’t the goal of responsibility but human experience shows that happiness is more often a result of a responsibly lived life than it is of a life used up in the pursuit of pure pleasure.

You are, in effect, drawing the same dichotomy that I note from Hymowitz, Yglasias, and Marcotte: either mindless pleasure-seeking or the sacrifice of your being to duty, or responsibility. One relegates its practitioner to the role of exploitive wastrel. The other to the role of volitionless slave. I disagree with this assessment. In the strongest possible terms. Man, as a rational being, has an option. He (or she) can choose to pursue their goals and realize their values. That is to say, to pursue happiness.
It is the activities of an honest man doing what he must to achieve his goals and realize his values that forms the basis of what we call responsible behavior. It is only in the context of one�s goals and values that one can be responsible to or for anything.
Anonymous

It seems to me that you�re confusing “happiness” with “pleasure.”

No, I don�t think I am. As I said at the outset, �Man as man achieves happiness through the realization of his (or her) goals and values.� That is to say, happiness is the state of realizing those goals and values.

The answer to your questions is that responsible behavior is its own reward. It has inherent value apart from whatever happiness is derived from it. Happiness isn’t the goal of responsibility but human experience shows that happiness is more often a result of a responsibly lived life than it is of a life used up in the pursuit of pure pleasure.

You are, in effect, drawing the same dichotomy that I note from Hymowitz, Yglasias, and Marcotte: either mindless pleasure-seeking or the sacrifice of your being to duty, or responsibility. One relegates its practitioner to the role of exploitive wastrel. The other to the role of volitionless slave. I disagree with this assessment. In the strongest possible terms. Man, as a rational being, has an option. He (or she) can choose to pursue their goals and realize their values. That is to say, to pursue happiness.
It is the activities of an honest man doing what he must to achieve his goals and realize his values that forms the basis of what we call responsible behavior. It is only in the context of one�s goals and values that one can be responsible to or for anything.

Anonymous

I don’t know where you came up with your statements that Hymowitz seems to “insist” that happiness is irrelevant and that doing menial household jobs are really meant to make �some nameless other� happy.

Except, she specifically says,

In previous decades, adults in their 20s and 30s were too busy with real life for such empty entertainment�They didn�t live with roommates in Williamsburg in Brooklyn and Dupont Circle in D.C.

She�s clearly comparing the two to the detriment of the latter. Yet she provides no reason to support the former other than that �Men would have been mowing lawns and changing the oil in their family sedans instead of playing video games and watching television.� She provides no particular context to decide the latter superior. In short the sum total of her argument for the former is nothing more than services rendered. But, mowing lawns or changing oil aren�t, in and of themselves, inherently more worthwhile activities than playing video games or watching television. Absent the context of advancing goals and values, they are just as much worthless drudgery as Yglasias�s and Marcotte�s suggestion is mindless pleasure-seeking.
Anonymous

I don’t know where you came up with your statements that Hymowitz seems to “insist” that happiness is irrelevant and that doing menial household jobs are really meant to make �some nameless other� happy.

Except, she specifically says,

In previous decades, adults in their 20s and 30s were too busy with real life for such empty entertainment�They didn�t live with roommates in Williamsburg in Brooklyn and Dupont Circle in D.C.

She�s clearly comparing the two to the detriment of the latter. Yet she provides no reason to support the former other than that �Men would have been mowing lawns and changing the oil in their family sedans instead of playing video games and watching television.� She provides no particular context to decide the latter superior. In short the sum total of her argument for the former is nothing more than services rendered. But, mowing lawns or changing oil aren�t, in and of themselves, inherently more worthwhile activities than playing video games or watching television. Absent the context of advancing goals and values, they are just as much worthless drudgery as Yglasias�s and Marcotte�s suggestion is mindless pleasure-seeking.

Anonymous

I think you read too much into Hymowitz’s position. She wasn’t suggesting that mowing the lawn is a path to happiness. She was suggesting, however, that happiness is not dependent upon constant entertainment nor is it a product of having a lot of free time. Her point is that young adults who actually stand on their own feet are by and large going to be happier than idle louts.

I don’t know where you came up with your statements that Hymowitz seems to “insist” that happiness is irrelevant and that doing menial household jobs are really meant to make �some nameless other� happy. Frankly, Hymowitz never even hints that she believes either of these things. I�m pretty sure she hasn�t confused, �doing chores incidentally to a happy life� with �doing chores as the cause of a happy life.�
Anonymous

I think you read too much into Hymowitz’s position. She wasn’t suggesting that mowing the lawn is a path to happiness. She was suggesting, however, that happiness is not dependent upon constant entertainment nor is it a product of having a lot of free time. Her point is that young adults who actually stand on their own feet are by and large going to be happier than idle louts.

I don’t know where you came up with your statements that Hymowitz seems to “insist” that happiness is irrelevant and that doing menial household jobs are really meant to make �some nameless other� happy. Frankly, Hymowitz never even hints that she believes either of these things. I�m pretty sure she hasn�t confused, �doing chores incidentally to a happy life� with �doing chores as the cause of a happy life.�
Anonymous

I think you read too much into Hymowitz’s position. She wasn’t suggesting that mowing the lawn is a path to happiness. She was suggesting, however, that happiness is not dependent upon constant entertainment nor is it a product of having a lot of free time. Her point is that young adults who actually stand on their own feet are by and large going to be happier than idle louts.

I don’t know where you came up with your statements that Hymowitz seems to “insist” that happiness is irrelevant and that doing menial household jobs are really meant to make �some nameless other� happy. Frankly, Hymowitz never even hints that she believes either of these things. I�m pretty sure she hasn�t confused, �doing chores incidentally to a happy life� with �doing chores as the cause of a happy life.�
Anonymous

I think you read too much into Hymowitz’s position. She wasn’t suggesting that mowing the lawn is a path to happiness. She was suggesting, however, that happiness is not dependent upon constant entertainment nor is it a product of having a lot of free time. Her point is that young adults who actually stand on their own feet are by and large going to be happier than idle louts.

I don’t know where you came up with your statements that Hymowitz seems to “insist” that happiness is irrelevant and that doing menial household jobs are really meant to make �some nameless other� happy. Frankly, Hymowitz never even hints that she believes either of these things. I�m pretty sure she hasn�t confused, �doing chores incidentally to a happy life� with �doing chores as the cause of a happy life.�
Anonymous

I think you read too much into Hymowitz’s position. She wasn’t suggesting that mowing the lawn is a path to happiness. She was suggesting, however, that happiness is not dependent upon constant entertainment nor is it a product of having a lot of free time. Her point is that young adults who actually stand on their own feet are by and large going to be happier than idle louts.

I don’t know where you came up with your statements that Hymowitz seems to “insist” that happiness is irrelevant and that doing menial household jobs are really meant to make �some nameless other� happy. Frankly, Hymowitz never even hints that she believes either of these things. I�m pretty sure she hasn�t confused, �doing chores incidentally to a happy life� with �doing chores as the cause of a happy life.�

Anonymous

In a very real way, Yglesias and Marcotte are much more Hymowitz’s ideological kindred than either side might wish to acknowledge. In both cases, living a sound, productive, life is setting up against happiness. Hymowitz insists we should choose the former out of some stale sense of duty, while Yglesias and Marcotte would have us wander through life in an orgy of mindless pleasure-seeking.
But, neither side considers the nature of human happiness. Man as man achieves happiness through the realization of his (or her) goals and values. That is why, as you note, the religious are more likely to be happy than the irreligious, married are more likely to be happy than singles, and conservatives are more likely to be happy than liberals. In each of those cases, the former is more likely to be engaged in activities and living under conditions that actively advance their values and goals in life.
The pleasures in life Yglesias and Marcotte seem to champion are not values in and of themselves, but rather the trappings of happiness. A one night stand with someone you don�t particularly admire or respect is not the same thing as genuine love. A drunken bender at the local bar is a shoddy substitute for the actual celebration of an achievement. Like ignorant savages, though, Yglesias and Marcotte seem to think that, by mimicking the realization of goals and values, they can somehow or another gain the values or achievements that gives that realization meaning.
But, Hymowitz engages in a similar evasion. She seems set to insist that happiness is irrelevant. We should hearken back to glory days when men and women married young and settled down into the routines of adult life. Not as a means to our own happiness, but as the means to the happiness of some nameless other. Implicit in her analysis is the notion that the routine is itself the value. But, toiling away mowing the grass and changing the oil divorced from one�s values and goals is mere drudgery. As much as Yglesias and Marcotte wants us to ape the realization of values and goals, Hymowitz would have us ape the struggle for their achievement.
Yglesias, Marcotte, and Hymowitz all ignore the nature of human happiness. By pretending that it is divorced from the realization of our goals and values, they set a false dichotomy between happiness and responsibility that, in the end, makes happiness impossible.
Pingback: The War on Happiness « Hot Air
Anonymous

Video games and delayed adolescence is a cheap joy. Not really lasting.

Raising a family or working hard, or taking pride in your home is more work, but ultimately more rewarding.

They get the instant gratification, like children. They will eat ice cream until they’re sick then wonder why they feel bad.

We get the real stuff.

That’s why conservatives, people who look after themselves, work hard, and have a family that they love and support, are always going to be happier in the long run.
Anonymous

Video games and delayed adolescence is a cheap joy. Not really lasting.

Raising a family or working hard, or taking pride in your home is more work, but ultimately more rewarding.

They get the instant gratification, like children. They will eat ice cream until they’re sick then wonder why they feel bad.

We get the real stuff.

That’s why conservatives, people who look after themselves, work hard, and have a family that they love and support, are always going to be happier in the long run.
Anonymous

Video games and delayed adolescence is a cheap joy. Not really lasting.

Raising a family or working hard, or taking pride in your home is more work, but ultimately more rewarding.

They get the instant gratification, like children. They will eat ice cream until they’re sick then wonder why they feel bad.

We get the real stuff.

That’s why conservatives, people who look after themselves, work hard, and have a family that they love and support, are always going to be happier in the long run.
Anonymous

Video games and delayed adolescence is a cheap joy. Not really lasting.

Raising a family or working hard, or taking pride in your home is more work, but ultimately more rewarding.

They get the instant gratification, like children. They will eat ice cream until they’re sick then wonder why they feel bad.

We get the real stuff.

That’s why conservatives, people who look after themselves, work hard, and have a family that they love and support, are always going to be happier in the long run.
Anonymous

Video games and delayed adolescence is a cheap joy. Not really lasting.

Raising a family or working hard, or taking pride in your home is more work, but ultimately more rewarding.

They get the instant gratification, like children. They will eat ice cream until they’re sick then wonder why they feel bad.

We get the real stuff.

That’s why conservatives, people who look after themselves, work hard, and have a family that they love and support, are always going to be happier in the long run.
Anonymous

Video games and delayed adolescence is a cheap joy. Not really lasting.

Raising a family or working hard, or taking pride in your home is more work, but ultimately more rewarding.

They get the instant gratification, like children. They will eat ice cream until they’re sick then wonder why they feel bad.

We get the real stuff.

That’s why conservatives, people who look after themselves, work hard, and have a family that they love and support, are always going to be happier in the long run.
Anonymous

Video games and delayed adolescence is a cheap joy. Not really lasting.

Raising a family or working hard, or taking pride in your home is more work, but ultimately more rewarding.

They get the instant gratification, like children. They will eat ice cream until they’re sick then wonder why they feel bad.

We get the real stuff.

That’s why conservatives, people who look after themselves, work hard, and have a family that they love and support, are always going to be happier in the long run.
Pingback: Are There Any Republicans Who Support Marijuana Legalization? | NORML New Zealand Worldwide for Medical Marijuana Law Reform
Pingback: The War on Happiness | hotair
Anonymous

The problem is that liberals are selling a false sense of joy or happiness. “Sure”, they say, “sleep around, get an abortion if you’re pregnant, no consequences!” Well great, now you’re an emotionally scarred 25 year old woman that can’t form a normal relationship. What fun!

Or go ahead and take a gap year before going to college, then major in something fun like African Art History. And take 6 years so you can enjoy the college experience. Oh, so now you’re 24 with $50,000 in debt with no job prospects? But it was so much fun!

The “fun” associated with hedonistic pleasure is always fleeting, and almost always leaves one empty at the end. Real happiness tends to come from accomplishment, stability, and achieving goals. Those are all conservative values.
Anonymous

The problem is that liberals are selling a false sense of joy or happiness. “Sure”, they say, “sleep around, get an abortion if you’re pregnant, no consequences!” Well great, now you’re an emotionally scarred 25 year old woman that can’t form a normal relationship. What fun!

Or go ahead and take a gap year before going to college, then major in something fun like African Art History. And take 6 years so you can enjoy the college experience. Oh, so now you’re 24 with $50,000 in debt with no job prospects? But it was so much fun!

The “fun” associated with hedonistic pleasure is always fleeting, and almost always leaves one empty at the end. Real happiness tends to come from accomplishment, stability, and achieving goals. Those are all conservative values.
Pingback: So, Monica Potts: When’s the Wedding? : The Other McCain
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the main reason that conservatives tend to poll as more happy than leftists is that we do not believe that happiness is a goal. Its a result of achieving real goals, sometimes. Conservatives, with the more adult worldview, see that doing right sometimes brings sadness, but is always better than being happy and wrong.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the main reason that conservatives tend to poll as more happy than leftists is that we do not believe that happiness is a goal. Its a result of achieving real goals, sometimes. Conservatives, with the more adult worldview, see that doing right sometimes brings sadness, but is always better than being happy and wrong.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the main reason that conservatives tend to poll as more happy than leftists is that we do not believe that happiness is a goal. Its a result of achieving real goals, sometimes. Conservatives, with the more adult worldview, see that doing right sometimes brings sadness, but is always better than being happy and wrong.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the main reason that conservatives tend to poll as more happy than leftists is that we do not believe that happiness is a goal. Its a result of achieving real goals, sometimes. Conservatives, with the more adult worldview, see that doing right sometimes brings sadness, but is always better than being happy and wrong.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the main reason that conservatives tend to poll as more happy than leftists is that we do not believe that happiness is a goal. Its a result of achieving real goals, sometimes. Conservatives, with the more adult worldview, see that doing right sometimes brings sadness, but is always better than being happy and wrong.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the main reason that conservatives tend to poll as more happy than leftists is that we do not believe that happiness is a goal. Its a result of achieving real goals, sometimes. Conservatives, with the more adult worldview, see that doing right sometimes brings sadness, but is always better than being happy and wrong.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the main reason that conservatives tend to poll as more happy than leftists is that we do not believe that happiness is a goal. Its a result of achieving real goals, sometimes. Conservatives, with the more adult worldview, see that doing right sometimes brings sadness, but is always better than being happy and wrong.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the main reason that conservatives tend to poll as more happy than leftists is that we do not believe that happiness is a goal. Its a result of achieving real goals, sometimes. Conservatives, with the more adult worldview, see that doing right sometimes brings sadness, but is always better than being happy and wrong.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the main reason that conservatives tend to poll as more happy than leftists is that we do not believe that happiness is a goal. Its a result of achieving real goals, sometimes. Conservatives, with the more adult worldview, see that doing right sometimes brings sadness, but is always better than being happy and wrong.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the main reason that conservatives tend to poll as more happy than leftists is that we do not believe that happiness is a goal. Its a result of achieving real goals, sometimes. Conservatives, with the more adult worldview, see that doing right sometimes brings sadness, but is always better than being happy and wrong.
http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

I think the main reason that conservatives tend to poll as more happy than leftists is that we do not believe that happiness is a goal. Its a result of achieving real goals, sometimes. Conservatives, with the more adult worldview, see that doing right sometimes brings sadness, but is always better than being happy and wrong.
http://twitter.com/raven1215 Rachel Aparicio

I would like to start by pointing out the basic scientific precept that correlation does NOT equal causation. Just because 2 phenomena are correlated does not mean the one necessarily causes the other in straightforward or obvious way. Take your study that purports that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals. (A point which, in itself, I am not disputing)

Concluding from the results of this study that becoming conservative will somehow automatically make you happy is like concluding that, because being rich and owning a Mercedes are correlated, buying a Mercedes will automatically make you rich.

The designation “conservative” comes from the basic idea that you want to conserve/preserve the status quo. In other words, you want things to stay as they are right now because you are HAPPY with the way things are right now. People who are happy with their lives as they currently are tend to be conservative, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE. Thus they want to conserve/preserve them.

Being happy with your life and the world as it currently is tends to make you politically conservative, not the other way around. Being politically conservative is NOT what makes you happy; being happy is what makes you politically conservative.
http://twitter.com/raven1215 Rachel Aparicio

I would like to start by pointing out the basic scientific precept that correlation does NOT equal causation. Just because 2 phenomena are correlated does not mean the one necessarily causes the other in straightforward or obvious way. Take your study that purports that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals. (A point which, in itself, I am not disputing)

Concluding from the results of this study that becoming conservative will somehow automatically make you happy is like concluding that, because being rich and owning a Mercedes are correlated, buying a Mercedes will automatically make you rich.

The designation “conservative” comes from the basic idea that you want to conserve/preserve the status quo. In other words, you want things to stay as they are right now because you are HAPPY with the way things are right now. People who are happy with their lives as they currently are tend to be conservative, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE. Thus they want to conserve/preserve them.

Being happy with your life and the world as it currently is tends to make you politically conservative, not the other way around. Being politically conservative is NOT what makes you happy; being happy is what makes you politically conservative.
http://twitter.com/raven1215 Rachel Aparicio

I would like to start by pointing out the basic scientific precept that correlation does NOT equal causation. Just because 2 phenomena are correlated does not mean the one necessarily causes the other in straightforward or obvious way. Take your study that purports that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals. (A point which, in itself, I am not disputing)

Concluding from the results of this study that becoming conservative will somehow automatically make you happy is like concluding that, because being rich and owning a Mercedes are correlated, buying a Mercedes will automatically make you rich.

The designation “conservative” comes from the basic idea that you want to conserve/preserve the status quo. In other words, you want things to stay as they are right now because you are HAPPY with the way things are right now. People who are happy with their lives as they currently are tend to be conservative, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE. Thus they want to conserve/preserve them.

Being happy with your life and the world as it currently is tends to make you politically conservative, not the other way around. Being politically conservative is NOT what makes you happy; being happy is what makes you politically conservative.
http://twitter.com/raven1215 Rachel Aparicio

I would like to start by pointing out the basic scientific precept that correlation does NOT equal causation. Just because 2 phenomena are correlated does not mean the one necessarily causes the other in straightforward or obvious way. Take your study that purports that conservatives tend to be happier than liberals. (A point which, in itself, I am not disputing)

Concluding from the results of this study that becoming conservative will somehow automatically make you happy is like concluding that, because being rich and owning a Mercedes are correlated, buying a Mercedes will automatically make you rich.

The designation “conservative” comes from the basic idea that you want to conserve/preserve the status quo. In other words, you want things to stay as they are right now because you are HAPPY with the way things are right now. People who are happy with their lives as they currently are tend to be conservative, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE. Thus they want to conserve/preserve them.

Being happy with your life and the world as it currently is tends to make you politically conservative, not the other way around. Being politically conservative is NOT what makes you happy; being happy is what makes you politically conservative.
Pingback: Miserable Leftists Accuse Happy Conservatives Of Wanting To Ruin Happiness | NewsReal Blog
Anonymous

As I used to tell my children—Happiness is the byproduct of endeavor. One got it . One didn’t Guess who has an engaging career ,close and enduring relationships and disposable income. Guess who is back in my basement ,bored on the job and waiting for happiness to come?

Happiness is the byproduct of endeavor–REALLY .
Anonymous

As I used to tell my children—Happiness is the byproduct of endeavor. One got it . One didn’t Guess who has an engaging career ,close and enduring relationships and disposable income. Guess who is back in my basement ,bored on the job and waiting for happiness to come?

Happiness is the byproduct of endeavor–REALLY .
Anonymous

As I used to tell my children—Happiness is the byproduct of endeavor. One got it . One didn’t Guess who has an engaging career ,close and enduring relationships and disposable income. Guess who is back in my basement ,bored on the job and waiting for happiness to come?

Happiness is the byproduct of endeavor–REALLY .
Anonymous

As I used to tell my children—Happiness is the byproduct of endeavor. One got it . One didn’t Guess who has an engaging career ,close and enduring relationships and disposable income. Guess who is back in my basement ,bored on the job and waiting for happiness to come?

Happiness is the byproduct of endeavor–REALLY .
Anonymous

As I used to tell my children—Happiness is the byproduct of endeavor. One got it . One didn’t Guess who has an engaging career ,close and enduring relationships and disposable income. Guess who is back in my basement ,bored on the job and waiting for happiness to come?

Happiness is the byproduct of endeavor–REALLY .
rochmoninoff

Leftists view lifestyle critiques as a call for government action (because that’s what they intend when they indulge in the same practice).

The idea that someone who believes in freedom of choice and personal responsibility could simultaneously criticize poor lifestyle choices and their consequences just doesn’t scan for them.

So if someone makes a critique which is intended to be processed at a personal level as a personal decision. They’re like “what is this? I don’t even…”
rochmoninoff

Leftists view lifestyle critiques as a call for government action (because that’s what they intend when they indulge in the same practice).

The idea that someone who believes in freedom of choice and personal responsibility could simultaneously criticize poor lifestyle choices and their consequences just doesn’t scan for them.

So if someone makes a critique which is intended to be processed at a personal level as a personal decision. They’re like “what is this? I don’t even…”
rochmoninoff

Leftists view lifestyle critiques as a call for government action (because that’s what they intend when they indulge in the same practice).

The idea that someone who believes in freedom of choice and personal responsibility could simultaneously criticize poor lifestyle choices and their consequences just doesn’t scan for them.

So if someone makes a critique which is intended to be processed at a personal level as a personal decision. They’re like “what is this? I don’t even…”
rochmoninoff

Leftists view lifestyle critiques as a call for government action (because that’s what they intend when they indulge in the same practice).

The idea that someone who believes in freedom of choice and personal responsibility could simultaneously criticize poor lifestyle choices and their consequences just doesn’t scan for them.

So if someone makes a critique which is intended to be processed at a personal level as a personal decision. They’re like “what is this? I don’t even…”
rochmoninoff

Leftists view lifestyle critiques as a call for government action (because that’s what they intend when they indulge in the same practice).

The idea that someone who believes in freedom of choice and personal responsibility could simultaneously criticize poor lifestyle choices and their consequences just doesn’t scan for them.

So if someone makes a critique which is intended to be processed at a personal level as a personal decision. They’re like “what is this? I don’t even…”
rochmoninoff

Leftists view lifestyle critiques as a call for government action (because that’s what they intend when they indulge in the same practice).

The idea that someone who believes in freedom of choice and personal responsibility could simultaneously criticize poor lifestyle choices and their consequences just doesn’t scan for them.

So if someone makes a critique which is intended to be processed at a personal level as a personal decision. They’re like “what is this? I don’t even…”
rochmoninoff

Leftists view lifestyle critiques as a call for government action (because that’s what they intend when they indulge in the same practice).

The idea that someone who believes in freedom of choice and personal responsibility could simultaneously criticize poor lifestyle choices and their consequences just doesn’t scan for them.

So if someone makes a critique which is intended to be processed at a personal level as a personal decision. They’re like “what is this? I don’t even…”
Pingback: Conservative News from Conservative Bloggers » Blog Archive » Miserable Leftists Accuse Happy Conservatives Of Wanting To Ruin Happiness
Pingback: Milblogs | Blog |

Who Is Brett Kimberlin?

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN