Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

According to this poll, it's true. TELL WHAT U THINK!

_________________

1. What do they mean by "happy?" Happy with the political and economical atmosphere? Happy with the way their lives are going?

2. Are there any supporting statistics to this poll? I note these statistics reflect a 33-year trend: are there any more recent stats?

3. Do they have any theories as to why this trend might exist?

_________________

Well, for one thing, this could very largely be due to the heavy Republican influence in all three branches of federal government at this time in our nation, so Republicans are happier because they're getting their way in government, much more so than Democrats.

However, to look a bit more at the differences in platforms and ideology between the current Republican and Democratic parties, I think there's one major thing that the Democratic party has been missing that the Republicans have: A better, stronger sense of family and community. A major foundation, from what I can see, of Republican morals is that families and communities should be close, with strong relationships and ties between people. Democrats, on the other hand, stress individuality. While individuality is great, and I support it a great deal, it tends to become too much often times, leading to a sense of lonliness and drifting apart from friends and relatives. And as social creatures who strive for acceptance and love in the world, I think this may be a large reason why Democrats may be more unhappy than Republicans.

But then, one has to ask, how did this study define "happiness," and how did they test their subjects to find who was "happier" than whom? It can be very subjective.

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Here's a Washington Times article on the same study, with some actual numbers.

_________________

I wonder. It's your personal circumstances that make you happy - how would federal governance influence that? And the Washington Times article said that poor Republicans are happier too - I'd imagine that the poor wouldn't gain a huge amount in terms of personal benefit, even if the guys they're backing are running the show.



I think you're right about that. There are probably many Democrats who have a strong sense of family and community of course, but it's usually the conservatively-minded who are more consistantly like that. And I've definately noticed that people who take part in the family and community - and sometimes religion too - tend to have the most self-esteem. Because they've gained more respect from like-minded people, and they see that they're needed and valued by others, etc.

Too bad that Pew are so vague with their details, though.

Well it is easy to see why Republicans are happier than Democrats, the Republicanss are in power. I garauntee that if you took this poll 10 years ago the results would be the exact opposite.

_________________

Makes sense to me. I'm sure I'll get my head chewed off for this, but indulge me for a moment:

Unhappy people try to change things for the better, ergo progressive, ergo Democrat.

Happy people try to preserve the status quo, ergo conservative, ergo Republican.

Yeah, it's full of holes, so pretend it's Swiss cheese and chew away.

_________________

A flaw in your thinking. If you paid attention to the article, it's from a study conducted over the past 33 years. And during that time, the power balance between the Democrats and the Republicans has fluctuated. And the stats appear to remain consistent. So, at least according to the article, regime has nothing to do with it.

_________________

I guess it kind of makes sense. I mean, Republicans are conservative. When things don't change, it's all good for them.

_________________

Yes, but even when things did change, Republicans were still happier.

_________________

I think that people aren't happy because they're Republican, they're Republican because they're happy. Like several people have said, if everything is good for you, then you won't really want any change.

I'm surprised, and relieved, that no one has snarked in this thread saying "lawlz thatz cuz ur happier if u dun need 2 think" in response to the study. I was seriously expecting that.

But Didymus is on the right track here--Democrats have, over the past three decades, been in power at various times, at varying degrees. It's impossible to dismiss this study just because right NOW Bush is in power, as several of you have done.

Lest we forget Clinton's administration, after so few little years? Would it not make sense that democrats under Clinton and past liberal administrations and congresses try to preserve THEIR status quo, and the cons trying to change things to a more conservative standpoint?

_________________

Well.. no. Progressivism is about constantly reevaluating the status quo--no matter how far society has come, if it can be improved futher it must endeavor to do so. Progressives will never seek to preserve the status quo in its entirety until the status quo is ideal, i.e. utopia.

To quote Wikipedia, "To a classical conservative, the goal of change is less important than the insistence that change be effected with a respect for the rule of law and traditions of society." Of course, speaking of classical conservatives is a bit treacherous because the neoconservative movement currently overtaking U.S. politics is a different animal entirely. However, given its relative youth (as far as the average voter is concerned, at least), I think classical conservatism is still more relevant to this discussion.

_________________

Slate had a similar article on a simliar survey just a couple of weeks ago. This survey showed that feminist women were less happy than women who didn't subscribe to feminist beliefs. There is a lot of analysis in this survey of those results though, and some interesting ideas put forward.

First the numbers conclusion (not the why): Across the board, progressive women are less likely to feel content, whether they are working or at home, and no matter how much they are making.

Possible reasons:

Conservative argument: Feminism is undermining marriage, and making it difficult for women to be married and happy.

Liberal argument: Reality hasn't caught up to feminist ideals.

The main argument that the author the article presents is that the more options you have, the less satisfied you will be with what you choose. More traditionalist women feel that they have defined roles, and are happy with those roles. They argue that more feminist women have many more opportunities available to them, so they are less likely to be satisfied with whatever they choose. Clear expectations made for happier people.

This tends to agree with the proposal that IJ put forth, though with a subtle twist. My interpretation of IJ's idea is "unhappy people become democrats because they want to change things to make them happier." A generalization, but correct me if I'm wrong, IJ. This seems to propose that people who want to change things become democrats, and this makes them unhappy. They become unhappy because they have higher expectations and are thus more dissatisfied with what they have.

I don't know if any of this is true (measuring happiness is not very quantitative) but it is an idea to toss around.

_________________

I'm going to have to think about this a bit, racerx. I've been kind of dancing around the entire issue of causality, and I think if it works at all it happens on a sociological rather than psychological level, and that's always been a tougher angle for me.

_________________

I would consider keeping a state of change, preventing any stagnation in introducing new agendas or regression from them a sort of status quo.

_________________

Well, sure, but there's a big difference between a status quo (i.e. "this component of society doesn't change") and the status quote (i.e. "nothing in the entirety of society changes").

_________________