This Summer, New York University researchers Jaime Napier and John Tost suggested that people on the Left are generally not as happy as their counterparts on the Right. Ewen Callaway explains:
The recent surge in home foreclosures, for instance, is due to poor economic choices on the part of borrowers, a conservative might think. Liberals, on the other hand, seethe at predatory lenders and lax government regulation of the mortgage industry.
The result: conservatives mix a martini and hit the country club, while liberals write angry letters and stage protests.
Stop and think for a moment: What goods do progressives ultimately demand, if not greater happiness for more people? Indeed, progress has no purpose if it does not result in more happiness. Good democratic governance is useless when it does not make the governed more happy. Thus, progressives, when they themselves are not as happy as they easily could be, are contradicting the progressive project in their own lives.
Consider two regions in Los Angeles: Santa Monica and Skid Row. If it were possible to rank small urban regions on the Human Development Index, then Santa Monica’s score would far exceed that of Skid Row. If Napier and Tost are correct, then progressives in Santa Monica should be falling short of their own potential for happiness because of their sensitivity to the systemic injustices that have kept Skid Row and its inhabitants in such a horrible, unhappy condition. In other words, some people believe so strongly in happiness that their own happiness is compromised when other people are unhappy. Do you sense the contradiction here?
Even if the research results do not lead decisively to these inferences, we can confirm them anecdotally by speaking with liberals — wealthy or not. Just ask them how they feel about the poor. And I am not trying to make a universal truth claim about all progressive people in Santa Monica. But thinking in terms of real examples often makes things easier.
Think about the tremendously costly investments that have been made in order for life in the U.S. to be good enough to score in the top fraction of the H.D.I. If, like me, you have a relative who died in the Second World War, then you probably know what I mean. When we live in a high-H.D.I. society and make personal choices that compromise our own happiness, those costly investments are effectively delivering lower returns. Public investments in infrastructure, education, and economic opportunities pay off when we are happy as a result. The fact that people have often sacrificed their lives for various liberal democratic societies, and the fact that many of those deaths have contributed favorably to human development in those societies, all suggests to me that their residents have a responsibility to be as happy as possible.
If happiness is so important, then be happy. If you are lucky enough to live today in a high-H.D.I. environment, then make the most of it.