The Gum Tree for 2007 September 27

With the help of the New York Times, Random House publishers has released a couple of controversial Top 100 Novel Lists of all time. One was decided on by the ‘experts’ and the other was decided on by over 400,000 ordinary, mostly America, readers. A couple of things that struck me at first glance:

The prominence of books with overt Religious, Capitalist, Anti-socialist, undercurrents which appeared on the readers’ list, and the dearth of such books on the experts’ list (e.g. obviously Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, Tolkien, Heinlein, and even Stephen King). The absence of Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind from the experts' list, which is arguably the best selling book in America next to the Bible (perhaps Harry Potter has beat it out now, though). And the transposition of two books, Brave New World on the experts’ list with 1984 on the readers’ list. Perhaps the fear of Government control by oppression is a more scary and relevant proposition to the literate democratic masses than is Government control by Libertarianism and pleasure distraction.

Parallels may certainly be drawn from both lists to the dichotomy of American institutions and the normal forgotten man, who gives but doesn't take and who is the foundation of American Society. It has been shown before in numerous surveys that the elite institutions (Higher Ed, Hollywood, Broadcast Journalism) are overwhelmingly Liberal in ideology and vote Democratic. Some may extrapolate from this that Democrats are more educated, informed, or socially aware, but studies have shown that Democratic voters are much less educated, younger (less experienced), and usually lower socio-economically than are Republican voters. Conservative elites tend to give less through government power, but the conservative base tends to also take less from government; instead, willfully giving through personal charity. Liberal elites tend to give more through government (i.e. through forceful removal of other people’s assets), and the Liberal powerbase also tends to take more from society and government and give much less directly through personal charity. But one area of this list is interesting to me: the transposition of Brave New World and 1984 on their respective lists. Personally, I am much more concerned about an America which falls into decay through decadence and pleasure-seeking-induced illiteracy (which I believe comprises the Democratic base). There is certainly something to be said about the dull sense of security a safety-net provides. We seem to be headed that way—towards a ‘libertarian’ society that trades personal capacity for the amorphous ‘liberty’ and a government that derives its power not through oppression but through the willful surrender of a peoples’ capacities in lieu of the buffering of consequences of ones’ personal choices: Abortion on demand, fully paid for by the government as well as any other health problem caused by personal negligance and slothful lifestyle; the promise of a steady flow of food, cash, comfort, and access to debilitating pleasure—the true opiate of the people, with as little effort or inconvenience on the part of the people. It is only after the Brave New World when the oppressive 1984 can step in and control an uneducated society that doesn’t understand the meaning of words, only the meaning of pleasure and pain. But, for those "Forgotten People" are in the literate minority of a democracy who do not seek power through elite institutions, the prospect of an iliterate mass controlled through the use of pleasure is very scary, and might as well be 1984. The more government-run coliseums and carnivals that appear, the greater the decline of Church, and Family. Discuss. . .

By most objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to male happiness.

A couple of interesting papers are getting some press recently. This one shows that women are less happy. Interesting, also, is this quote:

While each of these trends have impacted both men and women, it is possible for even apparently gender-neutral trends to have gender-biased impacts if men and women respond differently to these forces.

The authors of the study cite risk as one of those gender-neutral trends which might affect women who may be more risk-averse (e.g. changing workplace environment, being laid-off, having to ask for a raise) than are men. It is illustrative that the same kind of idea which got Lawrence Summers fired and made full-grown women scientist run for the bathroom with urges to vomit, is starting to be acknowledged: that women are in fact different from men (something that we were unlearned of in public elementary schools). A New York Times Op-Ed Column investigated this and other recent findings in the ‘happiness gap’ and eventually fell back on the facile platitudes that “men need to shoulder their fair share,” and that there needs to be universal preschool and paid child leave. Of course this ignores the research by Stephenson and Wolfers which specifically controlled for those variables (showing, for example, that there is little difference in happiness even for women who have husbands who do more chores around the house compared to those whose husbands do far less work). But, as my wife gets ready to re-enter the workforce next week, I don’t deny that I am also trying to find the right balance in life so that she might be more happy.