Happiness, Community and the Way Forward

David Brooks wrote in the New York Times on August 8, reflecting on a recent Gallup survey of Global Happiness. Perhaps I misread but he seemed to say that in the U.S. conservatives are less discouraged, less discontented with life than progressives because  they are anchored in traditional values of family and shared responsibility. Progressives, on the other hand, appeared less satisfied and more pessimistic, which  attributed to what he called “extreme individualism” — a detachment from the enduring social relationships that help people weather life’s ups and downs.

I agree with much of what Brooks writes but I found this column troubling. One reason is that deep discontent with the unfulfilled promises of liberal democracy appears to be driving the growth of right-wing movements that now wear the “conservative” label. At the same time, many progressives seem increasingly fearful of losing democracy altogether as the United States edges toward authoritarianism. In other words, discontent and discouragement about life in general may lie heavily on conservative and liberal hearts alike.

The Gallup Organization publishes an annual World Happiness Report, the most recent in March 2025. Its measures are not ideological but social. Happiness is described in terms of satisfaction with life and hope for a better future. Economic well-being is one factor, but Gallup emphasizes something more important: the strength of social relationships. People report higher happiness when they have mutual trust in others, confidence that others will act benevolently, and a sense of life’s purpose. Political ideology may play a role, but it was not apparent in the executive summary I read.

The many lists ranking national happiness must be taken with a grain of salt. Looking at half a dozen of them, I sometimes wondered if country names were simply scattered on a table and left where they fell. Yet certain patterns emerged: Nordic nations often top the charts — despite relatively high suicide rates — while many African countries cluster near the bottom. The United States consistently hovers somewhere in the middle, trending downward.

To be clear, happiness is not a competition. This is not the World Cup of national well-being. At best these rankings are rough diagnostic tools implicating where a society might need to improve.

I want to suggest another approach I believe is consistent with the Gallup findings.  The American ethos of rugged individualism is one of our greatest assets. It values personal responsibility, independent initiative, and the belief that you get out of life what you put into it. But when it claims for itself an individualism at enmity with restrictions imposed on it by society and government it weakens community bonds necessary for mutual well-being. The popular notion that “government is the enemy” ignores that government — local, state, and national — is simply the mechanism by which we decide how to live together in reasonable harmony. 

Community, as the World Happiness Report shows, is built on trustworthy social relationships. People are happier when they know there is at least one person who cares for them, when they live in healthy families, when they share meals with others, and when they participate in small groups — especially religious communities. They are happier when those relationships are both affirming and challenging and also happier when they feel more freedom in a less dangerous community.

We don’t need laws to define friendship or family, but we do have shared expectations: that they be safe, trustworthy, honest, truthful, and encouraging. Civil authority can promote those values, but it cannot legislate them. Yet society as a whole — from neighborhood to nation — does require some legal structure to thrive. Two hundred and fifty years ago, we chose the messy process of liberal democracy, trusting that a representative government, balanced by an independent judiciary and limited executive power, would serve us better than an authoritarian rule of monarchs.

It has — but not without severe testing. Trust in our democratic experiment has been eroded by loud voices proclaiming government as the enemy, by an extreme individualism that denies mutual dependence, and by a drift away from face-to-face contact. COVID-19, the seductions of social media, and the insistence on ideological purity have all taken their toll.

We cannot go back to what we think we once had — and much of that, if we’re honest, is selective memory. Efforts to reverse history by restoring a patriarchal, white-dominated society will fail, but not before causing real damage. The goal of such movements is to consign non-white Americans to a permanent lower class and to subordinate women to men. It can’t succeed, but it can certainly strip us of our freedom and make our communities more dangerous.

Meanwhile, the internet, social media, and artificial intelligence are here to stay. They will shape our society more with each passing year. The question is whether we will guide them for the common good or allow them to dictate how we live. We cannot blame technology for our social ills. it is only a tool for us to use wisely or unwisely.

Our central task is to establish the kinds of social relationships that sustain and encourage us through life’s changes and challenges. Perhaps the old city planners weren’t wrong: every neighborhood should have a small core of coffee shops, convenience stores, and public gathering places. What we cannot do is design communities to exclude some, underserve some or limit the rights of some for the preference of others.

Whatever other crises demand our attention, one of our highest priorities must be fostering healthy relationships at every level — from the person living alone to the large family, from the neighborhood to the nation. Liberal democracy, messy as it is, remains the best framework for extending unalienable rights to all people without discrimination.

As an Episcopal priest, I am convinced that God calls us to the way of life — the “habits of the heart” — that bring healing, reconciliation, meaning, purpose, and trustworthy relationships. These are not in competition with other visions of the good life, but they are, I believe, divinely given. Not everyone will accept that, but for those who claim the name of Christ, the path is clear: to live as fully as possible into God’s way, a way that can only be lived in community. It has nothing to do with Christian nationalism, or any religious movement by whatever name that seeks to impose personal social values on everyone else. It is unity in faith, not uniformity — a calling to join with others in God’s name to pursue what is good, right, and gracious for all.  Christians are called and commanded to live their lives in ways that bring something of the kingdom of God in to the places where they are as their contribution to building healthy social relationships that respect human dignity. They are called to participate with others in building healthy community