April 26, 2008 by Sanjay.

My readers (“Charlie Babbit made a joke!”) are familiar with my interest in the line between communication and miscommunication. (Click on those words in the tag cloud on the left to view related posts.) Recently, this interest has collided with another newly-developed fixation: my theory that creativity impels the spirit to liberality. Suggestions from right-wing friends have sent me borrowing into what passes for conservative philosophizing on the American scene. The single star on this otherwise dreary horizon is the late William F. Buckley Jr.

Without digressing into an enjoyable recitation of WFB’s many qualities as a conservative stylist, his greatest gift was a witty facility with language. Dick Cavett wrote of WFB’s first appearance on his television talk show:

---

… I … find myself in the daunting world of hosting a talk show. I had seen a lot of Buckley on his own show — a formidable presence on the screen — and there he was on my next week’s guest list.

Because it was Buckley, I was nervous in a way I don’t think I ever was before or since. If you’d asked me what exactly I was nervous about, I doubt that I could have defined it.

Then I found out.

Conversation seemed to be moving along nicely when, in reference to something he had just brought up, I said, “I’m not really familiar with that.” Back came, “You don’t seem to be familiar with anything.”

Wham!

I think I nearly lost consciousness. It was a rotten thing to say to a beginner.

---

The exchange keys into WFB’s ability to torque a vapid and entirely common packet of mainstream communication (“I’m not really familiar with that”) into a Wildean stab of ridicule. WFB applied this ability to deconstruct received wisdom to commenting on American politics through the second half of the 20th century. Though he was, in a sense, a counter-example to my creative => liberal theory, his leverage was limited by the un-American exoticness of his expression. Cavett relates that the (presumably Liberal) college professor who alerted him to WFB’s brilliance went on to say that “If he had a little more of the common touch, he’d be a truly dangerous man.” The professor was surely referring to more than just WFB’s use of language — WFB was a notorious name-dropper comically prone to being impressed by celebrity — but his high-falutin’ speech was likely Exhibit A.

Posted in Communication | No Comments »

April 1, 2008 by Sanjay.

In his recent column in The Economist, subtitled Why conservatives are happier than liberals, “Lexington” quotes Syracuse University economist Arthur Brooks’ research finding that:

---

In 2004 Americans who called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” were nearly twice as likely to tell pollsters they were “very happy” as those who considered themselves “liberal” or “very liberal” (44% versus 25%). One might think this was because liberals were made wretched by George Bush. But the data show that American conservatives have been consistently happier than liberals for at least 35 years.

---

Explanations are offered - conservatives are more likely to be married, parents, and churchgoers, and that “the conservative world view is more conducive to happiness than the liberal one”. Strangely, Lexington does not mention the obvious: that people happier with the status quo are more likely to be conservative. Contentment breeds conservatism, not necessarily the reverse.

Professor Brooks also reaches another interesting conclusion through his survey-based research: that partisans are happier than moderates:

---

Some 35% of those who call themselves “extremely liberal” say they are very happy, against only 22% of ordinary liberals. For conservatives, the gap is smaller: 48% to 43%. Extremists are happy, Mr Brooks reckons, because they are certain they are right. Alas, this often leads them to conclude that the other side is not merely wrong, but evil. Some two-thirds of America’s far left and half of the far right say they dislike not only the other side’s ideas, but also the people who hold them.

---

Intuitively, this seems more reasonable, if summarily disheartening. (Caveat: I have not read the original research. A brief look at Prof. Brooks’ column titles - yes I know editors write taglines, not columnists - that include Liberal Hatemongers and The Upside of Bush’s Foreign Policy creates the suspicion that we aren’t dealing with a detached observer. Then again, perhaps it is better to be happy than to be true.)

Posted in Politics | No Comments »