George Will, on happy conservatives. I have mixed feelings about the Pew study (which actually shows a stronger correlation between party identification and happiness, rather than relative conservatism and happiness). On the one hand, it could be interpreted as an indictment of Democrats and Independents (your views don't even make you happy!) On the other hand, happy people are really annoying. And Republicans are annoying. So it's kind of what I would have expected.

Will's take on it is, predictably, smug and somewhat off the mark. He uses it to advance a favorite pet theory, that conservatives are more pessimistic/realistic, which has the somewhat paradoxical effect of making them happier.

First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events.

(Sure -- just like the Bush administration!)

Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.

I suppose it is to be expected that he attributes to other, hypothetical conservatives more sophisticated philosophy than I would. That is, when Will is describing "what conservatives think" he is describing what he thinks, and explaining why he considers himself to be a conservative. But does he consider himself to be "very happy"? He doesn't actually say.

He does recognize that right wingers don't exactly act happy nowadays, and is quick to distance himself from those frothing-at-the mouth pundits.

Nevertheless, normal conservatives -- never mind the gladiators of talk radio; they are professionally angry -- are less angry than liberals.

See? In spite of their popularity -- and the fact that they pretty much define the public face of conservatism in the modern era -- Limbaugh and his ilk are not normal conservatives. Normal conservatives aren't angry like liberals are!

You know, it's funny how much being told I'm irrationally angry makes me...angry. But I think that's sort of the expected response, isn't it? Give it a try. Walk up to some random person and say, "Why are you so angry all the time?" and see how they react.

But no matter how often I'm told that "liberals" or "lefties" or "Democrats" are the perpetually angry ones, I just don't see the evidence for it. I think liberals are pretty outraged, nowadays, but, you know, we have reasons. I suppose you could say, one side's justified outrage is the other side's irrational anger.

But compare Michael Moore to Ann Coulter. They're not really very much alike, but they were seen as equivalent enough to be both engaged by USA Today to give perspective on the 2004 political conventions -- Coulter for the Democrats, Moore for the Republicans. Moore's columns were all published, Coulter's were not. The official statement from Brian Gallagher, editor of the editorial page, was that "We had a disagreement over editing. We worked diligently to resolve the differences and couldn't, so we decided to part ways." The column had "basic weaknesses in clarity and readability that we found unacceptable." (They replaced her with the equally annoying, but less violence-prone, Jonah Goldberg.) Anyway, my point is that Moore -- whether you think he's full of baloney or not -- has never threatened conservatives with violence, accused them of treason simply for being conservatives, opined that conservatives should be put in camps, called for Timothy McVeigh to bomb the building where National Review is published, or suggested that more conservative Supreme Court justices should be poisoned while Clinton was still president to ensure a relatively liberal replacement. Moore is angry about a lot of things, but he expresses his anger mostly through humor. He seems like a pretty genial guy -- you know, a good guy to have lunch with. I would be nervous to even have Coulter in the same room with me. She seems kind of psycho. Maybe it's an act, but I think it's a Hamlet kind of act -- you know, she's pretending to by psycho to cover up the fact that she actually is psycho.

But if you asked them how happy they were, what would they say? Would the one with a more pleasant demeanor be the one who claimed to be happier?

Liberals have made this the era of surly automobile bumpers

Um...I'm sorry, George, but you're simply incorrect. Liberals have no monopoly on surly bumper stickers. Or do you suppose that the "Keep honking -- I'm reloading!" old chestnut is a liberal favorite? Or how about bumper stickers demanding "US out of the UN"? "Earth First -- we'll log the other planets later!" "Don't like the way I drive? Stay off the sidewalk!" "Wife and dog missing. Reward for dog" "Kerry is scary" "Boycott Hollywood" "Hippies suck" "I love my country -- but fear my government" "Welcome to America -- now learn English!" "Anyone but Hillary" "Everyone is entitled to my opinion" "Guns don't kill people -- I do" "I see dumb people" "Welcome to Washington State -- now go home!"

Much bumper-sticker surliness has no particular political affiliation, really. Although Will seems a little confused on that point, because his actual example of a "surly" liberal bumper sticker is:

millions of them, still defiantly adorned with Kerry-Edwards and even Gore-Lieberman bumper stickers, faded and frayed like flags preserved as relics of failed crusades.

I hate to break it to you, George, but there is nothing inherently surly about favoring the Democratic candidate. Nice poetic imagery there, though my own observation is somewhat different -- just the other day I remarked to Paul, "doesn't it seem like people's Kerry bumper stickers are looking awfully fresh and shiny? Almost like they're replacing them. You know, sort of a 'don't blame me, I voted for Kerry' with extra cred?"

Of course, my personal observations aren't statistically significant. But then, neither are Will's.

To preserve these mementos of dashed dreams, many liberals may be forgoing the pleasures of buying new cars -- another delight sacrificed on the altar of liberalism.

Okay, that's just silly, and I suspect Will knows it. Nobody avoids buying a new car because they don't want to lose their collection of bumper stickers. Or at least, I have never met such a person, nor have I heard credible anecdotal evidence that such a person exists. Maybe liberals are less likely to buy new cars, for environmental or economic reasons, but I don't know if you'd call that "foregoing pleasure." I don't want a new car. They're expensive, and shopping for them is annoying. I would prefer to have our Honda Civic last forever and ever. I know that's not going to happen, but it's what would give me more pleasure. Plus, new car smell makes me want to vomit. I hate new car smell. The only smell I hate more than new car smell is the smell of those markers which are alleged to smell like blueberries and cinnamon.

Undoubtedly, were I a conservative, I would enjoy new car smell.

But, then, conscientious liberals cannot enjoy autos because there is global warming to worry about, and the perils of corporate-driven consumerism, which is the handmaiden of bourgeoisie materialism. And high-powered cars (how many liberals drive Corvettes?) are metaphors (for America's reckless foreign policy, for machismo rampant, etc.).

I'm not sure I know what he's talking about here. Are liberals miserable because they are aware of possible negative consequences of their actions? And conservatives aren't? Is that even a good thing? And aren't conservatives always harping on "personal responsibility"? So it's conservative to not enjoy sex because of potential negative consequences, but this makes them happier than liberals who can't enjoy automobiles because of potential negative consequences?

Or is he making an assumption here -- one Will actually makes a lot -- that all liberals are deadly serious lefty academic types, unable to take anything at face value and seemingly congenitally unable to enjoy anything? It kind of fits with his view that all conservatives are also academic types -- defenders of tradition and traditional pleasures, such as Shakespeare and cigars. (As opposed to crazy survivalists who paint anti-government slogans on their barns.)

Will, I hate to break it to you, but most people are not academics. Period.

Liberalism is a complicated and exacting, not to say grim and scolding, creed -- not one conducive to happiness.

Complicated? So liberalism is complicated...does that make conservatism simple? And if it does, does that make conservatives...simpleminded? And if they are, does that mean that their happiness is the happiness of the clueless and ignorant? You know, the kind of happiness that comes from sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la I can't hear you!"

The Pew survey shows that 50% of respondents consider themselves "pretty happy," 34% "very happy," and 15% "not too happy." Which makes "very happy" people a definite minority to start with. (Interestingly, 34% is also Bush's current approval rating.) So I have to wonder...is being "very happy" really the human norm?

See, there's kind of a problem if Will wants conservatives to "own" happiness -- it means they have to give up most of the great thinkers and artists, not to mention nearly every comedian, and Jesus. They didn't call him the "man of sorrows" for nothing.

Which is kind of ironic, since people who go to church more often report being happier than those who do not.