Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Does partisanship impact happiness?

Does partisanship impact happiness?
Javier Zayas Photography/Getty Images

Lynn Schmidt is a syndicated columnist and Editorial Board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

When it comes to polarization, partisanship and happiness, I have more questions than answers. As polarization has increased in America, is it still true that partisans are happier than non-partisans?


On the day that the United States military, under the order of Pres. Biden, shot down the Chinese spy balloon off the coast of the Carolinas. I felt a wave of the “rally around the flag” effect and even shared some patriotic exuberance with my husband. While I did not like the idea that China had managed to launch this spy balloon over the United States, I had full faith that the military and intelligence leadership would do the right and safe thing. Shortly thereafter I saw that the senior U.S. Senator from my state tweeted “Debacle.” How remarkably sad that a senator couldn't rejoice in a “win” for the United States because he is so profoundly motivated by partisan animosity.

Historical studies have shown that Republicans are happier than Democrats or independents. Some 45 percent of all Republicans report being very happy, compared with just 30 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents. Since 1972 Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey (GSS) began measuring this in 1972. This information can be complicated by the correlations of income, education, marital status, and religiosity but it begs the question. Does it remain true that as polarization has increased, those numbers stayed the same?

I find it surprising that people who consider their political opponents their enemies and stew in an ideological media culture of anger and fear of “the other” are happier than those who consider each other as fellow Americans?

Pew Research reports that highly negative views of the opposite party have more than doubled: 43 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of Democrats now view the opposite party in strongly negative terms. Among all Democrats, 27 percent say the GOP is a threat to the well-being of the country. That figure is even higher among Republicans, 36 percent of whom think Democratic policies threaten the nation.

I am a recovering partisan. It has been several years since I left the warm embrace of a tribe. I am also so much happier. I have adopted independence in most aspects of my political life. Not only do I consider myself an independent voter, I approach each issue, candidate, and election in a refreshingly independent way. I am not alone. According to Gallup Research, as of Nov. 2022, the largest voting block in the electorate goes to independents with 42 percent, followed by Republicans with 30 percent and Democrats with 26 percent. Of course independents lean one way or another but the takeaway should be that more Americans no longer want to associate with one of the two major parties.

When thinking about all this data and considering my personal experience, I am starting to think we need new studies. I was excited to see this one.

A study published in 2020 in The Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties as “Neural Nonpartisans” suggests that the brains of non-partisans function differently than those of partisans. Blood flow to regions associated with problem solving differed between the two groups. The findings may lead to further research in how differences in brain activity affect personality. The study looked at blood flow in the brains of partisans and non-partisans as they played a betting game. The results were later compared to their voter registrations to confirm their partisanship or lack thereof. The sample size was small with only 110 test subjects but the results were fascinating. The brain scans demonstrated that blood flow to the right medial temporal pole, orbitofrontal/medial prefrontal cortex, and right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex differs between partisans and non-partisans. These regions are associated with socially relevant memory, decision making, and goal-related responses. Previous studies have also shown them to be essential for social connections. The study demonstrates that the brains of non-partisans approach non-political problems differently than the brains of partisans.

Lead author Dr. Darren Schreiber laid out his interpretation of the data and offered takeaways: “There is skepticism about the existence of non-partisan voters, that they are just people who don’t want to state their preferences. But we have shown their brain activity is different, even aside from politics. We think this has important implications for political campaigning – non-partisans need to be considered a third voter group. In the USA 40 percent of people are thought to be non-partisan voters. Previous research shows negative campaigning deters them from voting. This exploratory study suggests US politicians need to treat swing voters differently, and positive campaigning may be important in winning their support. While heated rhetoric may appeal to a party’s base, it can drive non-partisans away from politics altogether.”

The escalation of polarization, as well as the surge of non-partisans, warrants further studies and meaningful discourse. We have very little to lose and much to gain.

Read More

Doctor using AI technology
Akarapong Chairean/Getty Images

Generative AI Can Save Lives: Two Diverging Paths In Medicine

Generative AI is advancing at breakneck speed. Already, it’s outperforming doctors on national medical exams and in making difficult diagnoses. Microsoft recently reported that its latest AI system correctly diagnosed complex medical cases 85.5% of the time, compared to just 20% for physicians. OpenAI’s newly released GPT-5 model goes further still, delivering its most accurate and responsive performance yet on health-related queries.

As GenAI tools double in power annually, two distinct approaches are emerging for how they might help patients.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Battle Over Truth: Trump, Data, and the Fight for Reality
File:Donald Trump (29496131773).jpg - Wikimedia Commons

The Battle Over Truth: Trump, Data, and the Fight for Reality

I. The Battle Over Facts

When Donald Trump fired Dr. Kristine Joy Suh, head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, after a disappointing July jobs report, it wasn’t merely a personnel decision—it was a sharp break with precedent. Suh’s removal upended decades of tradition in which BLS commissioners, regardless of who appointed them, were shielded from political retaliation to preserve statistical integrity. In his second term, Trump has made it clear that data isn’t merely information to be reported—it’s a narrative to be controlled. If the numbers align with his message, they’re hailed as proof of success. If they don’t, they’re dismissed as fake—or worse, subversive.

Keep ReadingShow less
Michael Chippendale: Realistic, Not Idealistic Government

Michael Chippendale, Minority Leader of the Rhode Island House of Representatives

Credit: Hugo Balta

Michael Chippendale: Realistic, Not Idealistic Government

Michael Chippendale is a seasoned Republican legislator and the current Minority Leader of the Rhode Island House of Representatives. Representing District 40—which includes Coventry, Foster, and Glocester—Chippendale has served in the General Assembly since 2010, steadily rising through the ranks of GOP leadership.

Chippendale was unanimously elected House Minority Leader in June 2022 and re-elected in December 2024. Prior to this, he served as Minority Whip from 2018 to 2022. His leadership style is marked by a focus on government efficiency, tax reform, and regulatory relief for small businesses.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump’s Use of Tariffs Is Another Sign of Democratic Decay

dollar bill reimagined with President Trump's picture

Trump’s Use of Tariffs Is Another Sign of Democratic Decay

Until recently, tariffs had the sound of something from the nineteenth century. The famous Senator Henry Clay was so enthusiastic about them that, in 1832, he designated the protection they afforded “the American System.”

At that time, Clay argued that the “transformation of the condition of the country from gloom and distress to brightness and prosperity, has been mainly the work of American legislation, fostering American industry, instead of allowing it to be controlled by foreign legislation, cherishing foreign industry.”

Keep ReadingShow less