There are many paths up the mountain to happiness. Some try Zen meditation. Others vote conservative.
PS: Nice to see the “conservatism as pathology” tripe is still around.
Sphere: Related Content-
Sponsored Links
-
English Books on Korea (and CDs and DVDs, too)
-
Visit My Brother's Film Review Site
-
Flickr Photos
-
Recent Comments
- J on KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
- user-81 on Open Thread #49
- pawikirogi on Open Thread #49
- user-81 on KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
- pawikirogi on Open Thread #49
- The Iceberg » Blog Archive » A Story About Chastity (Sort Of) on Open Thread #49
- J on KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
- user-81 on Open Thread #49
- user-81 on KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
- Brian on Open Thread #49
- globalvillageidiot on Open Thread #49
- user-81 on KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
- J on KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
- The Goat on KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
- Mizar5 on KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
-
Most Popular Posts
- Lee Pani Releases More Photos
- Candlelight Rallies are Back
- Cool Heads Prevail at the Chosun in US Beef Editorial
- Open Thread #49
- Open Thread #48
- Stephen Colbert Has His Day in the Rain...
- 'Kim Jong-il, Who Sticks Up to the US, Would be Better'
- Lee Pa-ni selected Korea's second Playboy model
- KoAm Housewives Warn Motherland Against US Beef
- Tragic. And Disgusting.
-
Archives
-
Meta
42 Comments
I’ve known that since I gave up being leftish a while ago. As to the second bit, that’s a rationalization by lefties to make themselves feel morally superior, when in actuality they are the ones usually less tolerant and more open to authoritarian ideas, like “we know better than you what is best for you.”
I assume the research controlled for the current political situation. I would likely loose a few hapiness points if Obama became president.
On the other hand, an Obama presidency would give Americans of all stripes a chance to give large parts of the planet a healthy dose of STFU.
Example 1: In 2010, an Egyptian says “You Americans still have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Now you have just invaded Pakistan. You are against Muslims.”
American: “Hey, STFU. Our president, Barack Hussein Obama, came from a Muslim daddy and spent two years in a (moderate) Muslim school in Indonesia. He loves Muslims.”
Example 2: A German says “You Americans have no respect for the opinion of others. Look at how your president is acting alone on North Korea without getting the approval of your allies.”
American: “Hey, STFU. We have a black president. You can continue to STFU until you have a Turkish chancellor.” Something along those lines could also be used for French/Algerian, Spanish/Moroccan, or British/Indian as need.
I don’t know. I think it is a 50/50 chance that my happiness meter will go down a few notches next January.
Will is actually brilliant in that piece. Or is it that self-deluded leftist apologists are so like idiot savants, sans the artistic abilities?
I found the explanation that “Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities” most interesting, and true. “Liberty or Equality“? asked the great Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, implying, correctly, that you can’t have both.
Lefties are funny. Those champions of free speech poof more comments on blogs than any others that I have encountered.
What do you fellow Maggot …erm …Marmot readers have to say?
That’s because if you don’t agree with them, they try to silence you completely.
Sorta like banning military recruiters from high schools and college campuses, or banning them from entire towns like the Berkeley loons attempted.
If conservatives are so damn happy why do they spend so much time complaining?
I’m a liberal-libertarian-atheist kind of chap myself (certainly not a lefty), the only people who seem to bitch and moan more than the lunatic left are the moronic right.
Personally, I find both groups rather disagreeable.
If standard Conservatives are merely happy, this must explain why a Paleoconservative like myself is absolutely euphoric on a daily basis.
Western Confucian, I hope that IS a joke… Otherwise, as they say, ‘get well soon!’
Quoting a ‘conservapoopia’ reference is way beyond quoting a wiki.
Sorry I forgot the link from my favourite online ‘wisdom base’.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conservative
Or sticking them in a prison in an island military base and claiming that they’re beyond US jurisdiction.
Or putting them on a ‘no fly list’.
According to the research, conservatives are happier because they can easily ignore the world’s problems.
The mentally handicapped also share the same ability.
Keep smiling, boys.
Well, as they say, ignorance is bliss…
Just kidding!
At least liberals never end up being nicknamed “The Marmot.”
Hmm. Interesting. I seem to remember being taken to task a bit for implying that this blog is “conservative” in its leanings, something I took as somewhat obvious, and a point made in passing, more than a point to be made.
So, Marmot — given the apparent offense to which you took at the articles, would you say you consider yourself and your blog “conservative?” Is that post a sign of that? Just wondering.
Personally, I think the specific political labels as they are often used in the US of “conservative” or “liberal” are often misleading; I actually don’t like being called a “liberal” and having my POV being dismissed as such because in many ways, I am “conservative”, e.g. when it comes to many of my views of the Bush administration, my harsh criticism of him, his cronies, and his policies come from a strict reading of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments, as well as to other basic Constitutional principles that his administration flagrantly violates, more than the standard Dem vs. Rep petty party politics that people often think is the divide between “liberal” and “conservative.”
I’ve been writing about this since 2005, and Naomi Wolf just penned a fascinating book along the same lines called “The End of America.” Yes, she’s known as a flaming “liberal” but the basis upon which she writes her warning is inherently as a conservative “patriot.” I describe myself the same way in my own essay “America, the Theoretically Beautiful, as Written by a True ‘Conservative.’” My definition of the term comes in terms of a stricter reading of the Constitution than most, and it gets me into trouble with some “liberal” friends with whom I often disagree on in terms of some aspects of gun control or even abortion. It is actually the main source of my rage in the 2000 election, since the Supreme Court should have let the recount happen, and not have become the de facto decider. It’s about how the process works, the mandate, belief that the system “works”: had Bush won in a recount, I and many like me would have been unhappy, but we would not have considered his election as illegitimate. Constitutionally, that was a major problem. So is suspension of the dividing line between the state and individual rights that relies on the burden of proof being on the state to actively show probable cause for conducting a search of your person — the Bush administration’s Patriot Act, for example, has actively worked to eliminate this barrier for the purpose of “national security.” Such aggressive executive oversteps have been endemic to the office since Adams and the Federalist went berzerkers with anti-French nationalism and tried to jail their political critics and opponents. This isn’t “conspiracy theory” or whatever those who dislike criticisms of sitting presidents like to call it: it’s the basic problem the anti-Federalists saw as part and parcel of “interests” and the main reason they demanded a Bill of Rights. They were right as rain, and realized the state is inherently predisposed to violate individual rights. It’s funny how this basic principle of the Constitution and part of the legacy of post-Revolutionary political philosophy is dismissed as “liberal” ranting and raving these days.
But the reading of the word as used in the study seems even broader, as a term to denote someone apparently satisfied with the status quo, versus someone who is not. In that sense, is the study’s results even surprising? Is it even something akin to the bashing of the political “conservatives” as you seem to have suggested in the parallel links you made?
In the sense that those satisfied with the “way things are” — as the study in question seems to define it — don’t experience perhaps the increased psychological stress that comes from being dissatisfied with the system, social practices, or social norms, I don’t find this study at all surprising. Studies have shown that left-handed people experience greater stress in our right-handed society simply because they experience constant, greater physical stress in being forced to conform. In a psychological sense, those dissatisfied with the system are “left-handed” in not being a comfortable fit with the system, and hence there might be additional stressors in their lives. Is this really a surprising or offensive conclusion?
So, in sum, my point: I don’t think the term “conservative” in the study was necessarily meant in the same narrow, politicized, Dem vs. Rep way as it was taken.
My question, given the apparent offense you took at the study’s conclusion, would you then characterize yourself (and this blog, since you made it a major post) as “conservative”, and if so, in what sense are you defining the term?
And if not, why the offense at what seems like a pretty innocuous article, at least in terms of how “conservative” is broadly defined (i.e. perhaps not in the new way I choose to define it, or in the way American political warriors use it to define the “red/blue” divide).
A legitimate question, no? Given that this was a post on that very subject and has previously been a question that has come up before…
Would you characterize The Marmot’s Hole as “conservative”, as one might take from a look at the founder, the overall topics being treated by the blog, the subjects and modes of discourse of the other contributers, and last (but certainly not least), the commenters?
Inquiring minds want to know, and I am certainly not the only one who has broached the question, especially in days of late.
I could have asked that same question using about 98% fewer words. That probably makes me a “conservative” as well.
Metro:blog commenting::chihuahua:barking
The difference between disagreement and trying to frag someone is significant, it seems.
That was a very nice study on oral constipation, metro. I’m anxiously awaiting your next exegesis on the mundane.
#7: “That’s because if you don’t agree with them, they try to silence you completely.”
Like this guy:
http://www.rjkoehler.com/2008/.....ent-152696
Neither side has a monopoly on trying to shut up the other.
Metro — remind me where I took offense to my blog being called “conservative” again. Preferably in 50 words or less.
More Kulturkampf shite. This belongs on Fox News. Yawn.
@9, 10
conservapedia…
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics
latent homosexuality must be a bitch.
Of course they’re happy! In the past 8 years they’ve
started 1 war, didn’t finish it so they could start another, didn’t finish that so they want to start a 3rd.
1) gutted the competition
2) wrecked New Orleans
3) destroyed public education
4) brought back nooses
5) stifled dissent
6) ran the government like it was their personal piggybank
7) sent countless youth to die
9) corrupted the Justice dept.
10) violated numerous international laws and didn’t care on the basis of race
11) reinstated the poll tax to keep poor people from voting
12) blocked children’s health care
13) corrupted the MSM into parroting extremist talking points
14) assisted corporations in killing Americans thru shoddy medical care and poisoned products
15) bragged about supporting the troops, but when they came back disabled, cut their medical care. And interfered with their right to vote.
16) made the US into a debtor nation to China and the Middle East
17) enriched the oil companies while interfering with global climate change measures and preventing improvements in energy policy.
So of course they’re happy! Destroying America was their goal. As far as they’re concerned, it’s “Mission almost accomplished”! They’re slapping hi-fives with Bin Laden!
AgentX,
I sense a little anger there. Try to relax.
#22 - Well, part of it was in the comment section of the flamewar post you nuked, where I think I said in passing that since this was a conservative blog, blah, blah. To me, it’s was just a passing comment, but you seemed to be surprised at that description. I’m not exactly sure which comment it was, or even if it was in that post, but it’s not the only place this question has come up. I was just a bit surprised to see you bristle at the term “conservative” and upon seeing this post, and seeing your blog described as such again and very recently around the blogosphere, I decided to ask you those questions.
Which you didn’t answer by the way, but it’s your choice to do so. I was and am asking out of curiosity, not as an attack. It’s something people (London Links being one) are talking about, and since “conservatism” is the subject of the post, I wonder how you react to being described as “conservative.”
From what I remembered, you bristled at the description, but perhaps my memory is faulty there. When in doubt, ask, I always say.
And sorry - I don’t function in terms of “50 words or less,” which shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone here.
I wonder how happy the bush administration has made everyone, conservatives or liberals?
any dead-enders here still support the worst administration ever?
No, Metro, I objected to your description of the comment section as conservative. While I haven’t asked my commenters to identify their political affiliations, I gather from observation that many of my regular commenters — the American ones, anyway — would identify themselves as Democrats. I just think you confuse “disagree with me/dislike my style of posting” with membership in the John Birch Society, when the two are not necessarily one and the same.
As for the blog itself, well, given how I’m the most frequent poster, and I could be fairly described as a conservative (albeit of the libertarian, increasingly Ron Paul-esque variety), I guess that would make this blog conservative in editorial tone. Andy Jackson is openly conservative, too. As for R. Elgin, Sanshin, Mins and Wangkon, you’d have to ask them about their politics.
#25: Holy terminal case of Bush Derangement Syndrome, Batman.
Well, I think the opposite — I don’t have a problem with the reasonableness or leanings so much of the posters, but the commenters, no matter their political affiliations, are pretty ascerbic. Sure, they tend to dislike me, but I’m not the only one who remarks about the particularly acidic quality of “Marmot’s Hole commenters” and the very frat boy atmosphere here.
In terms of overall content, things tending to revolve around North Korean politics, hard political news, things of that nature tends to elicit a reaction that is American, male, and right of center. Which is fine, since some of my views overlap there, some do not.
My own blog tends to focus on identity politics, the education system, and getting on the Korean media’s ass, and heavy criticism of the Bush administration — which deservedly gets me called “liberal”, although that political label doesn’t define the full range of my views.
Anyway, thanks for the answer. Considering that people are always getting on you about it these days — namely King Baeksu, with whom I don’t think it’s a secret that we haven’t gotten along in the past, but that’s the one point he and others tend to needle you on in other places and I myself was curious about hearing more of, albeit outside of the heated context it usually came up in — and I thought having a conversation about it might be interesting, since it came to mind upon reading this post.
Anyway, fair enough. Thanks.
As a liberal who values freedom, I think a few of the posts above prove the point I previously made.
Conservative does not = happy
Now come on… Conservatives didn’t wreck New Orleans. A flippin’ force of nature did. The administration was just late to the clean up party.
Don’t be surprised if few read everything, and instead read the first and last sentence only…
Too bad there’s not a way to make money from all that verbiage. I believe he mentioned Naomi Wolf (sp?) or someone earns money writing down similar words?
The article’s point is that conservatives care less about other people’s suffering than progressives do, and therefore ignorance really is bliss (”the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities”).
So it’s self-evident. Southern US pro-slavery folks were happier than abolitionists before the Civil War. If you lived in Nazi Germany, you were probably happier as a Jew-hating Nazi than as a Jew-loving democrat.
As the article notes, conservatives tend to believe that vast inequality is justified and/or necessary. Progressives (even pro-market ones like me) know that there isn’t any justification for other people’s suffering, none other than our own small-minded selfishness and lack of imagination. Progressives tend to view the improvement of civilization as an increase in overall empathy and compassion in addition to material advances. E.M. Forster called it the spread of tenderness. In fact progressives are prone to believe that without increasing empathy we will destroy ourselves with our own marvelous tools and life on earth will be proven chaff, not wheat.
Conservatives counter that vast inequality is necessary for the sake of personal motivation. The very selfishness and rapacity of capitalism will lift up even the very poor. But progressives know that relative wealth is also extremely important. In absolute terms a tribal king might have been poorer than a Dickensian plumber, but the king sure didn’t feel that way. Because of this, the “my selfishness is your ticket to prosperity” mantra of conservatism backfires, because increasing prosperity the purely selfish way leads to increases in technology that will let the tribal king realize he’s poorer than the British plumber, and then he’ll feel poorer as well, and he’ll become resentful and bitter at your highly rationalized selfishness, particularly if he doesn’t have enough empathy or tenderness to feel for those beyond his own tribe. And then you have things like 9/11 or the sacking of Rome (from which there was never a full recovery). Add nukes and poof… So a progressive might say that advances in technology and increases in wealth will be directed toward selfish means such as war if the advances aren’t accompanied by increases and the spread of empathy and compassion. So when the progressive sees other people’s suffering, it’s both repugnant because the progressive feels others’ pain and because it signals that the world isn’t yet on a good enough course as long as other people’s suffering doesn’t outrage everyone.
This is a good summary;
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn......-liberals/
That’s a large part of what the study is actually getting at, which deflates a lot of the pseudo-intellectual types (the world is so unfair… blame it on society?).
That is incorrect, Richardson, totally flawed, and here’s why. The main problem in the view of liberals or progressives is not that there’s a meritocracy, it’s that not enough people are insidethe meritocracy.
Only if you believe that the difference between someone who lives on $1 a day and someone who lives on $1,000 a day is the correct result of a meritocracy, only then can you believe that Cafferty turd. To try and explain away others’ real suffering as mere pseudo-intellectual whining is just another means of avoidance.
In a word, the notion that conservatives care less about other people, have less empathy, etc., is complete ddong. Conservatives make slightly less than leftists (I tend not to use the misnomer “liberal” for those on the left of the spectrum), yet give about 30 percent more to charities, the cold-hearted bastards.
Equality takes on a different meaning with vastly different consequences for conservatives and leftists, particularly in options vs. outcomes. Probably responsibilities vs. rights fall within the same category. Both sides have problems, but equal outcomes is fatally flawed; people have different skills, motivations, intelligence, etc. that lead them to different occupations, spouses, lifestyles and so on. What you do with it is your choice and the result is your responsibility. That tends to make leftists extremely uncomfortable.
So there are competing approaches on how to carry out some of the same policy goals. But to say conservatives lack in empathy is burying your head in the sand. Deeply.
I’ve seen it too much to take what you say as factual. Oh, I’m sure you believe it; but you also talked about how conservatives don’t have any empathy. Finally, you seem to be confusing meritocracy with the actual outcome of most leftist policies; mediocrity.
Do i want social change, if yes vote liberal.
If no, vote conservative.
Conservatives dont rationalize inequality away, they just dont care.
Sorry for being late to the party. but…
Re: #29:
“No, Metro, I objected to your description of the comment section as conservative. While I haven’t asked my commenters to identify their political affiliations, I gather from observation that many of my regular commenters — the American ones, anyway — would identify themselves as Democrats.”
Robert, you can’t be serious. The majority of your regular commenters seem pretty conservative to me. True, the commenting section has moved away from the extreme right in the past couple of years and clearly left-leaning comments no longer get gang-raped, but it’s still clearly right of center.