Former Analysand comments.

The first paragraphs of Mr. Brooks’ essay are attempt to establish his premises, via a potted social history, what else to name this meander?

One well-established finding of social science research is that conservatives report being happier than liberals. Over the years, researchers have come up with a bunch of theories to explain this phenomenon.

The first explanation is that conservatives are more likely to take part in the activities that are linked to personal happiness — like being married and actively participating in a religious community. The second explanation is that of course conservatives are happier; they are by definition more satisfied with the established order of things.

The third explanation, related to the second, is that on personality tests liberals tend to score higher on openness to experience but also higher on neuroticism. People who score high on neuroticism are vigilant against potential harms, but they also have to live with a lot of negative emotions — like sadness and anxiety.

I’ve paid only casual attention to these debates over the years, mostly because, during the Barack Obama years, for example, liberals didn’t seem sad. Massive crowds of young Democrats were chanting “Yes We Can!” at Obama campaign rallies built around hope and change. Audiences thrilled to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Hamilton,” an optimistic, celebratory and multiracial account of America’s founding. There was an assumption of confidence — America is moving forward, the arc of history bends toward justice.

…

Some quick notes on the establishing of his ‘argument’.

…

One well-established finding of social science research is that conservatives report being happier than liberals.

…

The first explanation is that conservatives are more likely to take part in the activities that are linked to personal happiness — like being married and actively participating in a religious community.

…

The third explanation, related to the second, is that on personality tests liberals tend to score higher on openness to experience but also higher on neuroticism.

…

The next paragraph include Barack Obama and Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Hamilton, a 21st Century Minstrel Show. that reflects what? Next this exhausted political cliché ‘the arc of history bends toward justice’: to paraphrase Truman Capote this isn’t writing but typing. Freud was, at the least, an inventive, if befuddling propagandist! Perhaps that was the point of the Dead Letter of Psychoanalysis, and Mr. Brooks ‘free associations’?

Here is a critical review of Chernow’s book on Hamilton, that was the basis Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Broadway kitsch,

Headline: Hamilton: a flawed portrait: Chernow supposes too much and verifies too little.

By Willard Sterne Randall  |  May 2, 2004

http://archive.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2004/05/02/hamilton_a_flawed_portrait/

…

I’ve paid only casual attention to these debates over the years, mostly because, during the Barack Obama years, for example, liberals didn’t seem sad. Massive crowds of young Democrats were chanting “Yes We Can!” at Obama campaign rallies built around hope and change. Audiences thrilled to Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Hamilton,” an optimistic, celebratory and multiracial account of America’s founding. There was an assumption of confidence — America is moving forward, the arc of history bends toward justice.

…

More Brooks historical reductivism, at high speed ‘free association’ :

Gradually, that atmosphere changed. First, smartphones and social media emerged and had a negative effect on the nation’s psyche, especially among the young. Then the election of Donald Trump darkened the national mood, on right and left.

…

Young liberals were hit especially hard. A 2021 study by Catherine Gimbrone, Lisa M. Bates, Seth J. Prins and Katherine M. Keyes looked at the emotional states of 12th-grade students between 2005 and 2018. Liberal girls experienced a surge in depressive symptoms. Liberal boys weren’t far behind. Conservative boys and girls also suffered from higher rates of depressive symptoms, but not nearly as much as liberals. Sadness was linked to ideology.

…

The sentences/paragraphs now become the historical descriptors of Brooks as diagnostician of a ‘receding’ American Malady:

…

Lord knows the right has gone off on its own jarring psychological journey of late, but many on the left began to suffer from what you might call maladaptive sadness

…

First, a catastrophizing mentality. For many, America’s problems came to seem endemic: The American dream is a sham, climate change is so unstoppable, systemic racism is eternal.

…

Second, extreme sensitivity to harm. This was the sense many people had that they were constantly being assaulted by offensive and unsafe speech, the concerns that led to safe spaces, trigger warnings, cancellations, etc.

…

Second, extreme sensitivity to harm. This was the sense many people had that they were constantly being assaulted by offensive and unsafe speech, the concerns that led to safe spaces, trigger warnings, cancellations, etc.

…

This rhetorical style is also self-destructive. When maximalist denunciation is the go-to device, then nobody knows who’s going to be denounced next.

…

say that liberal sadness was maladaptive because the mind-set didn’t increase people’s sense of agency; it decreased it. Trying to pass legislation grounds your thought in reality and can lead to real change.

…

Brooks’ final paragraph gives way to hope?

I share the widespread sense that the “woke” era is winding down. Things are calming down. I hope people are coming to the same corny conclusion I have: If you want healthy politics, encourage people to have confidence in their ability to make a difference — don’t undermine that confidence.

Former Analysand