Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford, has compiled research in his new book, Makers and Takers, that purports to show that conservatives are pleasanter, more responsible, more ethical, and more productive members of society than are liberals. Here is a column he wrote for the Daily Mail Online about it. A portion:
The statistics I base this on come from the General Social Survey, America's
premier social research database, but they are just as relevant to the UK, as I
believe political belief systems drive one's attitudes, regardless of where you
happen to live.
Those surveyed were asked: 'Is it your obligation to care
for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if
you really want to?' Of those describing themselves as 'conservative', 71 per
cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed.
To the
question: 'Do you get happiness by putting someone else's happiness ahead of
your own?', 55 per cent of those who said they were 'very conservative' said
Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were 'very liberal'.
It's been
my experience that conservatives like to talk about things outside of themselves
while progressives like to discuss themselves: how they are feeling and what
their desires are. That might make for a good therapy session but it's not much
fun over a long dinner.
Read it all; there are a lot more interesting statistics to look at, all with the same conclusion drawn by Schweizer: in almost every way that a citizen can be considered to be so, conservatives are better people than liberals.
Okay, gentle leftist reader, that's the end of the part where you clench up like Jimmy Carter in Tel Aviv. Well, maybe the end. Soon more like Frank Rich in Kansas. Anyway.
I'm sure that Schweizer is aware that such research does not show that all conservatives are better people than all liberals, and it would be ridiculous to think so. But the point, and I think Schweizer's point here, is not to call liberals selfish and evil people; instead, the point is that the political philosophies that animate the Left are often both symptom and cause of a grinding materialism and self-centeredness. It insists that human happiness, and thus the efficacy of government, can be read from a series of statistics about wage trends, income inequality, and employment; it insists that social obligations are an impediment to freedom that cannot be allowed to stand.
As people break from the bonds of family and church for the sake of freedom, and as they sink into economic bondage for the sake of egalitarianism, they seek meaning more and more from material sources: leisure, comfort, longevity. Indeed, all these things are increasing rapidly; it is a testament to how wrong the liberal philosophy is that our ever-wealthier society is growing even more rapidly in discontentment and despair. Those of us who hang on to our social responsibilities and duties, our traditions and customs, seem to be closer to finding real happiness.
This is why I place such an emphasis on Obama's speech to the San Francisco liberals: it is terribly revealing of his materialism, his insistence that the blue-collar workers of Pennsylvania ought to find meaning from money and possessions rather than from God, family, and tradition. He never considered that they might be happier that way. Barack is the exciting new priest of an old and failed philosophy, a vain hope for people whose lot is unending despair.
Wow, serious post today. Well, cheers!
Posts
