The Happiness Quotient

First he discovered that conservative religious people give more, in Who Really Cares? Now Arthur C. Brooks is writing about happiness, according to Maggie Gallagher, and the happiest people are—wait for it—religious conservatives.

Really, this should surprise nobody. We know that the worst thing in the world is to have nothing to do and nothing to contribute. Naturally, conservatives are happier than liberals.

For Brooks, one of the great surprises was the enormous "happiness gap" between political liberals and political conservatives that has persisted over the last 35 years.
...
Of course, conservatives are more likely to be religious and to be married, both important contributors to happiness. Religious liberals, for example, are happier than secular liberals, but neither group is nearly as happy as people who say that they are both religious and conservative. Fifty percent of religious conservatives are very happy and just 5 percent are not too happy.

Freedom, according to Brooks, makes people happier. But people are also happier when they live under “moral constraint.”

What makes people happy is freedom and community. That seems a paradox. How can you be free and yet bound into a community that may shame you and judge you?

That’s how liberals think. We conservatives know better. You make yourself happy when you are free to bind yourself in loving service to others. As Minette Marrin wrote back in 2001: compassion and community without compulsion.

Somehow that notion has a familiar ring.

Last Refuge of a Liberal

Great news! Hillary Clinton, fighting for the people against the elites, vows to smash OPEC, according to Geoff Elliott.

"We’re going to go right at OPEC," she told supporters in Merrillville, Indiana. "They can no longer be a cartel, a monopoly that get together once every couple of months in some conference room in some plush place in the world, they decide how much oil they’re going to produce and what price they’re going to put it at.



"That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly," she said, saying she would use US anti-monopoly laws as well as the World Trade Organisation to take on OPEC.

Bless my buttons. You mean to say that one-size-fits-all health care Hillary has found a monopoly she doesn’t like? I thought that Democrats were all in favor of high energy prices because we need to conserve on our wasteful use of non-renewable energy and save the planet and stop global warming.

Listen, honey. Oil prices are high because you Democrats have been standing in the gas-station forecourt stopping the oil companies from doing what they are born to do. When Big Oil wants to drill for oil you tell the oil guys they can’t. Not in Alaska, not in the Gulf of Mexico, not deep offshore. When Big Oil wants to build a new refinery, you say no deal.

And now you want to blame OPEC for high energy prices?

Who was it who said: “Populism is the last refuge of a liberal.”

So it’s come this. In her last desperate bid to get the nomination for President of the United States, Hillary “politics of meaning” Clinton is demagoguing on energy.

Listen America. If you want low energy prices there is one thing you should never do. Never, never, never vote for a Democrat.

Now It's the Vast Elite Conspiracy

That Hillary Clinton is some smart girl. It was she, ten years ago, who fearlessly deployed her super-sniffer conspiracy detector during the Clinton impeachment scandal. She found nothing less than a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” determined to drive her husband out of office.

When you work hard at something, you get to be pretty good at it. This last month, according to David Brooks, Sen. Clinton has discovered a vast elite conspiracy. This cabal of naysayers have conspired to pour scorn on her proposal to enact a gas tax holiday. On ABC’s This Week,

[Host George] Stephanopoulos asked her to name a single economist who thinks a tax-holiday plan would work, and the daughter of Wellesley and Yale took the chance to shove the geeks into their lockers: "I’m not going to put my lot in with economists."

David Brooks had to admit a certain admiration for Sen. Clinton’s brazen conversion to the practice of populist demogoguery.

This wasn’t just shameless spin, it was shamelessness with a purpose. Clinton signaled that she wasn’t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader ’” helping one’s own.

Thus all of a sudden the most liberal member of the United States Senate, Sen. Obama, gets to look like a moderate. While Clinton believes in raw power, Obama gets to look like a politician who believe in the power of communication.

They are imperfect messengers for their creeds. Clinton rails against “Wall Street money-grubbers,” but her policies are often drawn from the Wall Street wing of the party. Obama talks about postpartisan compromise in the abstract, but rarely in the particular.

The problem is that America’s problem is not a lack of raw power or a lack of communication. It is an excess of raw government and its obsession with power and the appeasement of powerful and/or vocal interests.

Don’t look to Sen. Clinton or to Sen. Obama if you want a solution to that problem. Not that either of them could possibly be called an elitist.

Changing the Terms of the Debate

After the Conservative Party’s local election win in Britain last week, Janet Daley asks: what next?

The answer, she writes, involves reframing the debate. Gordon Brown (and liberals here in the US) want to say that the choice before us is

between a party (his) that believes in "doing things" - taking people out of poverty, unlocking talent, etc, etc - and one that would prefer to "walk away" and leave people to get on with it.

No, no, no. Conservatives have got to insist on a different debate. Government can’t take people out of poverty, except in a temporary way.

[T]he state cannot "lift" people out of poverty (except in the most temporary sense), only people themselves can do that; that government cannot unlock talent, it can only get out of its way; that the surest way to keep the number of helpless and incompetent to an absolute minimum is to reduce dependency on the state as much as possible.

On the contrary, “caring for people means allowing them to take responsibility.” Because if you don’t let people take responsibility you turn them into political vegetables. That is fine for vegetables. But for people it is wrong.

Employment: Household Survey Up Big Time

Here we go again. The Labor Department’s Employment Situation Summary released today shows employment down by 20,000 jobs—if you look at the Establishment Survey, the data obtained from employers.

But if you look at the Household Survey, the survey of people, asking them whether they are employed or not, then you get a different story, a radically different story. In the Household Survey employment is up by a shattering 362,000 jobs. This number comes about equally from a reduction in unemployment of 189,000 and an increase in the labor force of 173,000

So which do you believe? The headline “jobs” reported by the mainstream media or the Household Survey data?

Really, we are getting two ccompletely different stories. The employers are reporting that we are in a recession, and the nation’s households are reporting that we are getting out of a recession.

The difference is pretty significant. Who is right? Tune in for next month’s exciting episode.

Congress Can't Do Nothin' Right

Thank goodness for one thing. What with the spiraling increase in food prices the leaders of our beloved Congress are going to fight for the people against the powerful on ethanol.

They are going to lower ethanol subsidies, according to Stephen Dinan.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer allowed as how this was a case of “unintended consequences.”

"The view was to look to alternatives and try to become more dependent on the Midwest than the Middle East. I mean, that was the theory. Obviously, sometimes there are unforeseen or unintended consequences of actions," Mr. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, told reporters yesterday.

Well, why don’t we go a bit further and say that whenever Congress enacts a subsidy it is almost bound to screw things up.

It’s just that when you start playing the subsidy game with energy and food you have a much better chance of creating a mess than, say subsidies for college.

That’s because there is an open market for energy and food. But college is a witch’s brew of privilege and rent seeking that simmers away in a back room.

Actually, college subsidies—including subsidies paid to students and subsidies paid directly to colleges—probably directly hurt people in just the same way as etehanol subsidies divert food-producing cropland into ethanol production. But the effects are more difficult to tease out, and don’t have the headline potential of soaring fuel and soaring food prices.

OK. Congress is going to take a baby step back to energy sanity. Now let’s do something serious about energy. Let’s drill for oil. Let’s open up the ocean for drilling. And let’s start building nuclear plants again.

After all, even the “consensus” scientists now say that global warming catastrophe is a little further off than they thought.

They’d have to. Global temperatures haven’t risen in ten years.

MoveOn dot Next?

Now that Sen. Barack has “courageously” thrown his pastor under the bus, after telling us for months that Reverend Wright was his inspiration, What next?

It’s pretty obvious.

MoveOn there folks, nothing to see here.

While Reverend Wright remains in the news ordinary Americans might tumble to the truth about race relations in this country. They might start to resent the double standard on race. They might start to wonder why it is OK for black Reverend Wright to have cheap, shoddy opinions on racial differences when white Reverend Wrong would get sent to the wood-shed quick as a flash for the wrong opinions on race.

Remember when Herrnstein and Murray got sent to the wood-shed for suggesting, in The Bell Curve, that blacks had a lower IQ than whites and Asians? They didn’t try to say why, but that didn’t matter. White guys aren’t allowed to say things like that.

People might think that they’d had enough of being whacked around on race.

They might even, the more headstrong among them, decide that they are not going to vote for a black candidate ever again unless he can show that he has never been within a country mile of a smooth race hustler and hater like Reverend Wright.

They might decide that they want a racial politics based on the simple content of a man’s character rather than the color of his skin.

Thye might decide that they don’t particularly like a smooth politician like Barack Obama who so brazenly both runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds.

They might decide that they don’t belong in a political party that reduces everything to the correct party line of the moment on race and gender.

They might decide that they belong in the Leave-Me-Alone party rather than the class-and-race-and-gender party.

And that would never do.

So you’d better shut up about Wright and wrong and race and Obama. If you know what’s good for you.