Why Unhappy People Become Liberals

This is way too simplistic of a worldview and a disingenuous title to boot by Prager. Because there aren't any unhappy conservatives? And ALL liberals are unhappy? Yeah, right.
A couple of reviews of Brook's book, which I think say much about it.
By Richard Bennett "truthinista" (Atlanta)

On page 4 Brooks distinguishes between three distinct forms of happiness. they can be summed up as "fleeting feelings of happiness", "happiness on balance" and "moral quality of life".
The first is similar to joy or euphoria, second is like an emotional balance sheet we keep that allows us to tell honestly whether we are living , all things considered, a happy life. This is the level most often studied by social scientists and, and it is the level measured in the survey data used in this book. The third form is of happiness measurement is eudaimonia, (A) "Moral quality of life (that) has little to do with a sense of happiness-it is the well-lived life, in which a person realizes his or her true potential...Aristotle termed (it) eudaimonia...an activity of the soul expressing virtue" Brooks is not interested in this form of happiness! But for liberals it is possibly the most important sense of what is meant by "happiness". What is the import of someones self reported state of happiness when no account is taken of of his aims? Eudaimonia is such an important concept to serious thinkers that it is actually the subject of a brilliant new book authored by Duke University Philosopher Owen Flanagan. The title is The Really Hard Problem-Meaning in a Material World.
Read Gross National Happiness by all means, but don't spend too much time or be too convinced that Brooks is saying something astounding and revelatory. He is merely reflecting the fact that conservatives are more likely to be church going, hard working, married and convinced of the rightness of their way of life and their own values. Of course such people are going to be "happier" than someone who wrestles with the real existential issues of life!
Brooks characterizes eudaimonia as the quest to live virtuously. Can we really respect a book that purports to say something definitive about happiness and yet does not even consider actual virtue?

By a reader (Oregon, USA)

I could hardly be more pleased that someone who is a conservative is chiming in on the subject of happiness, since I suspect that most academics are liberals, and a full range of viewpoints is essential to good research. But if you're interested in objectively reported happiness research, I'd point you towards books by Christopher Peterson, Ed Diener, Sonja Lyubomirsky, Robert Biswas-Diener, and Martin Seligman.

Prager has a habit of making grandiose assumptions about the left that have absolutely no basis in real life. Like the article that Lionshead cited by him in this thread: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href=" 285bound.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5611&hilit=prager " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=6&t=5611&hilit=prager<!-- l --> saying that liberals have an aversion to acknowlledging sad facts. Now he's saying that us liberals are unhappy - which is it? We can't acknowledge sad facts but we're unhappy anyway. Yeah, that makes sense.

Conservatives are more likely to donate charitably, but is that because they are more likely to be rich, more likely to be religious, more likely to be happier, or something else? Or does giving make them more happy, hence they are happier? How you phrase the question will affect the results, especially with as subjective of a topic as "happiness". http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Edi ... han-wealth

Rather, to the horror and dismay of Teddy and RT I'm sure, liberalism is not a mental disease nor are liberals inherently bitter, angry, or sad. Liberalism is a trait evolutionarily selected just as conservatism is. Both are required for the survival of our species, or neither would be in existence today. Articles like Prager's do nothing more than to emphasize our differences rather than celebrate the strengths of both so that we may move forward and improve our quality of life, individually and societally. Here's a blog that states differences and finding common ground well: http://www.randy-henderson.com/http:/ww ... ompromise/

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Liberals have to be TOLD what to think.

JusSayin wrote: And the inability to use their brain is why you see so many of them repeat the same things over and over and over again in their posts.

Another fine example of Scruffy's thread about insults. These statements are complete Bull.