Happiness is a Serious Business

Conservative columnist George Will recently resported on the latest Pew Research Center study on happiness. But he failed to give us a link to the report Are We Happy Yet? So I just did.

Yes, the main finding of the report is that Republicans are happier than Democrats, and have been every year without exception since 1972 when Pew started the report. You can imagine that on KTTH 770 The Truth here in Seattle, they were chuckling this morning about what misery-guts their liberal friends were.

One listener called in about the neighbor woman who had given him the bird every morning for about two months before the 2004 election as she passed his window. Then the day came when she couldn’t get her car started, and he went out and offered to help. She couldn’t bear to look at him, or even thank him, as he hauled his car alongside hers and gave her a jump start.

The main finding of the Pew report is that wealthy people are more happy, conservatives are more happy, married people are more happy, and people who go to church frequently are more happy.

So it would make sense that Republicans—in the party of conservatism, marriage, and religion—would be happier than Democrats—from the party of liberalism, singlehood, and secularism. The happiest years for Republicans were 1974, 1980, 1990, and 2004. The happiest years for Democrats were 1974, 1977, 1989, and 2004.

Good to know that things weren’t so bad after all for Democrats in 2004.

Dueling Marriage Quizzes

In Sunday’s The New York Times non-traditional relationships advocate Stephanie Coontz ran a pop quiz on relationships that, not surprisingly for the author of The Way We Never Were, repeated the argument of her book that the 50’s ideal of Father Knows Best has never been the norm in human families. And anyway, “Born-again Christians are just as likely to divorce as more secular Americans.”

So National Review Online rolled out conservative marriage advocate Maggie Gallagher with her pop quiz. Not surprisingly for the author of The Case for Marriage, her pop quiz shows that traditional marriage of the kind celebrated in Father Knows Best and Leave It to Beaver is best.

The statement “Divorce has always been a disaster for women and children” Coontz says is false because while divorce does cause a “sharp drop in
the economic standard of living for women and children” it also reduces women’s suicide rates and only marginally damages children’s emotional wellbeing by 55 percent to 45 percent.

On the question “Divorce impoverishes women and children” Gallagher writes:

True. The majority of children raised outside of marriage experience poverty. As many as one-third of divorced women slip below the poverty level after divorce.

Take your pick. And read the whole thing.

Harriet Miers Goes to Sea

Some months ago Peggy Noonan warned that, at this stage of an administration, the White House staff are suffering from extreme exhaustion. That’s why they produce boners like the Harriet Miers nomination and the east coast port deal. So this morning we get the report from the Associated Press that the president didn’t even know about the decision by an administration committee to allow operation of six US east coast ports by Dubai Ports, a state-owned company.

Well, at least the Bush haters are happy about that.

OK. Let’s admit that there could be a security risk if Middle East owned companies own US ports. They might permit someone to smuggle in a nuclear device in a container.

But the port deal merely shows the natural vulnerability of an open society to a sneak attack. A modern democratic capitalist economy runs on trust, a network of trust. That is what makes it different from the tribal, mistrustful world of Islam.

But the world of trust is not as vulnerable as it might seem. It is worth billions, trillions, to be included in the circle of trust. That is why people bring their money to the United States to invest.

Centuries ago, at the battle of Lepanto in 1571, the Holy League fleet defeated the Ottoman Turks. As the victors looted the galleys of the defeated Turks they were shocked to find fortunes in precious metals and jewels aboard the ships of the Ottoman admirals. These men had to keep their fortunes close by because their monies could be seized at any time by the Sultan. But in the trust economy of the west, rich merchants could already enjoy security of property from expropriation. They could keep their money in a bank.

Things have not really changed that much in the last 400 years. That is why the West is a lot more powerful than we think. And that is why, even though it is sensible to protect the trust relationships in our trading system, the folks from Dubai need us more than we need them.

Harvard Faculty to Larry Summers: You're Outta Here!

So that’s it. Lawrence Summers is to step down at the end of the academic year as president of Harvard University, as reported in Reuters and The Washington Post.

Obviously, the opposition against Larry Summers was not just that he blasphemed the prophet about sacred scripture. No it was not just about innate abilities of men and women to do science (or to want to do science).

Nor was it just that Summers apparently eased out “the arts and sciences dean William Kirby, on January 27,” deepening opposition to him in the faculty.

No it probably goes deeper than that, and no doubt we will find out about the real reason in the next days and months.

No doubt it will come down to out-and-out opposition in the faculty to taking orders from anyone.

It’s not just Harvard. The big gorilla in the room in America is the question of the entire non-profit sector, from government to foundations to universities. Unlike evil corporations, the non-profit sector is run by its employees for their benefit. And there is no effective way to reform it.

Our government is essentially unreformed since the 1930s. Our schools and universities are unreformed since the turn of the twentieth century. Our foundations are unreformed for decades.

That means that when reform comes, as it will, as it must, it is going to be painful. That is what happens when the incumbents have the power to stop change.

And it won’t be painful just for the proud and the powerful who have run the non-profit sector for so long for their own benefit. We’ll all end up paying the price. The proud and the powerful will see to that.

What If..."Catholics Riot over Da Vinci Code"

We all seem to take for granted that millions of Muslims all over the world naturally take to the streets when a couple of obscure Danish cartoonists insult their faith by depicting the prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his hair.

But imagine if Catholics were rioting all over the world about Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code the best-selling thriller that depicts Opus Dei as a dangerous and ruthless force, condoned by the pope, bent on supressing the real truth about Jesus.

Imagine no more. David Aaronovitch has done it for you. “In a parallel universe...”

Cardinal Loopi, of the Office of the Defence of the Faith, condemned the book for defaming Catholicism and, in its suggestion that Jesus Christ was married, of heresy. “We demand that the book be destroyed and that the author be punished,” said Loopi, “otherwise we cannot be held responsible for how Catholics throughout the world may react.”

Quite so. Who could blame those Catholics for expressing their “rage,” as the media likes to say? News items like this would be routine:

Bookseller shot dead in Poland, by teenager shouting: “For God, and the Pope!”


Ten killed in Lisbon Dan Brown riots, when police opened fire on mob ransacking the Canadian Embassy. “We thought he was Canadian,” says riot leader.

It would be comical if it weren’t so serious. Read the whole thing.

National Savings Down, But National Wealth Up. Explain

Last year the US savings rate was the lowest since the Great Depression, according to the Associated Press. And that was on top of the huge balance of payments deficit and the Federal government deficit.

How long can this go on? As long as you like, according to supply-side economist Alan Reynolds. That’s because even though people didn’t put more cash in the bank, national wealth went up. Writes Reynolds:

In last year’s third quarter, the Fed’s measure of household net worth amounted to $51.1 trillion -- up more than $5 trillion from a year earlier.

Even though Americans didn’t put anything in the piggy bank, national wealth went up 10 percent. And that’s the point. People save money to add to their wealth. If their wealth is already going up, because of increases in their 401(k) and the real estate market, they can meet their wealth goals without reducing consumption.

Is that a problem? Well, you tell me, senator.

By the way, household net worth “measures assets minus debts,” in case you were worried about the debt explosion.

Here’s something else that Reynolds points out.

To put one year’s $5 trillion wealth gain in perspective, personal income was just $9 trillion after taxes. Even if we had saved half of all personal income, that could not have added as much to household net worth as was, in fact, added.

Let’s put it in personal terms. If you earned $90,000 last year in salary and your home value and your 401(k) went up by $50,000, why would you be worried that you hadn’t put another $10,000 into savings?

People start to save when the economy turns south, as they should. But don’t expect the chaps at Associated Press to understand that.

WSJ Sneers at Newt

First Newt Gingrich was a dangerous “bombthrower.” Then he was the bombastic Speaker of the House of Representatives. Then he was a guy who just talked too much.

Now apparently, the former Speaker is just a figure of fun, as Brian M. Carney sneers at Newt’s office, Newt’s chairs, and Newt’s proposals for this year’s elections.

So what is Newt proposing? He wants the Republicans to cut “down on earmarks and pork-barrel spending” by publishing conference reports on the web so that all the bloggers in the country can find the earmarks. “He’d also `simply ban all fund-raising in Washington. You can do that by straight out rules of the House and Senate.’”

Sounds pretty nifty to me.

Newt has lots of ideas to push Republican reforms and gin up the Republican base, but Carnes can’t get a word in edgeways.

But Newt is positive that if Republicans get their act together and put together sensible reform plans that are straightforward and easy for people to understand, they can win in the Fall.

So if you’re asking me, is it possible to be inarticulate, confused and uncertain and win a major policy battle, the answer is no. Do I think the president, the House and the Senate--if they systematically went to the country and laid out a positive plan that would make more sense--could they win? The answer is yes.


Do I think it’s possible to offer a Social Security plan for people under 40 years of age in a positive savings account model that you could pass? Yes. Do I think it’s possible to make it so complicated, so impossible to understand that you can’t build any momentum for it? Yes.

Years ago, someone published a cartoon of a long filing cabinet with each drawer labeled “Newt’s Ideas.” On the end was a single cabinet with drawers labeled “Newt’s Good Ideas.” Very jolly. But many of us grasp that the only way to good ideas is by slogging through drifts of “ideas.” Ideas are easy. Good ideas are hard.

And you can say this for Newt Gingrich. As he slogs away at his pile of ideas, there’s a chance he might come up with one good one. Then you can put him down as a genius.