January 17, 1987

Constructive Misery Makes Happy People

NOTE:

This column is a revise of August 11, 1976.

Some things change the same.

There’s nothing so important to all of us as misery!

So says Russell Mills, a Canadian colleague who writes for the Ottawa newspaper, “Citizen.”

Consider his thesis:

Without unhappiness - or at least the threat of it - civilization wouldn’t be possible. It’s paradoxical, but fair to say, that without the constant threat of misery, long-term happiness wouldn’t be possible.

No social relationship can exist without written and unwritten rules that limit behavior. And rules aren’t effective unless there is a threat of some type of punishment for those who don’t obey them.

This applies to both national level and two-person relationships. If you don’t obey the law you’ll be fined or imprisoned. If you transgress the unwritten rules of your marriage, you might wind up sleeping on the couch.

The types of misery are different, but all are effective in encouraging compliance with rules.

The essence of democracy is that the people have the right to make their government miserable by tossing it out of office if they don’t like it. It’s the constant threat of exquisite misery of being a minority party that keeps politicians responsive to the public will.

Constructive Misery

Unfortunately, the importance of constructive misery is too often forgotten in our efforts to create a more humane society. For example, how do we motivate people to work unless there is the threat that they will be poor - and, therefore, miserable - if they don’t.

Every society that has ever existed has been based on the credible threat of unhappiness for those who break the rules, or don’t contribute to the common good.

In fact, the societies that have the most credible threats of swift misery are the workers’ paradises. Supposedly communist nations are founded on the premise that people will work hard for the common good – "from each according to ability, to each according to need."

Yet, the misery ladled out to non-conformists by totalitarian states is harsh. We know well what happens to Cubans who refuse to cut sugar cane, to Chinese who are caught dealing on the black market, to Russians who publish books opposing the central planners.

When it comes to applied misery, totalitarian countries don’t fool around.

One of the problems with our modern, social democracies is that in creating a more humane society, we may have gone too far in removing the threat of misery.

In the past, the state had a great deal of help from the church and kings in maintaining an appreciation of misery. However, the threat of Hell after death and the whipping post here and now are relics of a grim history.

Now we cater to individuality: doing our own thing, uno numero, right of privacy, welfare, personal bankruptcy, free sex, happy hours, and no-fault divorce. No consequences.

Government Responsibility

It is the responsibility of governments, properly, to alleviate undeserved misery. In doing this we may have barged into the area of deserved misery - the kind people bring on themselves.

The government unemployment compensation programs, for example. This began as an attempt to help productive citizens avoid the misery of economic dislocations beyond their power to influence. Certainly it is inhumane to consign a hard worker to a life of poverty because society has failed to manage.

In going too far with unemployment compensation, the government also made it possible for individuals to reduce the amount of misery they normally bring on themselves by being lazy or indifferent. Food stamps, government housing, aid to dependent children are compassionate, but debilitating.

Thus we have created a permanent class of non-working, not-quite-miserable poor.

To see how bad things might get, we can note the plight of our British cousins. Because of high taxes on those who work and those who risk capital, and because of the extensive social benefits available to those who don’t work or invest, the once magnificent English society has become a basket case. The person who doesn’t work is not really much more miserable than the man who does. Is this the ultimate democracy?

Americans fear misery. We have even invented a “misery index” by which we measure our government to see if it is time to throw it out and elect a more generous regime. The measurement combines the indexes for inflation and unemployment.

Back in the Jimmy Carter administration, inflation was 13.5 percent and unemployment 9.6 percent. The misery index, therefore, was a whopping 23.1 percent.

Today the misery index has dwindled to 10.5 percent, but still the fear of misery hangs on. Congress will massage this phobia by tearing apart the president’s record trillion-dollar budget and jacking up social spending by another 20 billion dollars - in borrowed money.

With such smoke and mirrors, misery is postponed to our grandchildren, if not our children.

The ash heap of history is strewn with the bones of civilizations that eliminated general misery, and along with it the general satisfaction of reward for work, risk and prudent management.

The irresponsible spending habits of present-day democracies edge ever closer to that ash heap. Yet there is still a little time for the United States to promote a happier society with some judiciously-applied misery.

August 11, 1976

Three Cheers For Misery

There’s nothing so important to all of us as misery!

So says Russell Mills, a Canadian colleague who writes for the Ottawa newspaper “Citizen.”

Consider his thesis:

Without unhappiness-or at least the threat of it-civilization wouldn’t be possible. It’s paradoxical, but fair to say, that without the constant threat of misery for all of us, long-term happiness wouldn’t be possible.

No social relationship can exist without written and unwritten rules that limit behavior. And rules aren’t effective unless there is a threat that some type of unhappiness will befall those who don’t obey them.

This applies in two-person relationships as well as at the national level. If you don’t obey the rules of your country, you’ll be fined or put in jail. If you transgress the unwritten rules of your marriage, you might wind up sleeping on the couch.

The types of misery are different, but both are effective in enforcing the rules.

The essence of democracy is that the people have the right to make their government miserable by tossing it out of office if they don’t like it. It’s the constant threat of the exquisite misery of being the minority party that keeps governments responsive to the public will.

* * *

My concern today is that in our efforts to create a more humane society the importance of constructive misery is too often forgotten.

For example, how do we motivate people to work unless there is the threat that they will be poor-and therefore miserable-if they don’t?

Every society that has ever existed has been based on the credible threat of unhappiness for those who break the rules or don’t contribute to the common good.

In fact, the societies that have the most credible threats of swift misery today are the workers’ paradises. Supposedly they are founded on the belief that people are fundamentally good and don’t require this type of cruel motivation.

Yet, what do you suppose happens to Cubans who refuse to work, Chinese who are caught dealing on the black market, or Russians who publish books opposing the current regime?

The communist ideology might be idealistic, but when it comes to applied misery, these countries don’t food around.

One of the problems with our modern social democracies in the West is that in creating a more humane society we may have gone too far in removing the threat of misery.

In the past, the state had a great deal of help from the church and from society itself in maintaining the credibility of the threat. But now few people believe in Hell. Old social taboos have disappeared as we have gone too far in the permissive direction.

There are essentially two kinds of misery - that which isn’t your fault, and the kind you earn by breaking the rules or by not contributing to the common good.

It is the responsibility of governments to strive to reduce undeserved misery. In doing so, however, we have also reduced the misery that people bring on themselves. And that can be dangerous.

The government unemployment compensation program is a good example.

This began as an attempt to reduce undeserved misery. Why should a hard worker be left poor and miserable because his company goes broke or is forced to lay him off during an economic slump?

It was a legitimate attempt by the federal government to reduce unmerited misery. But in setting up the program, the government also made it possible for individuals to reduce the amount of misery they normally bring on themselves by being lazy.

People who work for the minimum required, to qualify for benefits, and then quit their jobs -- are left with an adequate, if not lavish, income. The amount of misery that used to result from this irresponsible behavior has been reduced.

* * *

You have only to look at Britain to see how bad things might get. Because of high taxes on those who work, and the good social benefits available to those who don’t, the man who doesn’t work is not really much more miserable than the man who does.

As a result, few people in Britain put much effort into their jobs. The current national hero is a man who has managed to live reasonably well at the public trough by only working several weeks in the past 20 years.

The people who contribute to British society are almost as miserable as those who don’t. So why contribute?

I doubt that any society that doesn’t ensure that people who contribute to the common good are happier than those who don’t can exist for long.

Yet that seems to be the direction in which the democracies of the West are heading. We are in political, economic and social trouble. But nothing that a little misery won’t cure.

By Lindsey Wilger Williams, retired newspaper publisher and syndicated columnist