by Jonathan Young

Created on: March 06, 2008   Last Updated: February 19, 2009

Surveys report that conservatives are generally happier than liberals, and in a 2008 study, two psychologists concluded that a belief in meritocracy partly explained the difference (Napier and Jost, 2008). Because conservatives believe that society rewards merit, they are more inclined to look at inequality as a natural part of life, whereas liberals are more inclined to consider the roles played by luck and opportunity in success.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has also studied conservative beliefs, and points out that religion makes people happier and more generous with their personal finances. He concludes that religious morality strengthens community bonds, and that the secular campaign against religion neglects an understanding of how conservative communities function. Because liberals define morality largely in terms of harm and fairness, Haidt argues, they fail to understand the ways conservatives emphasize loyalty, respect for hierarchies and institutions, and purity.

Haidt observes that conservatives tend to be less optimistic about human nature and the advantages of personal freedom. But this is where the issue gets complicated, because while Haidt might be correct in observing that conservatives believe that human nature must be limited by authority, he has possibly neglected to observe that many liberals are also quite skeptical of human nature's potential goodness. This raises the question of why many liberals, be they optimistic or pessimistic about human nature, emphasize personal freedom either way.

Providing a satisfying answer is not easy, because whatever their political beliefs, people are far more complex than labels attached to policies. And to some extent, the categories of liberal and conservative are outdated. A curmudgeon could look at these categories, given the state of U.S. political and economic health, and wonder what they're really supposed to represent. Is conservatism supposed to uphold institutions like our legal system by respecting history and tradition? So what in the world happened with the Bush administration? Is liberalism supposed to emphasize personal freedom? Then why do many liberals support interventionist foreign policy, instead of letting other countries work out their own problems?

And what does any of this have to do with happiness? Psychologist Daniel Kahneman has popularized a useful term that might shed some light on the issue: "the hedonic treadmill." This means a state of constantly anticipating the next big thing (a promotion, a new car, etc.), rather than appreciating what one has in the present. Because religion emphasizes experiences (often including transcendence) over material things, it offers a way off the hedonic treadmill, and focuses a person's attention on other people. The secular response to religious experience is essentially: that doesn't work for us. Liberals then decide what does work for them, in terms of pursuing happiness without ending up on the hedonic treadmill, and this requires personal freedom.

Learn more about this author, Jonathan Young.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.