$2,500 Marriage Incentive Payment: The Government Shouldn’t Play Matchmaker by Subsidizing Love

Frank Sinatra once sang that love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. That is not the case anymore, if it ever was in the first place. The median age of marriage has been on the rise for decades while marriage rates are on the decline. Fewer than 50 percent of households are married couples, which is a shift from the 66 percent in the 1970s.These marriage trends are precipitating a debate among policymakers and think tanks about how or whether the government should respond. 

Government as Cupid

One recent proposal came from the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation in its new report Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years. Among the ideas presented in this report was creating a Newlywed Early Starters Trust (NEST) account. This federal program would give couples a $2,500 incentive payment upon marrying by a target age, paid into a special long-term investment account designed to grow over time. While the NEST accounts are justified as a means of encouraging marriage and asset accumulation, they reflect an underlying confidence in social engineering in which the government can steer private choices using financial incentives. 

The Price of Love: Ethics in Subsidized Marriage

Framed this way, Heritage's proposal raises a deep concern. Marriage is not like purchasing a car, selecting a vacation destination, or opting into a retirement account. By tying marriage to a NEST account, it risks reducing an intimate human relationship to a transaction for government benefits. Even if marriage had transactional components in the past (e.g., dowries, uniting families or territories), those were not centralized state efforts to steer personal behavior through financial incentives. The fact that marriage has evolved into a voluntary and personal commitment is exactly what makes the NEST account an ethically fraught idea. It treats relationships as policy levers rather than autonomous human choices while it commodifies intimacy and undermines the intrinsic value that gives marriage its social, emotional, and moral significance. 

Why Cash Can't Buy Commitment

It is not simply the ethics that are problematic. While Heritage proposes a $2,500 policy lever to encourage marriage, research suggests that financial incentives of this level are unlikely to produce lasting change. For example, a change in tax incentives has been shown to influence the timing of when someone got married, but it did not affect whether someone got married in the first place. Welfare evidence has also shown that altering benefit structures can encourage married couples to stay, but does little to help the decision of whether single parents decide to marry. 

When Prices Rise, Vows Wait

Meanwhile, structural economic barriers play a much larger role in delaying or discouraging marriage. A 2025 study from South Korea shows that rising house prices reduce marriage rates and delays marriage (La, 2025). Another study of 35 Chinese cities shows how economic restraints delay marriage (Song et al., 2024). Evidence from Obamacare Medicaid expansion (Chatterjee, 2021) shows that when a real economic benefit to marriage (in this case, health insurance) was available outside of marriage, low-educated, non-elderly adults were 6.9 percent less likely to marry. This decline was 11.9 percent for women. This is meant to show that a $2,500 NEST account will not meaningfully alter the deep tradeoffs that couples face with respect to marriage. It might nudge some couples to tie the knot sooner, but financial stability, long-term compatibility, and relationship readiness will play much larger roles in a couple's decision to marry. 

Marriage Cannot Be Bought, Only Chosen

We live in a more individualistic society that prioritizes career or personal development. There is greater acceptance of cohabitation without marriage, not to mention changing norms about gender equality or household roles. Combined with the financial barriers young couples face, a $2,500 NEST account becomes a dubious way to spur marriage rates. None of this means a hostility toward marriage itself. I would like to be married one day. I can believe marriage is valuable while still rejecting the idea that it should be subsidized, engineered, or optimized by government policy. Marriage simply cannot be bought off. Modest financial incentives like the NEST account do not address the core issues behind lower marriage rates while risking the trivialization of what ought to remain a freely chosen and deeply meaningful institution. 

From DEI to DNA: "Heritage Americans" and the Rise of Right-Wing Identity Politics

For years, the concept of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, or DEI, has merited a ton of ire. It is a pseudo-moral position that reduces people to skin color and gender while treating ancestry like a social credit score. I have no love for DEI. I analyzed a study showing how DEI increases racial tension, hostility, and authoritarian tendencies. In pursuit of DEI, much of the political Left has abandoned colorblindness, embraced the dubious Critical Race Theory, and obsessed over race to the point where "anti-racism" has become a form of racism that has set U.S. racial relations back at least 65 years. DEI is illiberal, racist, and fundamentally at odds with a democratic, pluralistic society that values freedom. On this point, those on the Right were correct, particularly Matt Walsh with his documentary Am I Racist? (see my two-parter on his documentary here and here).

In a twist of irony, those on the Far Right have decided that the issue with DEI was not identity politics itself, but the "wrong identities." They fell in love with the idea, rebranded it as "Heritage American," and declared themselves the most oppressed people in a society where they have historically dominated. For those who do not know, a "Heritage American" is someone on the Far Right that defines being "authentically American" based on ancestry (typically privileging older Anglo-Protestant lineages), rather than civic allegiance or shared political ideals. This term functions as a gatekeeping tool, signaling who "counts" as genuinely American while excluding immigrants, people of color, and others whose families arrived to the United States more recently. 

Tucker Carlson has engaged with guests on Heritage Americans on his show, thereby giving the idea more traction in mainstream conservative circles beyond the fringe. I saw political commentator Brad Polumbo broadcast an episode on Nick Fuentes deriding Vivek Ramaswamy for his ancestry (and doing so in light of Ramaswamy's gubernatorial race in Ohio), which is what prompted me to write this piece. As a member of the Sons of the American Revolution, whose ancestors actually fought in the American Revolution, I find the concept of "Heritage American" to be as ridiculous as it is un-American. 

Virtue Signaling: Gender & Race versus Genealogy 

As Cato Institute scholar Alex Nowrasteh pointed out in his piece on Heritage Americans, many political organizations on the Far Left tore themselves apart by arguing who had greater victimhood status. On the Far Left, status is measured by how much oppression you can cite, document, or perform. On the Far Right, the same obsession with identity politics plays out. Instead of who is more oppressed, the Far Right measures "authenticity" by ancestry, colonial participation, and military lineage. Much like the DEI crowd argued over whose experience is more valid, Heritage Americans argue over whose family tree lends them the most credibility. 

It gets at a delicious irony, and not simply because both the Heritage Americans and the DEI crowd have the same collectivist mindset in which special privileges are based on inherited characteristics. The same people who had been wagging their finger at transgender people or nonbinary people for "playing dress-up" now indulge in historical cosplay. Instead of gender-reassignment surgery or preferred pronouns, the Heritage American props are great-great-great-great grandfathers, colonial muskets, and Civil War enlistment records. Whether in victimhood points or ancestry points, they are both forms of virtue-signaling theatrics that try to prove who matters the most. 

American Identity Is Built on a Creed, Not Bloodline

In Europe, standing and socioeconomic status in society were based on one's family tree. Now some Far Right-wingers want to impose European-style ancestry tests into U.S. patriotism, one that would have the Founding Fathers rolling in their graves. The Founding Fathers envisioned a nation of ideas and individualism, not a lineage fan club.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." The American Dream is not mean for those who had a better pedigree, but all individuals. The Constitution says "We, the people," not "we, the people with older birth certificates." The American government is grounded in a universal political collective, not a bloodline group. The phrase E pluribus unum has been part of the U.S. seal since 1782. The phrase in Latin means "from many, one," not "from many, but we really only mean those whose ancestors have been here long enough." 

My ancestors enlisted in the Continental Army to do battle against the British Empire that was oppressing them. They fought and died for a country where citizens can be united by liberty, equality, and rule of law, where citizens are judged by the commitment to these principles instead of bloodline, genealogy, or ancestry. Apparently, the notion that American identity is civic (and not genealogical) has been conveniently overlooked in the Heritage Americans' version of "history."

Americans Speak: Principles Over Pedigree

It is not only the Founding Fathers who held the view that American identity is not based on heritage. As a recent YouGov poll asking about "what makes someone American," look at the results below to see what ranks at the top and what is at the bottom. Having many generations of American ancestors and having American parents are towards the bottom of the list. At the top of the ranking are obeying U.S. laws, supporting the U.S. Constitution, and believing in the principles of the Declaration of Independence. In other words, American identity for the vast majority of Americans is creedal. 

Postscript: Patriotism Is Not Hereditary

At its core, American identity was never meant to be a family tree competition. America is neither a race nor a bloodline. The fact that American identity is based on liberty, equality, and rule of law instead of the European notion of genealogy is one of the major facets that makes America exceptional. E pluribus unum was not a slogan for those with the proper pedigree. It was for any citizen willing to uphold those ideals. This creed is what allowed the United States to thrive, to welcome immigrants, and adapt across cultures over time, making it unique in human history. To quote Capitalism Magazine, "Those who don't understand this don't understand America, regardless of how many generations their families have been here."

Heritage Americans may have a fantasy about fighting in the American Revolution or a nostalgia for "a better time," but none of that changes the fact that the strength of the United States has been civic, not genealogical. Even if a small minority believes in this genealogical gatekeeping, it risks shaping public policy in ways that ignore the civic principles that define what the United States of America has been throughout its history. The fact that Ramaswamy had to repudiate the idea at a Turning Point USA's America Fest, an event full of conservative activists and leaders of all places, late last year says that the Right itself is at a turning point. Will the political Right head in a direction where being American is treated as an ethnic identity or one based on the ideals of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence? 

I want America to remain a nation of ideals and a creed, not a reenactment of a colonial family reunion. Patriotism is not inherited, and the notion that one can be an American either through being born in the United States or through a naturalization process helps make the United States a shining city on a hill. While some might clutch muskets in one hand and pearls in the other, the vast majority of Americans understand that being American is not about where your ancestors are from, but the principles you embrace. 

Political Violence Is Rare, But Charlie Kirk's Murder Marks a Chilling Turning Point for Freedom of Speech

In light of last week's events, it looks like we might have the 21st-century equivalent of the "shot heard 'round the world." While giving a public debate at Utah Valley University, conservative political activist and author Charlie Kirk was shot and murdered as part of his American Comeback Tour. The impact of Kirk's assassination cannot be overstated. 

Kirk was a defining voice for the modern-day conservative movement. As a co-founder of the organization Turning Point, Kirk helped mobilize a generation of young right-wing activists on college campuses, institutions that are known to notoriously lean far to the Left. Kirk was also known for touring college campuses. His open debate forum and confrontational Q&A sessions often sparked national debates. He was a key figure in the culture battles over freedom of speech and ideological diversity at institutions of higher learning, which are prone to Left-leaning ideological lockstep. 

As horrific as such examples of politically motivated violence as Kirk's murder is, it is a statistically rare occurrence. Using terrorism as the broadest definition of politically-motivated violence, the Cato Institute found that there have been 3,599 political motivated murders since 1975. Excluding the 83 percent of those murdered on 9/11, this brings the figure down to 620 murders. Murders committed in terrorist attacks accounted for 0.35 percent of all murders since 1975. 

Yes, politically motivated murders are statistically rare. Like with any murder, politically motivated murder is unacceptable and morally reprehensible, regardless of the political persuasion of the target. What makes politically motivated murder so socially corrosive, is in no small part, the symbolism behind his death. He was murdered while speaking publicly on campus, which is especially emblematic because a college campus was the signature venue for his activism. A question that I have is how the political Right and conservative activists will react. Will they become more cautious because they want to avoid the fate of Charlie Kirk? Will they become more emboldened, more defensive, or more radical? How will the conservative movement's overall evolve in response? Given his rare combination of oratory skills, media savvy, policy knowledge, and organizational acumen, it also begs the question of who will guide the conservative moment from here on out. 

Some accuse Charlie Kirk of spreading hate. I am not going to dissect some of his more controversial statements because it is irrelevant to the following argument. Similar to my criticism of "hate speech" in 2017, the reality is that hate speech often becomes shorthand for "speech I do not like" and also that there is no universally accepted definition of hate. What is hateful for one person could be considered a respectful disagreement for another person. Or to quote the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, "Men are not disturbed by things, but by the views they take of them." If we are to live in a free society, we cannot define hatred based on ideology or feelings because then free speech would only be for the powerful or the majority. For freedom of speech to work in a democratic society, it needs to apply to all. That includes people whose opinions I find detestable, such as pro-Palestine protestors.

To support freedom of speech means that diverging viewpoints exist within a democratic society. Allowing those viewpoints to exist and to be expressed allows for tolerance of others who think, believe, and act different to co-exist in the same society, which ultimately creates a more cohesive civil society. We could get into his debate tactics or the extent to which the comments he made were considered controversial. While his critics question his tone or tactics, this does not change the fact that Kirk's ideal was open debate and having discussions with those with whom he disagreed. He helped to create a mass movement based on the persuasiveness of his arguments, and that appeal revived the conservative moment in the United States. 

To quote the First Amendment advocacy group FIRE, "Words are not violence. Words are what we use instead of violence to resolve our differences." Charlie Kirk was using his words to engage college students, and he got murdered for practicing the very freedom he preached. Being part of a free society means feeling safe to express opinions and ideas without the fear of getting shot. People should not have to wonder whether expressing their beliefs requires metaphorical or literal body armor. Speaking your mind, especially on controversial issues, should not come with a high personal risk. If those hesitate to raise their hands, speak their voices, publish their essay, or partake in political activism as a result of what happened to Charlie Kirk, the foundation of dialogue erodes and democracy loses. 

I fear that people could self-censor out of this level of fear, which would make the intellectual marketplace suffer, people cling to echo chambers, and have extremism fester. There is a risk that the Trump administration could use this assassination as pretext for political witch hunts, expanded executive powers, or restarting the War on Terror. 

In short, I dread that this could be a pivot point in which the United States heads towards greater authoritarianism, and it would hardly be unprecedented. The assassination of Tzar Alexander II in Russia led to repression and stonewalling liberal reforms. A 2016 coup attempt in Türkiye inspired Erdoğan to consolidate power. The assassination of Anwar Sadat led to a 30-year declaration of emergency. Since I am currently in Peru, I bring up the Maoist Shining Path's political violence that led to democratically-elected Alberto Fujimori dissolve Peruvian Congress and commit human rights abuses in the name of fighting terrorism. 

Such moves towards greater authoritarianism are not exclusive to non-democratic societies. Modern-day democracies have also experienced authoritarian backlash, whether it was expanded police presence in France as a result of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Israel using emergency responses to curtail civil liberties in response to war and intifada, the Patriot Act in the United States, or the United Kingdom's Anti-Terrorism Acts that allowed for infinite detention. I am not here to say that authoritarianism is the inevitable outcome, but rather to illustrate that any country, including constitutional democracies, can drift into authoritarianism in response to political violence. 

 

As I have brought up before, as long as people want more power and/or money, freedom and democracy will always be on the defensive. Freedom of speech is no exception. Both the Left and the Right believe that the assassination was spurred by the violence that the other side fomented. If the citizens of the United States are to get past this political assassination, there needs to be a cultivation of the ideals that Kirk strived towards, including open debate and respectfully engaging with those whose opinions are disagreeable or unpalatable. 

This country has undoubtedly steered far from those ideals. I highlighted survey work last year showing that most Americans do not care for the First Amendment. Even more disturbingly, a survey from Yale University found that about 40 percent of college students believe that violence is a justifiable response to speech, including death. 

In spite of these trends showing a lack of appreciation for the First Amendment, we need to keep our eye on the ball. One study from the Research Institute of Industrial Economics shows that greater freedom of expression eases social conflict (Bjørnskov and Mchangama, 2023), which is to say that we need to foster freedom of expression. The people of America need to stop viewing dissidents as "other" or as downright evil. We cannot accept the notion that speech is violence and that actual physical violence is an appropriate response to disagreeable opinions. Using that logic would mean that it would become acceptable to murder people for their opinions, and that would only increase intolerance and political violence. 

We either resolve our differences by discussions and a peaceful process or we do so with violence and bloodshed. As this Politico article detailing the analysis of political violence experts shows, the United States is not doomed to violence, but it is at a dangerous crossroads. There are declining democratic norms, increased divisions, and political incitement. If opponents continue to be demonized and if politicized violence continues to increase, this cycle of political violence can become entrenched in U.S. society. Unless there is a major course correction, America will do more than cease to be a city on a shining hill. It will risk trading its place as a beacon of liberty and be one step closer to becoming the authoritarian hellhole that the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid. 

The Cost of Trump's Cashless Bail Crackdown: A Waste of Taxpayer Dollars and an Erosion of Justice

President Trump is at it again signing executive orders this week. One of them had to do with making flag burning unconstitutional. I do not need to cover that executive order today because I already covered it in 2016. There was another executive order that Trump signed this week about cashless bail, threatening to cut off funding for those jurisdictions that implement cashless bail. 

Cashless bail is a system that allows criminals accused of a crime to be released before trial without having to pay money. It is meant to be a system that is based on risk to public safety rather than ability to pay bail. Trump finds that cashless bail is a threat to order and public safety, not to mention a drain on public finances. That is why Trump's executive order will restrict the "Federal policies and resources" to jurisdictions with cashless bail policies. 

For some conservative policy groups who are for cash bail, cashless bail is a system that prioritizes the rights of violent offenders over the general public while releasing repeat offenders with impunity. Forgetting questionable constitutionality for a moment, disincentivizing cashless bail is an unwise move that does not help with reducing crime, has disparate impact on minorities, and is a waste of taxpayer dollars. 

Effects on Crime and Public Safety

Cashless bail is a relatively new policy concept. The earliest implementers were New Jersey in 2017, and New York started around 2019-2020. Even so, long-term data is starting to emerge. Jurisdictions who implemented cashless bail have been compared to those who did not in quasi-experimental studies. The Brennan Center for Justice (Craigie and Grawert, 2024) used a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) method to compare 22 cities with bail reform to 11 cities that did not. While there are rare instances in which defendants commit serious crimes, this study found that there were no statistically significant differences in crime rates, whether violent crime or property crime. 

Furthermore, a study from the Journal of Criminal Justice shows that longer pretrial retention translates into quicker new arrests (Silver et al., 2024). What this means is that unnecessary jail time could increase public risk while harming the individuals and families that this policy is claiming to protect. A study from the University of Chicago puts that recidivism rate as increasing by 6 to 9 percent as a result of cash bail (Gupta et al., 2016).

Racial and Economic Disparities

Cash bail disproportionately harms the poor and minorities. As of mid-2023, the Department of Justice data shows that 70 percent of those in jail were not convicted and were awaiting trial. While not broken down by race, this finding strongly suggests that the racial proportions of the pretrial population closely mirror those of the overall jail population, i.e., 48% White, 35% Black, and 14% Hispanic. This would indicate that cash bail disproportionately affects Black suspects. For those who cannot pay, the jail experience is coercive and horrific enough to pressure them into pleading guilty to a lower charge to avoid jail time, regardless of innocence. 

Considering that the median bail is $10,000, those who get harmed by this experience are those who do not have the money to afford bail. This ends up creating a two-tier justice system: one for those with money and one for those who are not well off. Because pretrial detention increases the likelihood of guilty pleas, those held pretrial are four times more likely to be sentenced than those released before trial. It also undermines the legal concept that one is innocent until proven guilty.

Fiscal Costs

Beyond the moral concerns, having increased reliance on cash bail translates into greater fiscal costs. In 2017, the Prison Policy Initiative estimated that cash bail cost $13.6 billion, which would be $18.1 billion in 2025 dollars. In 2023, the American Bar Association estimated those costs to be $14 billion. This is phenomenal considering that the pretrial jail population increased by 433 percent between 1970 and 2011. 

Removing cash bail would go a long way in lowering the burden on corrections systems and the mass incarceration that I criticized back in 2015. Then there is the broader economic costs. Research from the Brookings Institution shows (Miller and Wolfers, 2021) that those experience pretrial detention face a reduction of employment probability of about 9.4 percent, which translates into an average income lifetime loss of $29,000. Brookings estimated that eliminating money bail could increase aggregate U.S. income by up to $80.9 billion per year.

Conclusion

As we can see, there is no compelling public safety justification for cash bail. It is fiscally irresponsible and an affront to the limited government that conservatives are supposed to support to have such high rates of unnecessary incarceration. Rather than punishing poverty and disproportionately harming minorities, we should move away from the outdated cash bail system and adopt evidence-based alternatives that assess flight risk and public safety more effectively. Cashless bail is not about being soft on crime. It is about being smart on justice, fair in process, and responsible with taxpayer dollars.

Age Verification Laws Do Not Protect Children, Data Privacy, or the First Amendment

Disclaimer: This blog entry does not contain any pornographic images or links to pornographic websites. This blog entry functions as a criticism of age verification laws. 

If you listen to social conservatives, they will tell you that pornography and other adult content are some of the major scourges in our society. Last year, I wrote a two-part series (see Part I and Part II) about how the social conservatives' war on pornography and other adult content. I detailed how a) porn does not increase sexual assault, b) that the health effects of pornography are mixed at best, c) what a consenting adult does in the privacy of their home is no one else's business because of this is supposed to be a free country, d) banning porn would have major First Amendment implications, and e) forcing porn in the underground markets makes matters worse. 

Even if one were to concede that porn consumption is acceptable for adults, what about children? Should it not be the government's priority to protect children from material that is not age-appropriate? I have covered the "think of the children" mantra multiple times, whether that has been with harmful COVID-era school closures, universal preschool, banning violent video games, or banning same-sex adoption. None of these instances merited government intervention, but maybe this time is different. 

I would start out with the burdens that age verification laws create. The age verification law debate is not new in U.S. politics. There was a flurry of age verification laws in the 1990s, and the courts struck them down because they impose undue burden on adult speech, whether that is the First Amendment right to anonymity, user access, website feasibility, or a violation of the vagueness doctrine (especially with censoring LGBT content). This does not even get into the murky waters of having the government defining what constitutes as age-appropriate, which could be manipulated by policymakers to censor certain information.

Better technology does not resolve these issues because the French government found with their age verification laws that they use neither verify age accurately, are user-friendly, nor do they protect user privacy. In modern times, these systems would be collecting sensitive data, whether that is government IDs or biometric information. With the prevalence of data breaches, I would contend that it causes greater risks than benefit. And imagine a world where everything you do online would be tracked to your government ID or other biometrics because that is exactly what proponents are asking for. 

For argument's sake, let's give the social conservatives a benefit of the doubt and say that sacrificing the First Amendment and data privacy are acceptable prices to protecting the children. This leads to a more fundamental question of whether age verification laws protect children. According to a working paper from researchers at New York University and Stanford University released earlier this month (Lang et al., 2025), the answer to that question is a resounding "No!" 

What did these researchers find about age verification laws that make them so ineffective? In short, people find ways around age verification laws. One is to find content providers that are not compliant with these laws. Another is to use virtual private network (VPN) services. VPN services allow a user to mask their location, thereby circumventing age verification laws. Another researcher from the University of Toronto similarly found that people find ways around the age verification laws (Spencer, 2025). When arguing against aTikTok ban, I pointed out that bans, whether it is illicit drugs, sodas greater than 16 ounces, or high-capacity magazines for guns, can be circumvented. Age verification laws are no exception.

I have pointed out the problem with multiple instances of bans driving people to underground markets or less savory options, whether it is with sports betting, marijuana, human organ sales, payday loans, or with regards to prostitution. According to one of the researchers, age verification laws do not reduce overall traffic, but rather "drive users toward potentially less regulated and more dangerous alternatives." 

To summarize, age verification laws do nothing to protect children while harming data privacy and the First Amendment. Even the Right-leaning American Enterprise Institute recommended the market solution of greater parental controls instead of more government intervention. As TechFreedom's Corbin Barthold points out, "there is nothing conservative about letting the state watch your kids. If you're not overseeing your children's internet use..., laws are not going to keep them out of trouble." Much like with Trump's English as an official language executive order, age verification laws are an example of Right-wing virtue signaling that do not produce any material good.

Making English an Official Language of the United States Is Unnecessary

This past Saturday, President Trump signed an executive order designating English as the sole official language of the United States. According to the executive order, Trump would like to "promote unity, cultivate a shared culture for all citizens, ensure consistency in government operations, and create a pathway to civic engagement." Reading this executive order, I have to question the necessity of this executive order. 

First and foremost, this is the first time in over two centuries that the United States has had an official language on the federal level. Trump's slogan since he ran for President in 2016 has been "Make Great America Great." If Trump wants to make America great again, that would mean that there was a previous time America was great. Guess what? During that first time America was great, English was not an official language of the United States. 

Although the Constitution and Declaration were written in the English language, the Founding Fathers did not see a need to declare English as the official language. Yes, English has been the de facto primary language of American society. However, America's economy grew to the point of having the world's largest economy. America became a haven for immigrants seeking a better life. Not only did America become synonymous with the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" or a "shining city on a hill," but America ascended to become a player on the global stage and a superpower. It did all of that without English being an official language of the country. So why do we need one now?

Second, the English language is not under threat. There are 1.5 billion English speakers on the planet, thereby making it the most spoken language in the world. Over three-quarters of Americans already exclusively speak English in the home (Census Bureau). Yes, Spanish is spoken by 42-plus-million Americans and rising. It is also true that third- or higher-generation Latino-Americans are much less likely to speak Spanish than their first-generation counterparts (Pew Research). Immigrants do not need an official language to realize that English is the de facto language and not knowing English while living in the United States makes life that much more difficult. English is not going anywhere.

One could argue that most other nations have an official language. However, I would point out that those nations are not automatically stable simply because they have an official language. I would not exactly consider such nations as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, or Yemen to be stable or unified countries, even though they all have official languages. There are also countries that have multiple official languages, such as Belgium, Canada, Finland, India, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Switzerland. Conversely, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom do not have official languages. Essentially, declaring a sole de jure official language does not ensure the unity Trump thinks it does. There are much more significant factors playing into the present divisiveness of the United States. 

I would contend not having an official language is a reflection of what historically has made America great. We do not need an official language or religion because it reflects not only the diversity of this nation (350 languages spoken in the United States and counting), but also that the American Dream is based on the freedom to choose how to live our lives, including which language or languages to speak. Freedom of speech under the First Amendment includes being able to speak in whichever language you would like. Instead of respecting citizens' constitutional rights to self-express in a language other than English, Trump has participated in some serious right-winged virtue signaling, time which could have been spent focusing on more pressing matters. 

TCJA Income Tax Extension Debate Reminds Us Tax Cuts Generally Do Not Pay for Themselves

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) has been the single largest example of U.S. tax reform in the 21st century. Part of this Act was lowering the individual income tax. I bring this up because many of the tax provisions in the TCJA are set to expire in 2025, including that of lower income taxes. One of the major Republican talking points for the TCJA was that the tax cuts would pay for themselves, even though every major analysis at the time concluded it would add to the deficit, including that from the Right-leaning Tax Foundation. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, there is no such thing as a free lunch; there are only tradeoffs.  

What would have the Republicans think that cutting taxes would increase revenue to the point where the revenues from expanded economic activity spurred by the tax cuts would cover 100 percent of the revenue that would have otherwise been gained by the higher tax rate? This argument is based on the Laffer Curve, which postulates that there is an optimal tax rate that maximizes tax revenue. As the Curve shows (see below), there is a point where taxes end up being so high that they disincentivize economic activity, thereby reducing government revenue. In this model, there is a scenario in which cutting taxes can actually increase government revenue. 

Last week, Right-leaning think-tank Manhattan Institute released an issue brief entitled Correcting the Top 10 Tax Myths. The first myth they address is "Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves." They find this myth so problematic that Manhattan Institute labels it "the most common and harmful conservative tax fallacy." Why? Because it is sold as a free lunch that will come at zero cost. 

While well-designed tax cuts can boost savings, investment, and overall economic development, it is a whole different claim to assert that the economic feedback revenues will generate 100 percent of the static revenue loss of the tax cut. With regards to the TCJA individual tax cuts, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released earlier this month concluded that extending the individual income tax cuts would be outweighed by more government debt. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) confirmed this conclusion in its analysis of the TCJA individual tax extensions that all major analyses of the tax extensions would not pay for themselves. Why is this happening? 

• Yes, near-term demand and incentive to work would increase. However, the increased debt would eventually crowd out and reduce investment, thereby limiting the economic benefits (CRFB). 
• In its report, the Manhattan Institute brings up another valid point about tax rates. The peak on the Laffer Curve for income tax is somewhere between 55 and 73 percent, which is well above current rates. 
• To quote the Manhattan Institute (MI), "For a tax cut to pay for itself, tax revenues would have to match that would have been raised even without the tax cut." Once adjusting for inflation, MI found that 2018-24 revenue came in $665 billion below the levels projected by the CBO before the TCJA. 
• The CBO projected in 2018 that the TCJA would create $2 trillion in debt over 10 years. Per CRFB calculations, actual income and corporate tax revenues since 2017 have remained close to the CBO's projections. 
• While TCJA managed to pay for a modest portion of itself, it is nowhere the 100 percent to say that "TCJA paid for itself."  
• This 2017 report from CRFB entitled Tax Cuts Don't Pay for Themselves provides great insight.
• There would need to $5-6 dollars of economic growth for every dollar in tax cuts to make the tax cut self-financing.
• The Tax Foundation would have the most optimistic assumptions in its forecasting. In 2017, the Tax Foundation estimated in a report covering tax code reform alternatives that a 10-percent across-the-board income tax cut would pay for an eighth of the cost. As for a 10-point cut in the corporate tax, the economic dynamism would pay for three-fifths of its cost. 
• The tax cuts of 1981 and 2001/2003 resulted in lower cyclically-adjusted revenue, which is to say that past major tax cuts in the past half-century have not resulted in increased tax revenue. 

The Cato Institute refutes with two points. One is that when you factor in extending the business tax cuts in addition to the individual income tax cuts, then the GDP growth is larger. Conversely, the CRFB brings up that the business taxes would relatively do more to boost the economy, but not enough for the all the tax cuts in the TCJA to be self-financing. However, a separate CBO analysis shows that extending the 100 percent bonus depreciation and reversal of R&D amortization could offset the drag of the income tax cut extension. This would suggest a point I brought up in 2017, which is that tax reform needs to be more comprehensive than treating tax cuts as if they were the silver bullet that can solve all fiscal woes.  

Second, the Cato Institute brings up that the federal debt is a policy choice. That much I agree with because it is the ballooning spending that is exacerbating the U.S.' debt issues. The problem is that neither the U.S. Congress nor President-Elect Trump have the political will to want to cut government largesse in a way Argentinean President Javier Milei has successfully done in his first year in office. If there were corresponding spending cuts to help offset the tax cuts, I would be the first to advocate for the extensions. 

On its fifth anniversary, I concluded that the TCJA caused more good than harm. But as I said earlier, we have to factor in tradeoffs. Cutting taxes can increase economic growth. As a report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas shows, a one percent cut in income taxes in the TCJA resulted in GDP growth of 1.5 percent and job growth of 1.2 percent (Kumar, 2023). Is the increased federal debt worth the economic growth? Is it worth people being able to keep more of their hard earned money instead of having it go to government coffers? Can we pass other policies to make the fiscal impact less harmful when U.S. debt is climbing, as I mentioned two paragraphs ago? 

I believe in lower taxes, but I also strongly believe that there needs to be significantly lower government spending. With a lack of fiscal discipline in the U.S. federal government, I have to agree with the libertarian Reason Magazine and its conclusion that cutting taxes without reducing spending is bad news for the national debt. Since increasing federal debt has significant spillover effects for the American people, I question whether the U.S. government could adequately offset the fiscal costs of extending the income tax cuts. 

Same-Sex Marriage Did Not End Up Harming Fabric of Society or Heterosexual Marriages

As we commence Gay Pride Month, I reflect on the progress that has been made for LGBT rights, much like I have in previous years. It seems like only yesterday that religious conservatives were making the case that legalizing same-sex marriage would ruin society. If you read this brief from the Far-Right Family Research Council, allowing for same-sex marriage would mean fewer marriages, less monogamy, and more divorce. The trope that same-sex marriage would harm families and ruin society was a common one among social conservatives in the early 2000s. It turns out that their fear-mongering was based on conjecture and nothing else. 

Last month, the nonprofit research organization RAND Corporation came out with a study showing how unsubstantiated it ended up being (Karney et al., 2024). After examining 96 studies that spanned over 20 years, the researchers at RAND concluded there was no adverse effect of same-sex marriage on the general U.S. population, especially for different-sex couples. There was no retreat from marriage or an increase in non-marital co-habitation as naysayers wrongly predicted. There also was not a negative shift of young adults towards marriage. If anything, the researchers found some evidence that legalizing same-sex marriage actually increased marriage rates for everyone.

This same RAND study found that same-sex marriage has unambiguously been a positive for homosexuals and same-sex couples, whether that was a decline in syphilis, HIV, and AIDS; stabler relationships; higher earnings; higher rates of ownership; and lower rates of hate crimes against LGBT individuals. 

Allowing for same-sex marriage is also good for the economy. According to research from the Williams Institute, 293,000 same-sex marriages boosted local economies by $3.8 billion within the first five years of Obergefell v. Hodges. There are also the economic benefits of marriage more generally, whether it is the ability to better pool resources, qualify for loans, tax incentives, or the potential for reduced insurance costs. The economic benefits make sense, especially when I look back on a piece I wrote in 2017 about the economic costs of homophobia. 

In spite of what social conservatives imagined, the sky did not fall. Marriage equality did not weaken the marriages of heterosexual couples. If anything, allowing for consenting adults to enter the contract of marriage strengthened the institution. Intuitively, that makes sense because who consenting adults decide to marry does not affect anyone else, especially given the lack of a clear causal mechanism. Plus, given how stabilizing of a force marriage can be and how it creates kin networks, it does not surprise me to see that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples ended up being a net benefit to society. In addition to same-sex marriage advancing freedom, we can empirically add "improving the institution of marriage" to the list of reasons why same-sex marriage should remain legal. 

Social Conservatives' War on Porn Shows the Far Right Can Be As Puritanical as the Woke Left (Part II)

Disclaimer: This blog entry does not contain any pornographic images or links to pornographic websites. This blog entry functions as a criticism of pornography bans. 

It would not be American politics if the culture wars ceased to exist. Last week, I wrote about how social conservatives are reigniting the war on pornography. First, I went in how one defines pornography and obscenity. Second, I pointed out how pornography does not increase sexual assault. Third, I listed studies that show neutral or positive effects of watching pornography, which undermines the public health argument against pornography. Now I continue with other arguments as to why a ban on pornography is not wise. 

4) Whether someone views pornography is no one else's business. There can be a myriad of decisions that other individuals make that you find disagreeable: voting for a candidate of an opposing political party, practicing a religion that is not yours, owning a gun, having different political beliefs, having children before getting married, burning a Quran or the U.S. flag, having sex with or marrying someone of the same sex, not getting a COVID vaccine, or how a business owner manages their business. There are other life decisions that are unhealthy, such as smoking cigarettes, drinking too much alcohol, eating foods with a ton of sugar and trans fats, not getting enough exercise, or spending too much time on social media. 

Part of living in a free society means being surrounded by people who think, believe, and act differently than you do. As long as adults are not directly harming others, it does not matter what decisions they make, even if it causes self-harm. An adult who decides to view pornography in the privacy of his or her own home is not harming anyone else. A ban would turn viewing pornography into a victimless crime, which comes with its own costs.  

5) Enforcement would be messy, not to mention a violation of the Constitution. Forget for a moment that pornography has First Amendment protection. First, you would need to shut down the production of pornography. Then you would need to stop millions of smartphone users from creating amateur pornography and distributing it anonymously. That is on the production end. To stop people from consuming pornography, the government would need to have unfettered access to monitor citizens' computers. This would mean violating the privacy rights of all internet users and undermining data encryption tools. 

6) Underground market. Pornography is popular because the vast majority of human beings are sexual creatures and pornography is more accessible than ever since the advent of the internet. 91.5 percent of men and 60.2 percent of women have used pornography in the past month. Banning pornography is not going to make those sexual desires dissipate. Banning pornography would create a black market in pornographic goods. 

As I brought up last year when discussing a potential TikTok ban, a blanket ban comes with a litany of negative unintended consequences. Likely outcomes of forcing pornography production underground is less safe working conditions, mistreatment of workers, and financial exploitation. As for consumers, those who are looking for porn will either find print publications or go to the dark web, both of which can expose consumers to even more illicit and problematic activities. These consequences are parallel to the unintended consequences of a similar policy alternative: a partial prostitution ban. 

Conclusion: Let's recap the effects of a pornography ban. It would be expensive to enforce while violating privacy rights. Law enforcement would be punishing something that a vast majority of Americans do in the privacy of their homes. Given the intractable nature of such a ban, it would mean that enforcement would be arbitrary at best and discriminatory at worst. It would make conditions worse for the porn industry and open consumers to the black market. Meanwhile, pornography does not increase sex crimes while having mixed effects on personal health. All of this headache would be endured for a victimless crime.  

This is not an isolated incident of the U.S. political Right. There was a time in recent years where the Right was starting to become a beacon of freedom since the woke Left was being ridiculously puritanical.  However, the American Right has become increasingly enthused about banning or imposing severe limitations, whether that is immigration, restricting free trade, surrogacy, contraception, or marijuana. The woke Left's puritanical impulses do not exclude social conservatives from attempting to thrust its authoritarian desires on the rest of us. Regardless of the side of the political aisle, we should remember that puritanism is not a winning political strategy. If the political Right wants to have lasting, positive change, it will acknowledge this reality and harness it into political change moving forward.

Social Conservatives' War on Porn Shows the Far Right Can Be As Puritanical as the Woke Left (Part I)

Disclaimer: This blog entry does not contain any pornographic images or links to pornographic websites. This blog entry functions as a criticism of pornography bans. 

Ultra Right Beer is a beer company created in response to Bud Light's increasing wokeness, particularly with the Dylan Mulvaney controversy. Last month, Ultra Right Beer released a 2024 calendar of various conservative women in sexually suggestive poses. This caused enough backlash from social conservatives where the incident was called Calendargate. This incident shows a schism on the Right between social conservatives and those with libertarian, "live and let live" tendencies. This reemergence of social conservatism on the political scene is not limited to calendars. It is a phenomenon that occurs with pornography.  

Alabama legislators have proposed age verification in an attempt to block minors from adult websites, which is already unconstitutional under Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997). Last month, an anti-porn bill was introduced in Oklahoma is so extreme that it would make viewing "obscene materials" a felony. Such a bill would target sexting and social media sites that are accessed in Oklahoma. 

This is not a state here or there. Project 2025 is a coalition of over 70 conservative groups led by the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation. This Project includes a 920-page policy guide of what they would like to do if President Trump wins this election. Included in the manifesto is a call to remove pornography: 

"Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children, for instance, is not a political Gordian known inextricable binding up disparate claims about free speech, property rights, sexual liberation, and child welfare.....[it] has no claim to First Amendment protection...Pornography should be outlawed."

Social conservatives and religious conservatives have opposed pornography for a number of reasons, whether it is because it encourages non-procreative sex, abortions, sexual assault, or the assertion that it is bad for one's health. I made a case against pornography bans in 2015, and I will do so again today. I will also be using economic arguments from Economics Professor Art Carden throughout. 

1) What is pornography? What is obscenity? This might seem like a given or a no-brainer. As Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said with regards to obscenity, "I know it when I see it." However, it is not so cut-and-dry. Determining a neutral standard for sexual expression is impossible given the variety of sexual tastes and sensibilities. What constitutes pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Does it apply to certain hardcore pornography? Should a ban include softcore pornography? Would we ban romance novels or Game of Thrones? How about sexting on a dating app? Or is a photo of a woman who is showing her ankles beyond the pale? 

To quote the Institute of Economic Affairs: "Intractable definitional problems are inherent in any effort to single out for prohibition of any category of sexual expression based on its alleged harm to the minds of its viewers, in contrast with some more concrete, ascertainable harm. In effect, this kind of prohibition creates a 'thought crime'...Such thought crimes are inherently inconsistent with individual freedom."

That being said, I do want to scrutinize the notion that pornography could cause "concrete, ascertainable harm."

2) Pornography does not increase sexual assault. A concern from the naysayers is that pornography will lead to more sexual crimes because pornography would either create or encourage fantasies of sexual violence. From the 1990s to the 2010s, sexual assault rates were overall declining as porn consumption was increasing. More to the point, the University of Texas at San Antonio released a meta-analysis on the topic (Ferguson and Hartley, 2020). Guess what they found? After examining over 50 studies, there is no correlation between pornography and violent sex. No correlation means no causation, i.e., pornography does not cause an increase in sex crimes. 

3) Claiming that pornography is bad for one's health is mixed at best and inaccurate at worst. While some people undergo negative effects with [excess] pornography consumption, there is also research to show that there are neutral or positive effects:

• Pornography can improve sexual comfort and self-acceptance, as well as reduce anxiety, shame, and guilt over sexual behavior. It also has been linked to increased arousal and orgasm responses (Hakkim et al., 2022).
• Pornography can open communications and improve one's sexual relations (Kohut et al., 2018).
• "Pornography use is associated with health-promoting behaviors, including increased intimacy, 'safer' sexual behaviors (e.g., solo masturbation), and feelings of acceptance (Nelson and Rothman, 2020)."
• How the pornography is consumed matters. Research indicates that those who experience negative effects (e.g., sexual risk behaviors, mental health issues) could mitigate the harm with proper sexual education (Davis et al., 2020; Vandenbosch and van Oosten, 2017). Being able to distinguish between pornography and reality is a major factor into whether pornography is harmful. 
• Watching more pornography is associated with greater sexual arousal, not erectile dysfunction (Prause and Pfaus, 2015).
• Pornography does not degrade relationship satisfaction or closeness, nor does it affect loneliness (Hesse and Floyd, 2019).
• Pornography can help with masturbation (Prause, 2019), which is important because masturbation can help with stress and anxiety. 
• Contrary to previous research, more methodologically sound research found that pornography consumption does not diminish interest in one's sexual partner (Balzarini et al., 2017).
• Pornography has the ability to help people explore their sexuality or understand their sexual identity (McCormak and Wignall, 2017).

Two researchers from Boston University outlined how pornography is not a public health crisis. They concluded that labeling pornography a public health crisis could actually make outcomes worse due to stigmatization. Even if there are negative health factors, it does not matter. I will elucidate upon that point further in Part II. 

IMF Study Adds to Evidence Base That More Immigration Improves Macroeconomic Growth

Something that has boggled me for a number of years is the increased opposition of the U.S. Right to more immigration. Gallup polling on immigration shows us a perplexity: half of Republicans view immigration as a good thing, but only 10 percent of Republicans want immigration to the United States increased. I was reading an article from Niskanen Center Senior Fellow Neil Gross entitled "The Conservative Case for Immigration." Gross argues that immigrants are more likely to be religious, which would help placate those on the U.S. Right that are worried about declining religiosity in the United States. Furthermore, the political right in the U.S. has placed emphasis on economic prosperity, whether in the form of lower taxes, less government spending, or fewer government regulations. 

Gross highlights some of the research on the economic effects of migration. I want to point out one particular study that Gross mentions, which is a Cato Institute study on the fiscal impact of immigration (Nowrasteh, 2023). While government outlays for first-generation immigrants (including welfare benefits) averages to $11,360 per person per annum, it is also true that the same study shows that those same immigrants make an economic contribution of $16,200. In other words, immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in benefits. That addresses the myth that immigrants are a drain on welfare services. 

This debate on immigration is more than welfare benefits. The question is whether greater immigration provides a net benefit to the macroeconomy. According to a study from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) released last week (Engler et al., 2023), the answer to that question is a resounding "Yes!" Per the IMF research paper's abstract:

In OECD, large immigration waves raise domestic output and productivity in both the short and medium term, pointing to significant dynamic gains for the host economy. We find no negative evidence of negative effects on aggregate employment of the native-born population. 

Not only does immigration show no negative impact on native-born labor markets. Whether we are talking GDP, employment, total factor productivity (TFP), or labor productivity, immigration is a net boon for the economy (see below). 

As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce brought up this week, the United States is missing 1.7 million Americans from the workforce compared to February 2020 before the lockdowns. Even if every single one of the 6.5 million unemployed Americans found a job today, there would still be 3 million open jobs. As I illustrated in January, immigration would be a great solution to solving that problem (here's a Niskanen Center report about how it would help the care work industry specifically). Whether it is high-skilled immigrants or low-skilled immigrants, allowing for increased immigration would help solve the United States' labor shortage while improving the country's economic growth. 

Is the Debate on Drag Queen Story Hour Addressing a Legitimate Concern or an Example of Conservative Moral Panic?

The practice of drag, or the performance based on an exaggerated version of masculinity or femininity, has been around for ages. Whether it is Plautus' play of Menaechimi, Shakespearean plays, drag shows that were part of the Prohibition era, Bugs Bunny, Monty Python, or Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire, there has been a practice in cultures (including U.S. culture) of people impersonating the opposite sex with gender-bending. Yet it has become a source of controversy in the United States' culture war, specifically through Drag Queen Story Hour. 

Drag Queen Story Hour was started in 2015 by activist Michelle Tea in San Francisco in the hopes to promote diversity and reading. Essentially, a Drag Queen Story Hour is a public library event in which a drag queen reads a children's story to children from the ages of 3 to 11. Although it started in San Francisco, the nonprofit Drag Queen Hour has 28 chapters in the United States and four chapters abroad. 

Unsurprisingly, the Left and Right have different understandings of what Drag Queen Story Hour is. For the Left, it is a chance for children to be exposed to diversity and being comfortable with and accepting those who are different. For the Right, it is about exposing children to something else. The Right-leaning City Journal opines that Drag Queen Story Hour exists with the purpose of "undermining traditional notions of sexuality, replacing the biological family with the ideological family and arousing transgression sexual desires in young children." So which is it? Is it empowering our children to become better and more caring human beings or sexualizing them?

Whether it is a sexualizing experience is trickier because it is not a simple "yes or no" response. Drag is not inherently obscene or pornographic. The Drag Queen Story Hour is not exposing children to pornography or sexual education. It is an event where drag queens are reading children's books to children. It is also true that a Drag Queen Story Hour is not going to turn children gay. That is not how sexuality works. And let’s not forget that there’s a widely accepted form of sexualizing children, as well as adult women, in the form of beauty pageants.

Conversely, it's not as if these drag queens were dressing up in Victorian-era clothing or something considered more modest in the style of Mrs. Doubtfire. One of the main points of performing as a drag queen is to present an exaggerated version of femininity. Much of the drag getup used by drag queens and the accentuation thereof have a provocative and sexualized aesthetic on some level. It is arguably not as revealing or as explicit as drag queen attire in more adult settings, but there is at least some of it taking place.  

There is a related concern from the Right that Drag Queen Story Hour is used to shove queer theory down children's throats. One selection that is reportedly favored among Drag Queen Story Hour drag queens is Bye Bye Binary. Even if it is true that there are some drag queens that pick children's books with an ideological tilt, it ignores another important facet to this debate. 

Drag Queen Story Hour is not an infringement of parental rights because no one is forcing parents to make their children attend Drag Queen Story Hour. It's a similar concept to how we should deal with children's books from such authors as Roald Dahl or Dr. Seuss. If it offends your sensibilities as a parent, don't buy the book for your child. There is no need to cancel or bowdlerize books.  Similarly, parents have discretion as to whether their children should watch R-rated movies that typically have sex, violence, and/or nudity. 

Conservatives have not had control over the cultural narrative for at least 15 years. It’s why I needed to be reminded that the Right also has the potential to limit freedom simply because they do not agree with the way someone thinks, believes, or acts. The woke Left does not have a monopoly on forcing their views on others. If parent's rights are to apply to more than conservative families, then parents of all political persuasions should be allowed to determine whether an event such as Drag Queen Story Hours is appropriate for their children. To quote the libertarian Reason Magazine, "If you don't approve of drag, don't take your kids there. Leave everyone else alone."

Why Do Studies Show People on the Left Are Typically Less Happy Than the Average Person?

"Misery loves company." 

I found this to particularly be the case living as a libertarian in a liberal bubble during the pandemic. 

"Stay at home."

"Follow the science." 

"Where's your mask?" 

"Why are you traveling during a pandemic? You can't do that." 

I had people haranguing me about mask-wearing when the science is not in favor of mask mandates or mask-wearing generally. I still see people wiping down surfaces thinking they can prevent catching COVID, although it was proven by mid-2020 that COVID really does not get transmitted through surfaces. We have widely available COVID vaccines and I still see some masking up (even outdoors!) like it is 2020. 

Not only were Democrats more likely to be fearful of COVID (Morning Consult), but they were also more likely to experience mental distress as a result (Bock and Schnabel, 2022). What I noticed in my personal life was that on average, the pandemic made those on the Left more irritable, less optimistic, and general buzzkills because they were more likely to buy into the COVID fear-mongering. Thankfully, not all of my liberal friends were downers, but it was something I noticed more and more as the pandemic progressed. I would have thought that COVID vaccines or having Biden in the White House would have brought some solace or equanimity to my Left-leaning friends by now, but it did no such thing. If anything, they seem to have gotten more agitated during Biden's time in office, even though the Democrats have control of the White House and Congress.

Last month, I was reading a book from conservative political commentator Eddie Scarry called Liberal Misery: How the Hateful Left Sucks the Joy Out of Everything and Everyone. I was even able to meet the author after reading the first couple of chapters. I initially took the book with a grain of salt because his thesis was that liberals are more miserable than conservatives. I do not exist on the "conservative/liberal" spectrum. Some of my views lean Right and others Left, which means I do not have ideological skin in the outcome. I do not have a political affiliation and remain independent, which means I do not have partisan skin in the game either. 

I wanted to independently conduct research to see if what Scarry was saying was true. It turns out that he was correct: on average, those on the Left are less happy than those on the Right. I will be citing other studies throughout this piece, but one of the main studies that Scarry cited (and I will also be citing) was from scholars from the University of Florida and Toronto (Schlenker et al., 2012). 

There is research to suggest that those on the Left are more prone to neuroticism than those on the Right (McCann, 2018; Burton et al., 2015). This might seem like an insult to some, but the psychological definition of neuroticism is the extent to which a person experiences the world as distressing, threatening, or unsafe. This plays out in forms of depression, anxiety, self-doubt, and other negative feelings. More recently, data from Pew Research Center's American Trends Panel in March 2020 showed that those on the Left (particularly white people on the Far Left) are significantly more likely to have mental health issues. On a similar note, another study from the University of Southern California found that conservatives report greater purpose in meaning in life than liberals (Newman et al., 2018). 

I would have thought that this happiness gap was strictly an American thing, but this happiness gap also plays out in Canada (MacInnis et al., 2013) and Europe (Okulicz-Kozaryn et al., 2014). What is even more interesting is that this trend in the happiness gap is not anything new. I would argue that Trump's election and the pandemic were inflection points for the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. I would also argue that increased pervasiveness of wokeness in the mainstream Left, Occupy Wall Street, and increased usage of social media amplified this gap over the past decade. 

Freakonomics author Stephen Dubner pointed out the happiness gap back in 2008. When you look through the data from the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Survey, which has been funded by the National Science Foundation, what you find is that this happiness gap between liberals and conservatives dates back at least to the 1970s. A 2006 report from the nonpartisan Pew Research similarly identifies this happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. 

None of this is to say that happy liberals or miserable conservatives do not exist because they do. However, when you look back at least five decades of survey data, they show that conservatives are on average happier than liberals. Even liberals over at the New York Times and The Atlantic have acknowledged the happiness gap.

Today, I do not want to debate whether the gap exists. Rather, I would like to dig into the reasons why such a gap would exist in the first place. Without causal mechanisms, all you have is correlation that may or may not have bearing on the matter. About 50 percent of the variation within the population on happiness is due to genetics (e.g., DeNeve et al., 2012). The other 40 percent is based on choice and one's lifestyle, whereas the other 10 percent is circumstance (Lyubomirsky, 2007). This does not apply to a given individual because an individual is not an entire population, but it does show us that on average, a significant portion of happiness is based on what we choose in life.  

But first, it makes sense to define happiness. I will quote The Happiness Advantage by Sean Achor for this portion. Happiness is what scientists refer to as subjective well-being (Achor, p. 39). It is an experience of positive emotions: pleasure combined with deeper feelings of meaning and purpose, which implies a positive mood in the present and a positive outlook for the future. Martin Seligman, who was a pioneer in positive psychology broke down happiness into three portions: pleasure, engagement, and meaning (ibid.). 

So what exactly is at play here? Does liberalism or progressivism make someone more miserable? Do less happier people gravitate towards being liberal? Or are conservatives more likely to partake in activities and lifestyle choices that result in greater happiness? I would like to take a look at happiness research and political philosophy in attempts to answer what accounts for this happiness gap. 

Reactions to inequality and unfairness. Life is unfair and can be difficult. What Stoicism, amongst other philosophies and religions, teaches is that what determines life quality is how you respond to life's difficulties. Epictetus taught that it was not so much external events that get us down, but how we respond to those events. That lesson seems to play out in the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives. 

A study from the Association for Psychological Science posits that the main reason for the happiness gap is because of rationalization of inequality. The authors concluded that "conservatives [more than liberals] possess an ideological buffer against the negative hedonic effects of income inequality" (Napier and Jost, 2008). As one of the authors of this paper, Jaime Napier, said on PBS, "one of the biggest [factors that] correlates in our surveys was the belief of meritocracy." 

To translate these findings, liberals are more likely to be disheartened because such inequalities exist. Conservatives, as well as libertarians such as myself, are not nearly as affected by it on an emotional level. This could be interpreted as conservatives not caring enough, although that can be harder to argue since conservatives give more to charity than liberals (Yang and Liu, 2021).

It is not because conservatives or libertarians do not recognize life's unfairness. It certainly exists. Part of where the typical conservative or libertarian differs is belief in hard work and perseverance, as we will see shortly. It is also the idea that as long as people have different levels of skillset, professional networks, and put in different levels of effort, there is bound to be inequality. Also, if you look at history (especially ancient history) or nature, you will see that inequality and hardship are defaults. It is not to say we should do nothing to make the world better, but there is only so much we can do. As an interesting Jewish tangent, the Talmud (Shabbat 151b) acknowledges that poverty will exist even when the Messiah shows up. Utopia does not exist. 

Resilience. Liberals can interpret the enhanced emotional reaction to inequality as a sign of "look how much I care." Their empathy can be seen as a virtue and that some happiness is the sacrifice to be that attune with the less fortunate. I do not see this level of empathy held by the typical liberal as a strength but as a weakness. It is not simply because it gets in the way of happiness. It is due to a utopian, unreachable goal that does not see the world for what it is. The world can be a dark and cold place. Technological development has not changed the fact that cruelty or injustice is still amongst us. If you try to care about every injustice or slight, you end up being emotionally exhausted and frustrated. 

Conservatives and libertarians are less likely to have this problem because they are more likely to keep their emotions in check. According to a study from Current Psychology (Briki and Dagot, 2020), conservatives are found to be happier than liberals because they "can bolster self-adaptive regulatory functions when exposed to threatening contexts." The study shows that self-regulatory factors such as perception of goal progress, dispositional self-control, and dispositional flow lead to greater subjective well-being in conservatives. This study shows that conservatives have better "mental adjustment," which is "indicated by the coping responses involved in adopting strategies to deal with or adapt to a situation." In other words, the level of empathy that the average liberal holds is all-encompassing and so overpowering that it gets in the way of them being emotionally resilient, adaptive, and ultimately happy with life. 

Personal Agency. The Florida State and Toronto University study previously cited at the beginning of this piece (Schlenker et al., 2012) has an interesting insight on the matter of personal agency (i.e., strong endorsements of personal control, responsibility, and reliability). Conservatives score higher on internal control, as well as the Protestant Work Ethic. "Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to see outcomes as due to factors beyond one's personal control, including luck and properties of the social system (ibid.)." 

According to the authors, the differences in personal agency "could, in and of themselves, explain much of the happiness gap." The authors also find that "perceptions of inner control, self-efficacy, and the engagement in meaningful work are strongly correlated to life satisfaction." It makes sense. I know we cannot control everything, whether that is the weather, economy, or a pandemic. At the same time, what feels more empowering: having a sense of control (or at least strong influence) over your life trajectory or having to succumb to the whim of whatever external events come your way? Even author Brené Brown, who I have heard quoted my friends on the Left, said that "owning our story and loving ourselves through that process is the bravest thing that we will ever do." That ownership requires personal agency, which is a key component to happiness. 

Fear versus optimism. Everyone has fears at a certain point of time. Conservatives are not exempt from fear. Intuitively, you would think that libertarians and conservatives have higher levels of pessimism because they have a more negative view on human nature. There have been attempts to try to explain this view of human nature along with conservatives self-reporting greater levels of happiness.

One article at Science points out one of its own studies to try to explain the gap away by suggesting that conservatives are not actually happier. It is that conservatives merely put a positive spin on their lives, that they self-enhance. The study suggests that conservatives self-report greater happiness, but that liberals use more positive emotional language and more genuine smiles (Wojcik et al., 2015). This study uses language-processing software and an expert in facial recognition analysis to analyze survey results, U.S. politicians, Twitter users, and LinkedIn users. 

Let's think about the intuition behind this study for a second. Twitter and LinkedIn are part of social media. Social media is all about putting up a façade and a tendency to de-emphasize the bad in life. Social media is not the real world. If conservatives were the ones who were putting on a show and partaking in self-enhancement, it would show up it in social media, right? Yet it is the liberals who have a slightly more positive output on social media. 

Plus, even if conservatives put a more positive spin on their lives, so what? As previously illustrated, happiness is subjective well-being. Resilience and personal agency are those tools that help us cope with life's travails and create greater happiness. It is not how one views human nature per se that attributes to happiness. It is how one reacts to human nature and how the world is, as previously illustrated in the "Resilience" subsection. 

This is where a more optimistic viewpoint matters. A study from Kings College shows that positive thinking reduces anxiety (Eagelson et al., 2016). The Mayo Clinic illustrates how positive thinking reduces stress and lowers rates of depression. It is not the liberals who are as likely to possess this trait, but "conservatives exhibit a more positive outlook and stronger feelings of self-worth (Schlenker et al., 2012)." 

Yes, pundits and politicians on the political Right have their own fear-mongering, whether it has been over immigrants or terrorists. However, I think it is different than the modern-day Left's fear-mongering. There is something that I have observed from the mainstream Left's fear-mongering, whether it is Democrats being more likely to take on preventative measures against COVID (Kiviniemi et al., 2022) or Democrats being much more worried about climate change than Republicans (Pew Research). It is hard to listen to political pundits on the mainstream Left without the takeaway being that the world is going to end and there is no hope in sight. Even if climate change does not end up killing us all, income inequality and systemic racism are too prevalent from the mainstream Left's point of view to really enjoy anything in life without addressing life's unfairness first. 

This is not merely my take. An article from Cambridge University highlights why the political Left, particularly those who are well-educated, are more pessimistic (Hochschild, 2017). The Economist released some polling data back in January showing how Biden voters are more likely to view various issues more pessimistically than Trump voters (see below) about one year after Biden being in office. To bring it back to the main point of this subsection, positive thinking leads to happiness. The Left has put greater emphasis on gloom and doom than a positive mindset, which is a contributing factor to the happiness gap. Speaking of a positive mindset....

Gratitude versus Envy. I want to resume discussing inequality by discussing the theme of gratitude and how it relates to happiness. I also want to touch upon a few habits that are conducive to happiness, starting with gratitude. As Harvard University points out, there is a strong correlation between gratitude and wellbeing. There have been multiple studies released on the topic. Practicing gratitude develops an abundance mindset, which leads to happiness. 

Contrast that with envy. As I discussed last year, one of the quickest ways we can make ourselves miserable is through envy. The Association for Psychological Science study cited earlier (Napier and Jost, 2008) was released before the Occupy Wall Street movement. As previously discussed, the Left has been more and more focused on what others have in comparison to what they have, on the "haves" versus the "have nots."

In Hebrew, the term for gratitude (הכרת הטוב) means "to recognize the good." It does not mean that we ignore or deny the existence of inequality, oppression, or unfairness. It means that we acknowledge and put emphasis on the good that exists in our lives. If the narrative of the political Left is focused on being wronged, cheated, marginalized, or oppressed, is it a surprise that it becomes more difficult for someone on the Left to see the good in life? It seems quite difficult to be positive, optimistic, or ultimately happy with the scarcity mindset that has become more prevalent on the Left. 

Role of Religion and Spirituality. Liberals are less likely to hold religious beliefs than moderates or conservatives (Pew Research). I mention this because there has been a correlation between religion and subjective well-being. Religion or spirituality can play a role in happiness because "spiritual beliefs contribute to life satisfaction because they instill meaning and direction, offer senses of beauty, uplift, and optimism, provide explanations for events, give a sense of closeness to God, and offer comfort in difficult times, and these characteristics are above and beyond the larger, supportive social networks of those who are religious (Schlenker et al., 2012)." Another benefit of religious communities is that it minimizes the feeling of loneliness (Cox et al., 2019). One could argue that the lack of religious institutions, or at least social institutions that function similar to religious institutions, makes a liberal less likely to be happy. 

Meditation. I would have thought that meditation would have been something done overwhelmingly by liberals since the word can connote something more "hippy-dippy spiritual." Yet Pew Research found that 45 percent of conservatives meditate at least once a week, as opposed to 38 percent of liberals or 42 percent of independents. I know these data points are snapshots from 2014, but it nevertheless is an interesting find, even if it plays a modest role in the happiness gap. Meditation is found to reduce propensity towards negativity (Fredrickson et al., 2008), as well as release such chemicals as endorphins and serotonin. 

Being physically active and better health. There are multiple studies to show that exercise increases happiness, including this one from the University of Michigan (Zhang and Chen, 2018). It makes sense since exercise increases endorphins, dopamine, and adrenaline. Dopamine is especially important since it produces feelings of optimism. 

One study found that conservatives were more likely to be healthier than their liberal counterparts because conservatives place greater emphasis on personal responsibility (Chan, 2019). This could also be due to higher levels of conscientiousness among conservatives. In this case, conscientiousness refers to norms regarding impulse control, self-discipline, and being task-focused. As Psychology Today points out, conscientiousness leads to better health outcomes. Plus, those who believe in ideologies that endorse the importance of free will (e.g., conservatism, libertarianism) have greater self-control than those who do not (Clarkson et al., 2015).

Postscript. There are certainly some tendencies that both the Left and Right share that can impede happiness. Politicians and pundits on both sides use fear to advance their political views. Both sides have implemented their own version of moral policing at one point or another. It takes time and energy to obsess over how other people should behave the way you think they ought to behave. Also, either the Left and the Right can give in and many in the U.S. are giving into authoritarianism more and more. I bring up the authoritarianism because freedom and happiness are correlated (also see Brulé and Veenhoven, 2014).

In spite of there being some similarities between the mainstream Left and mainstream Right (aside from those in the previous paragraph), there are also a number of differences between the two, especially pertaining to individual well-being. A lot of the happiness gap between liberals and conservatives has to do with mindset. Author Roy T. Bennett said that "If you want to be happy, do not dwell in the past, do not worry about the future, focus living fully in the present." This is an adaptation of a Lao Tsu quote, but it nevertheless bears wisdom. Happiness has a major perspective component to it. Gratitude is about being able to see the good in life, even when times are difficult. Resilience is being able to have the perspective to cope and endure the bad times. The notion of personal agency gives one a greater sense of control of one's life, which attributes to happiness. 

In short, the happiness gap can be attributed to how the average liberal approaches life in comparison to everyone else. The average person on the Left possesses less emotional resilience, greater propensity towards envy, less optimism, and is less likely to exercise personal agency and take a sense of ownership in life. What the mainstream Left has decided to emphasize in recent years does play a role in their happiness relative to everyone else. What should provide my friends on the Left some solace is that the happiness gap is not inherently a part of the ideology. While it is not my case to make, I think the mainstream Left could find a way to be more optimistic and live in a way that is more conducive to happiness. Whether the Left ends up rediscovering a sense of optimism remains to be seen. What I will say is such a rediscovery would not only be in their political interest, but especially in the interest of their well-being and happiness.