Image from www.despair.com

A couple of days ago there was an article from a yahoo website which outlines the results of a  Pew Research survey. This survey indicated that Republicans are generally happier than Democrats. There have been a few speculations as to why this may be. One of the possible reasons given was that Republicans generally have more money than Democrats. However the survey indicated that even at the same income level, the Republican respondents still were happier on average than the Democrat respondents. Another possible reason given was that the survey indicated that older people were happier than their younger counterparts. This assumes that as a person gets older, they are less likely to adhere to the idealistic rhetoric of the Democratic party once they have a job and start paying taxes.

I have my own speculations on this matter. Even though Republicans are not the laissez faire/free market capitalists that they wish they were, they are far more inclined to support this philosophy than their Democrat neighbors. Democrats tend to be socialistic in their economic and world view. This means the Democratic party is more likely to attract activists and Utopian social engineers. The problem with Utopians is that they wish for a “perfect world.” They want to remake the world in their own idealized image and they don’t care who’s rights and liberties get trampled in the process. Unfortunately for them, the world is not a Utopia and it never will be. This frustrates the average Democrat voter, which is the root of their unhappiness.

The odd thing is that for some reason, no matter what is done socialists and other leftists will never be happy. Take for example the leftist’s crusade against cigarettes. First they insisted upon a warning label on all cigarette packages. Once this was done, they still weren’t happy. Next they insisted upon banning smoking on commercial airlines. Were they satisfied then? Of course not.  Next, they pushed for a ban on smoking in any public building. Once that was done, did you think they would stop? Hell no! In states like New York, California, and Colorado smoking was banned in any bar or restaurant. If one were to think this would be enough to make the anti-tobacco crusaders content, one would be woefully mistaken. Now in the State of California it’s illegal to smoke on beaches or in state parks. Considering this progression of anti-tobacco tyranny, I would bet a week’s pay that the anti-smoking crusaders are far from done with their war on smoking.

Socialism is the political philosophy of envy. A socialist sees a person with wealth and success and thinks “That son of a bitch! Where the hell does he get off being so rich and successful? It’s just not fair! Why does the Doctor with eight years of higher education make more money than the high-school dropout working at McDonald’s?” No wonder these socialists are generally unhappy. Just like the anti-smoking activists, it doesn’t matter to the socialists how many programs are put in place to redistribute wealth, it will never be enough. The current welfare state and escalating bureaucracies that support it grow with each passing election cycle. However, the socialist weasels in our society still feel the rich aren’t paying their “fair share.” Socialists see injustice at every turn. They see life as a miserably unfair endeavor that they must eternally struggle to equalize. Is it any wonder why socialists are frustrated angry, and depressed? I’m almost tempted to do a study of my own to see if there is a correlation between Democratic party voter registration and antidepressant prescriptions.

The environmental movement is another slippery slope of escalating leftist legislation with no end in sight. It started with the banning of DDT as a pesticide, and now thanks to the global warming hysteria the EPA has classified carbon dioxide as a danger to human health. That’s right, carbon dioxide is now a danger to human health. The same stuff that you and I exhale hundreds of times a day and plants breathe to survive is now classified as a harmful substance. Is that draconian EPA classification going to be enough to satisfy the green gestapo? Of course not. They won’t be happy until nobody is burning any fossil fuels anymore. Of course I doubt that even then they would be satisfied. Suppose that someday most Americans get their electricity from wind-powered generators. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if some environmentalist group lobbies to ban wind power because some endangered species of birds are being chopped up by flying into the windmills’ fan blades. It’s never enough for them. They’ll never be satisfied.

The common thread that runs through the collectivist mindset is misery. If you’re happy smoking, drinking, shooting guns, and making a lot of money than it’s a pretty safe bet that there is a cabal of collectivist parasites who will do whatever it takes for you to no longer enjoy these things. Why would they be so determined to interfere with your life and liberty? They’ll tell you it’s for your own good, but the truth of the matter is they’re doing it because they’re miserable and the only thing that will temporarily alleviate their misery is imposing their will on everyone else. That way everyone will be as miserable and pathetic as they are. By banning smoking, salty foods, saturated fat, alcohol, red meat, firearms, and automobiles the “progressives” are doing whatever they can to suck out every ounce of freedom and joy from the lives of everyone in their field of vision. The reason for doing this can be simply stated in the old adage “misery loves company.”

Not what you think.

Last night I was in one of my grad school classes and the word “libertarian” came up to describe a liberal attitude and liberal policies concerning language education.  One of my classmates appeared to be confused by the correlation between “liberal” and “libertarian,” and said something to the effect that libertarians are not liberal.  At this point I cringed a little and made a less-than-subtle noise.  This was partly due to the fact that definitions of “liberal” and “conservative” have been so radically altered in the American political landscape, they no longer have any definite meanings.  The little noise I made drew the attention of my classmate, so I simply said “Another discussion for another time.”

My graduate studies are in the field of Curriculum and Instruction, and I’ve learned to be very careful about espousing my political philosophy in the presence of my classmates and instructors.  This last summer I had a professor who was not shy about deriding libertarian ideas and those who support them.  In following semesters I could not help but notice a strong bias in favor of statist ideologies among both the faculty and students.  This bias was not nearly as prevalent in my undergraduate studies in the field of Chemistry.  This is probably because the College of Education is very closely affiliated with the state department of education, and is inextricably tied into ideas of social engineering and “social justice.”  In addition, many of the students are graduates with liberal arts degrees, and many college liberal arts departments pursue an agenda that is in keeping with socialist ideologies.  When studying science or engineering, ideas surrounding politics or social issues are seldom addressed due to their lack of relevance in these disciplines.

My aforementioned classmate equated libertarianism with conservatism.  She told me after class that her father once identified himself as a Republican but later changed to Libertarian out of dissidence with the Republican Party’s alliances with evangelical religious organizations.  It is in part because of the similarities between lip service Republicans give to the ideas of liberty and libertarian ideals that libertarians are often branded “conservative.”  However, libertarianism is more accurately described as classic liberalism,  which should not be confused with the “liberalism” that is discussed in the political discourse of today.

The “liberalism” of today is far from being a liberal ideology.  It emphasizes greater centralized government control over almost every aspect of a citizen’s life.  It emphasizes the government controlling and regulating wealth and status in a fashion not dissimilar to the caste system of feudal Europe.  “Liberalism” as it stands today is responsible for curtailing private property rights, ludicrous taxation of everything under the sun, removing the means for the citizenry to defend themselves, and countless other legislative measures taken “for our own good.”  In the current political climate, “liberalism” equates to a form of coercive government that resembles a benevolent collective dictatorship.  However, regardless of the perceived benevolence of a “liberal” dictatorship, it is far from the true definition of liberal.  Libertarian now describes liberalism in the aftermath of socialists hijacking the word “liberal.”