Surveys and Reality

I've been a regular listener to the Slate Political Gabfest - it is a great way to understand reality in the realm of Washington liberals. The three discussants have very little knowledge of conservatives, except as museum pieces. One, Emily Bazelon (who is a daughter of David Bazelon the judge), who is a former Mother Jones reporter, has been since the start a complete wonk for Obama.

I was struck in their May 9 Podcast about her reportage on a survey from two NYU researchers which argued that conservatives are happier. A lot of surveys like that are silly. What defines happiness? Do you use an index? Is the index viable across groups? But the survey which was released in late April, has gotten a lot of coverage.

Bazelon, commented, the indicator was basically correct but the reasoning was that conservatives care less about equity/fairness and thus the striving liberal is unhappy simply because the liberal takes on the burden of trying to solve equity. Bazelon wore that mantel as a badge of honor.

I think the survey was pretty silly, simply because it would be hard to understand how a definition of happiness could be normed (that is the economist in me, Utilities cannot be summed). But were it right there is another and much more compelling argument which contradicts Bazelon's notion. Bazelon's definition of equity/fairness comes through the lens of governmental action. Most conservatives would reject the notion that government can actually improve equity significantly, if at all.

What is also interesting, however, is living on one's actions. According to a lot of research conservatives tend to be more generous on charitable causes than liberals do. One could easily argue that is a demonstration of their commitment to equity - just not governmentally imposed equity.