Why are secular liberals so unhappy? This question is provocatively discussed in Arthur Brooks' new book Gross National Happiness. Brooks is a sociologist and statistician at Syracuse University. I am reading his book while vacationing with my lovely wife on the beautiful island of Santorini. So it's natural for me, watching the most beautiful sunsets in the world, martini in hand, to think about the question of happiness.
Brooks' book is full of interesting data. We learn, for instance, that money does buy happiness, but only upto a point. Poor people and poor countries are unhappy, and by the self-description of the people involved. So the movement from grinding poverty to the comfortable middle-class brings a huge gain in happiness. But interestingly economic improvement at this point brings diminishing marginal returns. This is not to say that rich people aren't happier: they are. But not by very much.
Brooks also shows that, in his own words, "people who say they are conservative or very conservative are nearly twice as likely to say they are very happy than are people who call themselves liberal or very liberal. Conservatives are much less likely to say they are dissatisfied with themselves, that they are inclined to feel like a failure, or to be pessimistic about their future." Conservatives' mental health is far better than that of liberals.
Equally fascinating, Brooks notes that "faith is an incredible predictor, and cause, of happiness. Religious people of all faiths are much, much happier on average than secularists." Specifically, 43 percent of those who attend church weekly or more call themselves "very happy," versus 23 percent who attend seldom or never. Observant Jews and Christians are by Brooks' measure the happiest people in America.
So why are secular liberals in general so miserable? I offer two reasons. The first is that liberals are political utopians. They consider human nature to be wonderful, and they expect freedom to be used wonderfully well. So they are always bitterly disappointed when they discover that this is not the case. Conservatives, by contrast, have a dimmer view of human nature. So their expectations are more modest. When things don't turn out half-badly, conservatives are pleasantly surprised. They are happier because it takes less to make them happier.
It's not too hard to figure out why religious people are happier. Belief in God gives people a powerful sense of higher purpose in life. It assures people that the universe is in the benign hands of a omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate higher power. It offers people a code for how to live. It gives us a reason to hope in cosmic justice, which is better than the imperfect justice of our terrestrial world.
By contrast, secular people have little to hope for. They are sure that they came from nowhere--the chance product of random mutation and natural selection--and are going nowhere. They know that terrible things happen, and they don't believe there is any purpose in this. No wonder that secular people have so few children: they have much less reason than religious people to believe in the future.
So why is an atheist like Richard Dawkins so frequently wearing a conspitated scowl? And why am I usually smiling? Some may attribute these differences to our genetic temperaments. Others may put it down to the fact that I live in sunny California, eating healthy nouvelle cuisine and going on walking tours in Santorini. Dawkins, by contrast, lives in dank, rainy England and eats abominable English food. ("May I offer you some more kidney pie, Professor Dawkins? It's somewhat bland, I know, but perhaps it will work as a laxative.")
But Arthur Brooks would probably say that our temperaments are also the consequences of two very different worldviews, one producing the wholesome optimism of What's So Great About Christianity, the other the angry bitterness of The God Delusion. Read Brooks' new book yourself to see if he's right.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 42)
16. Actually, given that there's a chance that I can FINALLY get married to my love, this has been the happiest I've been in years. Funny how the closer we secular liberals get to that "political utopia" the happier we get.
But really, this is just another fluff piece by Dinesh. It has two not so subtle thrusts: if you believe in God and conservative values you will be happy; if you are a secular liberal then you are a miserable fool. Thus with two great generalist brush strokes he maginalizes the myriad nuances and subtle differences that make individuals unique.
And I have to agree, liberals are generally dissastified with the world at large? Why? Because we still recognize the manifest unfairness, selfishness, and hatred holding humanity back from its full potential. We went to the moon, folks. When we truly applied ourselves we went to another world. Not with prayer and promises but by the simple focus and application of will that we were able to muster. Walking away from the moon because it was boring is like a doctor saving a life and then deciding it is too routien and quitting. Of course being a liberal is frustrating, because as far as we have come we have so much further to go.
The irony is that Dinesh calls liberals like me a political utopian, with snide insinuations that we are unrealistic and deluded in our desire to see a more perfect union, world piece, economic responsibility, and personal discipline. Yet for theists to recieve their utopia, all they have to do is die believing the right god. And how wonderful for them that their god is, of course, the right one. Dinesh mocks secular liberals for our Utopia desires? At least we don't have to die to make it a reality. And sure, we might not ever make a truly fair and truly responsible humanity. But making it isn't the goal. Trying. Striving. Working to improve and advance the species to something better, more compassionate, more responsible and enlightened... that is it point of secular humanism.
Somber at 12:33PM on May 23rd 2008
17. why is rush limbaugh the most popular whiner on the airwaves if the above is true?
abbot at 12:34PM on May 23rd 2008
18. I read about a survey(maybe it was quoted from the book) that said pretty much the same thing. Conservatives are generaly happier than liberals. It also found conservatives were less likely to care about others and more likley to justify there own wrong doing. The unspoken conclusion, happiness is being an asshole.
tmo at 12:35PM on May 23rd 2008
19. WHAT? Santorini? No Amsterdamn Red Light District this year DD?
Larry at 12:40PM on May 23rd 2008
20. 50% of happiness is genetic and extremists tend to be happier than moderates.
could it be that people who are more moderate are so unhappy because they see self-absorbed extremists fucking up the world and are upset by it because they care about more than just themselves?
Richelle at 12:42PM on May 23rd 2008
21. Amen, Somber!
What more can (or should) be said? Nothing. Let's all go out and enjoy the weekend!
Robert at 12:45PM on May 23rd 2008
22. Why wouldn't DD be happy? He dosen't really work or produce anything usefull, it's like he's on welfare. DD simply gets mass quantities of minimum wage Red State workers to shell out nice money for his books so he can go to Santorini while his readers go to Wal Mart. I would be drinking martini's too. There is a sucker born every minute and DD takes advantage of every one them.
Larry at 12:58PM on May 23rd 2008
23. "There are two kinds of people in this world: those who seek happiness, and those who seek truth. Most people seek happiness, but it is those rare, often solitary figures, the truth-seekers who advance the progress of the human race."
emelpe at 12:18PM on May 23rd 2008
There are only two types of people in the world. Those who say there are two or more types of people in the world and those who don't.
And I would whole-heartedly recommend you ignore the irony in the above paragraph for the gist: your statement is utterly without merit.
Once again it shows that you think there are only two sides to any argument (hence your two types of people comment). The side you agree with and the side you say is specifically in opposition to your view. A lot of times this idea is just not the case.
oneblood at 1:02PM on May 23rd 2008
24. This article = staggeringly ignorant.
Derek Lloyd at 1:04PM on May 23rd 2008
25. "could it be that people who are more moderate are so unhappy because they see self-absorbed extremists fucking up the world and are upset by it because they care about more than just themselves?"
probably not, because as studies show religious conservatives are also more charitable. So maybe a sense that you are making a positive difference in someone else's life makes you more happy.
bigTuna at 1:11PM on May 23rd 2008
26. Three comments DD on your latest tedious output.
1. Money makes you happier and conservatives are happier, according the the survey whose results I don't dispute. But now tell me if conservatives are wealthier than liberals on average. When you have that comparison, and it shows that conservatives are not wealthier, I'll be much more willing to believe conservatives are happier based on their ideology (religion aside) rather than money.
2. Speaking of conservatives and religion, give us the data on whether conservatives are more likely to be religious. When you have that comparison, and it shows that conservatives are not more religious, I'll be much more willing to believe conservatives are happier based on their ideology (money aside) rather than religion.
3. Getting onto religion...it's no suprise that people with strong religious beliefs are more content/happy. As you say....
"Belief in God gives people a powerful sense of higher purpose in life. It assures people that the universe is in the benign hands of a omnipotent, omniscient, and compassionate higher power."
It is well documented that myths, community knowledge, traditions, and yes, a commom belief in certain religious concepts can be harmonizing forces for both communities and the individual. All you have to do is read Joseph Campbell to understand that. Consider, however, that:
a. Christianity doesn't holds any special power in this regard over say Hinduism, Judaism, Pantheism, Santorini, or any other myth-based religion or even magic or astrology for that matter ("my horoscope says I'll have a good day, so I'm happy").
b. In believing in myths a person is taking the equivalent of a "mental valium" in trading-off the "feel good" for not really seeing the world as it is. If you want to sacrifice your intellectual honesty by beliving in myths, go for it.
c. One can get the same "happiness" benefit by leading a spiritual, moral, ethical life absent the religious dogma. Einstein was your topic yesterday and he clearly outlined a non-theistic (or at least, a non-anthropomorphic deistic), spiritual "religion" that was based on his awe and wonder at the beauty of the natural universe.
d. One can simply follow a Tony Robbins or Covey or other type power of "positive thinking" process to get the same motivation and happiness that promote a "happy" perspective of life without having to cave into ideas that clearly aren't true.
Once again DD, you state the obvious, then twist it to fit you worldview.
John Galt
John Galt at 1:13PM on May 23rd 2008
27. it is also known that people with an internal locust of control are happier than people with an external locust of control.
so, taking responsibility for you own life and your own happiness makes you happier than saying "well, there is nothing i can do about it, this is how my life was meant to be"
thinking god laid the map of your life out for you is not beneficial to one's happiness.
Richelle at 1:17PM on May 23rd 2008
28. bigtuna i said extermists, not just conservative extremists. extremists on BOTH sides of the spectrum tend to be more happy. and i remember the discussion on the conservatives being "more charitable" on this blog several months ago and the question was brought up whether donations to one's own church were being counted toward that "charity" and the implications of that
Richelle at 1:20PM on May 23rd 2008
29. "27. it is also known that people with an internal locust of control are happier than people with an external locust of control."
Richelle at 1:17PM on May 23rd 2008
It's locus. The locust idea takes this debate into another arena.
oneblood at 1:24PM on May 23rd 2008
30. I meant Santeria not Santorini...but hey, why not build a religion around a Greek Island...It's as good as anything.
John Galt
John Galt at 1:23PM on May 23rd 2008