The right

by Rand E Oertle

Created on: June 01, 2011

The nature of happiness and the inherent political tendencies of liberals and conservatives would argue that conservatives are happier.  It is fascinating to evaluate the ultimate goals of the two groups and the underlying principles each holds dear. 

What separates the two ideologies is that one has a herd mentality and the other an individual mentality.  The natural dichotomy of how each member of the two groups gravitates to either their herd or independent ethos is where the question gets more difficult.  

It is not a given as to what drives the adoption of the divergence, but the definition of the goals of each intellectual perceptions or mind-set could hold a crucial key. 

It is fair to assume that each group holds similar goals to advance humanity, despite how political ads attempt to paint the objectives of the other as barbaric.  One political ideology tries to portray liberals as willingly putting murders on the street while the other shows grandma in a wheel chair being pushed off a cliff as illustrations of the negative and destructive constructs of the other.  

The specifics are much different.  Each theory of happiness is universally accepted as Founding Father Thomas Jefferson proposed in the preamble to the United States Constitution "the pursuit of happiness." It is in the pursuit where most disagreements are posed but also where the defining elements of the perception of happiness are found. 

Liberals flaunt their alleged unrelenting effort to help the downtrodden by appropriating from the rich.  The logical problem for liberals is that their focus is then on finding problems to solve or unspeakable wrongs to right.  Essentially it puts them in a constant quest to find the negative in society in order for them to right the wrong.  The fundamental premise of such a directive is to seek the negative. 

It is a philosophical pathology that to be happy you must perpetually be searching for and finding the dismal.  To fulfill your destiny to help those in need one must find happiness in the discovery of misery with the ultimate goal of relieving that misery.

The fallacies in the proposition are in the concept of a herd mentality, because the herd's survival is the goal, and some members of the herd are stronger than others.  The core of what that means is that the strong must be diminished to empower the weak.  In that concept the liberal purports to find the ultimate happiness which is the survival of the weak.  Unfortunately, by essentially weakening the strong to empower the feeble, lessens the power of the whole.  Liberals, understand the contradiction, but refuse to accept the proposition since it would stab at the heart of their fountain of happiness.

Nature follows a prescription exactly opposite to "herdism" (to coin a word.)  But, the question is what does the effort to always protect the weak from all challenges do to the challenged?  It is a nagging irritant to liberals who don’t want to accept the fact that frequently from weakness comes strength.  It is written in the stories of Helen Keller and Gandhi.   

In a way, a liberal knows that for the frail to survive each must recognize and accept challenges in their lives.  Everyone has watched incredibly challenged individuals face what seem to be insurmountable obstacles, overcome them and flourish. 

A television report recently followed the story of a young man from Brazil who was abandoned by his birth mother at an orphanage and adopted by an American couple.  He has no arms. He has no legs. But he did have two loving parents and siblings who didn't coddle him. 

His self-found strengths did not come from accepting the feigned compassion of others but from his fortitude and ability to overcome his challenges.  His "rugged individualism" is what his story is all about.  Being accepted as a strong individual, not a weaker member of a herd was his center.  He was an incredibly happy young man because he understood that happiness did not come from the donations of a herd but from his individual effort. With that effort came respect and with that respect and effort his self-actualized happiness.

This young man was taught to fish…in the metaphorical sense.  He was not given a fish as is the nucleus of liberal philosophy, not because it helps a particular individual, but because it satisfies the liberal's need to gratify a kind of internal guilt.  Apparently a liberal’s happiness must be purchased by a perpetual need to define oneself as compassionate.  It is a laudable and necessary goal, but what is lacking is the price paid by those who submit to perpetual welfare servitude. 

The next question is the proposition of the allegedly uncompassionate conservative.  Because the concept of enlightened self-interest for the individual is at the core of a conservative and "rugged individualism" is its manifestation, it is called a callous disregard by those said to be in need.  But is that true?

The argument is that a conservative's goal is to take advantage of another and that is how they are happy.  Liberal talking points clamor that the rich are wealthy because they suppress and take advantage of the poor.  That is of course, not true if the wealthy are such liberals as Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros or Peter Lewis all of whom could be criticized for taking advantage of a weakened competitor to acquire their fortunes….not a prescription for happiness.

Does the proposition of providing all for those in need help or hinder their capabilities.  Does it make the individual stronger or weaker?  Does self-sufficiency enhance self-esteem and self-worth and thus an inherent happiness or does it instill despair? The essential concept of self-worth and happiness is written by the internal capacity to overcome difficulties. 

Those who find joy within themselves and their accomplishments tend to be happier. The liberal herd mentality requires a sublimation of self which is anathema to internal happiness.  The conservative concept of enlightened self-interest promotes-self esteem and delights in the success of each individual which is where an individual finds his or her greatest happiness.

Happiness for a conservative is a matter of all celebrating each individual’s success and accomplishments whether great or small.  While liberals require the imposition of one will, restricting success to bring all to an enforced level of mediocrity to squelch prominence.

Which would produce the greater happiness herd sublimation or individual freedom?

Learn more about this author, Rand E Oertle.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.