Hubris

Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

Sanford Rose banner

Conservatives indeed feel happier than liberals. Why? Liberals, or at least some of them, characterize this contentment as ‘ignorance is bliss.’” Sanford Rose

Dolors & Sense

By Sanford Rose

 Diana Walker’s iconic image of Queen Elizabeth and Ronald Reagan, March 1983.
Diana Walker’s iconic image of Queen Elizabeth and Ronald Reagan, March 1983.

Sanford Rose

KISSIMMEE Florida—(Weekly Hubris)—3/25/2013—Well, they say they are—or at least that’s what Pew Research Institute in the USA reported in November, based, to be sure, on interviews done before the 2012 election.

But, come to think of it, Pew has reported the same feelings in earlier studies.

Conservatives indeed feel happier than liberals. Why?

Liberals, or at least some of them, characterize this contentment as “ignorance is bliss.”

More subtly, researchers at the University of Virginia, trying to understand the reasons for the success of conservative politicians, have advanced a novel argument that might, by extension, be useful in explaining conservative cheeriness.

These researchers isolated what might be called the six pillars of the moral temple—six elemental, perhaps even innate, characteristics that underlie practically all moral judgments. They include: 1) care for the weak and defenseless; 2) fairness and justice; 3) loyalty to individuals and groups; 4) respect for authority and hierarchy; 5) a sense of the sacred and the profane; and 6) love of liberty and opposition to oppression.

The researchers then posed questions that involved making moral judgments to thousands of survey respondents who identified themselves as anywhere from “very liberal” to “very conservative.” Respondents were further asked which of the above six moral concerns were relevant to their answers and the degree of that relevance—on a scale of zero to five.

Those labeling themselves liberal leaned heavily on moral pillars 1) care, 2) fairness and 6) liberty. “Care,” for example, had a relevance score of between three and four.

Conservatives, though by no means indifferent to these considerations, nonetheless viewed some of them as less important in formulating moral judgments than did the liberals. The relevance of “care” dropped to around two and a half.

By contrast, liberals rarely considered pillars 3) loyalty, 4) respect for authority and 5) a sense of the sacred of any great import at all to decision making, while conservatives considered them highly relevant. The moral relevance of “authority” came in at around one among the very liberal. It reached close to three among the very conservative.

So the tally appears to be: conservatives, 6; liberals, 3. That is, the moral judgments of the one group appear to rest on all six foundations of the moral temple; those of the other seem supported by essentially only three.

Are the conservatives therefore more morally balanced than the liberals? And does this relative equipoise make them happier?

The first question is emotionally charged and should depend for an answer on normative rather than merely descriptive factors. Just because one’s decisions are based on more variables does not necessarily mean they are more balanced, as that term should be, and indeed often is, defined. In a sound view of morality, some decision variables may be intrinsically more important than others and therefore should be accorded far greater weight.

One can do a better job attempting an answer to the second question. If indeed American society is becoming progressively more uncaring, as evidenced, for example, by its growing inability to implement measures to help those disadvantaged and often rendered unemployable by globalization, then liberals, whose morality is heavily influenced by considerations of care for the less fortunate, may be pardoned for becoming dissatisfied and discontented—at least with regard to issues of public, as opposed to private, morality.

Despite the 2012 Obama victory, conservative values appear in the ascendancy in the United States—a circumstance that may be eroding the good cheer and sense of security of liberals, who, the above survey suggests, neither sympathize with nor, judging by the abysmally low moral weight assigned them, perhaps even understand some of the values that underpin the moral judgments of their conservative brethren.

Photo by Diana Walker, whose photojournalism may be found at http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/exhibits/dianawalker/forthemedia/.

Sanford Rose, of New Jersey and Florida, served as Associate Editor of Fortune Magazine from 1968 till 1972; Vice President of Chase Manhattan Bank in 1972; Senior Editor of Fortune between 1972 and 1979; and Associate Editor, Financial Editor and Senior Columnist of American Banker newspaper between 1979 and 1991. From 1991 till 2001, Rose worked as a consultant in the banking industry and a professional ghost writer in the field of finance. He has also taught as an adjunct professor of banking at Columbia University and an adjunct instructor of economics at New York University. He states that he left gainful employment in 2001 to concentrate on gain-less investing. (A lifelong photo-phobe, Rose also claims that the head shot accompanying his Weekly Hubris columns is not his own, but belongs, instead, to a skilled woodworker residing in South Carolina.)

2 Comments

  • S. Rose

    A conscience-ectomy. Hm. An interesting new surgical procedure, perhaps suitable for inclusion in the repertoire of the Orthopedic Society of Central Florida, the land of “ectomies.” As you know, most conservatives don’t feel inequality is a matter of conscience. If they are well off, it is because they have worked hard. Those who are poor haven’t worked hard. Strange, but convenient, oversimplifications!