America's Pursuit Of Happiness

Public Opinion: Each time you open a newspaper or turn on a TV, you'll hear how unhappy, glum and dissatisfied Americans are. Don't believe it. The U.S. is, to borrow a phrase, the happiest place on Earth.

A long-forgotten 1960s movie title pretty much sums up how Americans feel about their lives: "What's So Bad About Feeling Good?" According to a new Gallup Poll, for most people that's not just a rhetorical question.

"Most Americans say they are generally happy, with a slim majority saying they are 'very happy,'" according to the Gallup Poll released on the final day of 2007. "More than 8 in 10 Americans say they are satisfied with their personal lives at this time, including a solid majority who say they are 'very satisfied.'"

Another extensive survey conducted in 2007 by the Pew Research Center found that 65% of Americans termed themselves "satisfied" with their lives. That compares with the four economic powerhouses of Britain, France, Germany and Italy, which averaged about 53%.

This difference isn't something new. It's been around for a long time. It's a part of what foreign-affairs mavens call "American exceptionalism." The question is, why are Americans so darned happy?

For one thing, Americans are far richer than those in other countries. And yes, this matters. Contrary to popular belief, neither the Europeans nor the Japanese lead better lives than Americans.

A study a few years back by Sweden's Timbro think tank came to these startling conclusions: Virtually every nation in Europe lagged the U.S. in income. Indeed, if it were a state, the EU would rank 47th in per capita GDP -- on par with Mississippi and West Virginia.

Americans' homes have roughly twice the square footage per occupant as those in the EU, Americans own more appliances, and, on average, they spend about 77% more each year than Europeans.

Yet, though the U.S. economy is head-and-shoulders above the others, you'd never know it from our friends in the mainstream media. As repeated surveys show, U.S. media coverage of the economy is overwhelmingly slanted toward the negative side of things.

But a look at the facts shows something quite different.

U.S. household wealth climbed from $38.8 trillion in 2002 to $58.6 trillion in the third quarter of 2007, an unprecedented 51% surge in just five years. That includes the recent meltdown in home prices.

By any historical standard, Americans are unbelievably wealthy.

Moreover, despite the near-collapse in housing, the U.S. economy remains strong. It grew at a 3.1% rate during the first three quarters, and almost certainly kept growing in the final three months.

Economist Irwin Stelzer adds another reason why Americans are happy right now: a million new jobs over the last year, a milestone that is underpinning U.S. economic growth right now.

But can economics really matter that much? You bet. Money may not buy love, but it helps buy happiness. In fact, according to the Pew folks, there's a 72% correlation between per capita GDP growth in a country and its citizens' happiness.

What about social trends? As economist Irwin Stelzer recently noted, "teenage drug use, pregnancies, smoking and drinking are all on the decline; welfare reform is working, bringing down child poverty, and the divorce rate is falling."

Oh, and we're having more babies than at any time since the 1970s -- not something that a gloomy, depressed society does. Our 2.1 babies per adult woman puts us at the top of the developed world's fertility rankings (Europe, by comparison, has a population-shrinking 1.5 rate). A child is the biggest bet on a happy future that two people can make.

Then there's religion. A 2006 Harris Poll found on average that 43% of those in Britain, Germany, Italy, Spain and France believed in a Supreme Being. In the U.S., it's 73%. That suggests a link, in developed nations anyway, between religiosity and happiness.

Face it, Americans are an unusually happy, optimistic people. In a way, it defines us. A big reason is our economy -- huge, innovative, low-tax and less regulated than others.

That's what makes us different. Vive la difference!

Americans frustrated by influence wielded by Iowa, New Hampshire

All eyes may be on Iowa and New Hampshire, but many of them are rolling.

Despite efforts to evict the two states from the front of the presidential calendar, both managed to hang on for another election cycle that culminates with the Iowa caucuses on Thursday and the New Hampshire primary on Jan. 8. As a year of media attention reaches its crescendo, voters in other states are saying enough is enough.

According to national survey conducted for The Associated Press and Yahoo News, just over half of all voters said New Hampshire and Iowa have an extraordinary amount of influence over who wins the two nominations.

"They have way too much — WAY too much — say," said Kevin Thomas of Tacoma, Wash. "California's a big state and they don't have any say, and Iowa's not even half the size of California. It really makes me as a voter wonder what's going on."

Fewer than one in five voters said they favor the current system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire to hold the first contests, while nearly 80 percent would rather see other states get their chance at the front of the line.

"I think they should take turns, maybe take it to a small state like Rhode Island that doesn't have a whole lot of voting power," Thomas said.

Both states have been criticized as unrepresentative of the country given their size and lack of racial diversity. Iowa — population 3 million — is 95 percent white; New Hampshire — population 1.3 million — is 96 percent white. Democrats tried to inject more diversity into the process by adding early contests in Nevada and South Carolina, but Iowa and New Hampshire moved even earlier.

The system became so scrambled last year that New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner was prepared to move the primary into December to keep ahead of other states that scheduled their own early primaries and caucuses. If anything, the front-loaded calendar made Iowa and New Hampshire more important.

Gardner and other defenders of New Hampshire say the country — and the candidates — are well-served because the primary requires close contact with voters, not just a big advertising budget and name recognition.

"It gives the little guy a chance," said Gardner.

He wasn't surprised by the poll results and negative reaction toward the early states given that most of the country knows nothing about the primary's history or the state's uniquely inquisitive and democratic culture.

New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat who has not endorsed any candidate, argues that New Hampshire's retail politics cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the country.

"We have made it possible for the so-called unknown candidates to make their case without having millions of dollars in the bank. And in turn, we demand that candidates move beyond the rope line and scripted town hall meetings, and directly answer the hard questions from voters," he said. "As a result, the voters, the candidates and the political process all benefit from the New Hampshire primary."

Unsurprisingly, every one of the 21 Iowans who participated in the AP-Yahoo survey think their state and New Hampshire have just the right amount of influence over the presidential selection process. Not so in New Hampshire.

There, two of the five participants said the two states don't have enough power.

Basic facts on the Iowa caucuses

Some questions and answers about the Iowa caucuses this Thursday:

Q: What is a caucus?

A: A party meeting at the precinct level at which citizens express their candidate preferences and pick delegates to their county conventions. It's the lowest level of party politics — the real grassroots. These meetings, held in each of the state's nearly 1,800 precincts, typically draw anywhere from a handful of people in rural areas to hundreds in suburban areas.

Q: Who takes part?

A: Anyone who is old enough to vote in the November general election and is a member of the party is eligible, but traditionally only a small number of Iowans show up. This year, about 120,000 to 150,000 people are expected to vote in the Democratic caucuses, while 80,000 to 90,000 are likely to participate in the GOP contest.

Q: Why is it politically significant?

A: Persuading a group of average citizens to show up in support of a candidate is considered a sign of organizational strength. Each candidate courts politicians and activists at the state and local level in hopes of getting strong numbers of supporters to show up and participate. At the same time, the caucus system allows candidates to develop and hone their message before relatively small groups.

Q: What happens at a caucus?

A: Participants, led by a chairman or chairwoman, indicate their preferences for their party's presidential nomination, pick delegates to their county conventions and discuss party business, including their party platforms.

Q: What happens next?

A: Delegates chosen at the caucuses go to the county convention later in the year. There, the field is winnowed and delegates are chosen for the district convention. This happens again at district meetings and again at the state convention, where delegates are named to attend the party's national convention.

Q: Why are the numbers different?

A: The Republicans essentially hold a straw poll — a head count — at their precinct caucuses, reporting real numbers. One head, one vote.

The Democrats do not report straight numbers, but use a mathematical formula to determine support for a presidential candidate in percentages. A candidate must have the support of 15 percent of those present at any meeting, precinct caucuses through the state convention, to remain "viable." This is meant to ensure greater consistency throughout the process.

Q: Will there be exit polls in Iowa?

A: Yes. The Associated Press and the television networks will survey voters as they enter the caucus sites. Those surveys will help readers understand what issues and qualities motivated Iowans to vote for a specific candidate.

Q: How did the Iowa caucuses get started?

A: A commission appointed after the riots disrupted the 1968 Democratic National Convention recommended proportionate representation and affirmative action. Iowa Democrats decided to use new rules in 1972, adopting a regulation that there must be a month between events — the caucuses, county, district, state and national conventions. The caucuses wound up being held as early as January.