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

US Senate candidate Dan Osborn

Nebraska Independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn.

Image obtained from YouTube

7 Independent Campaigns to Watch in the Final Days of the Midterms

Election Day on November 3, here are the seven independent campaigns we’ve followed closely, four for the Senate and three for the House, ranked by how competitive they are.

Fundraising figures are full-cycle totals from FEC reports, through the date noted for each race. Prediction-market odds come from Kalshi and were pulled on 10/23. Polls are pulled from the aggregated New York Times pages, with several low-quality polls highlighted by campaigns left out.

Keep ReadingShow less
​Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote

Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote inserted into a grey cardboard ballot box slot.

Getty Images

The First Amendment Does Not Belong to Political Parties

In a recent essay in Life & Liberty, Robert G. Natelson argues that open primaries may violate the First Amendment rights of political parties by allowing people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. His argument starts with the rights of the party. The more fundamental question is whether it starts in the right place at all: When a state conducts a primary election, whose rights are we even talking about?

Natelson’s answer is primarily the rights of political parties. He argues that because parties have a First Amendment right to decide with whom they associate, the government cannot require them to allow people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. He relies on a number of Supreme Court decisions involving political parties and places particular weight on National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. But in doing so, he moves too quickly past the most important fact in the debate: a state primary is an election conducted by the government, not a private meeting of a political organization.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media

White House communications aide Danielle Alvarez (R) films with her phone as U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the media as he departs on the South Lawn of the White House on October 23, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Finn Gomez/Getty Images

Trump’s Arch Plan Defies Law and Warps D.C.’s Historic Core

The Trump Arch construction controversy is the latest vanity project by Donald Trump using taxpayer money without Congressional approval, placing his ego-based physical stamp on not only American historical architecture but also the American psyche. With no good reason for constructing this arch, it’s an act of self-aggrandizement meant to make him look powerful and important. The project is unconstitutional, illegal, and patently un-American. Three Vietnam War veterans and an architectural historian have also filed a lawsuit against it.

Like all other actors in government, executive agencies, like the National Park Service, must follow the rule of law and respect ‘separation of powers’ established by the U.S. Constitution. This means following the laws enacted by Congress, which has the power to distribute public funds and determine how they are spent, not the Executive Branch, including the President.

Keep ReadingShow less
 Side view of young African American male voter filling in ballot

An opinion piece argues that America must revisit Reconstruction after the Trump era, starting with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Pressmaster/Getty Images

Radical Reconstruction: Looking to the Past To Move Forward

The last 11 years of electoral politics have plunged our nation into new lows: withdrawal and reentry into Middle Eastern conflicts, a politicized public health response during a pandemic, an attempted coup of the American government, and continual police brutality against people of color. Donald Trump’s existence on the political stage, in office or out, has held our nation hostage through repeated crises, leading us to the most divided time in our nation since the Civil War. The path forward for our young country doesn’t just require new ideas: we need to finally follow through on Reconstruction.

A blip in American history, Abraham Lincoln’s post-Civil War vision, called Reconstruction, was the proposed path forward for Southern reentry into American life. In exchange for loyalty to the Union and some guarantees of black civil protection, Lincoln prepared to readmit secessionist states into the Union, albeit with political restraints on numerous Confederate leaders.

Keep ReadingShow less