I tend to agree with your assessment.

I am sure some people with disagree with your article on the premise of your definition of success. Most of academia are liberal. Professors will argue intellecutal achievement is a grander form of success. blah....

In my circle of acquaintances, I find the same things you do. People who began life in poverty or lower middle-class, that always believed in conservative ideals, inevitably end up successful. They also don't have to tell everyone or explain to everyone that they are successful.

That's why I included a link to the definition of success.

But as a society, as a practical matter, we do know what success is.  Some people may lament what the consensus of success is but to deny that there is a general consensus in our society would be naive.

You have an idea of what personal success is. But being personally successful may be a detriment to other people's success. For example, if you get rich by charging everyone lots for coal rather than charging only what is needed to cover your costs, that may well make you personally successful. You and your family will probably have a great life, at least materially speaking. However, the general level of success might go down, because you make other people poorer by doing so. Had you charged less, these other people might have had more money in which they could have set up their own businesses, eventually leading to a more wealthy local society. But they had to spend their money on your coal, so they didn't.

You could argue that rich people tend to spend their money in the community, but is that really true nowadays? Personally, I order everything off Amazon. My money goes to a faceless corporation half a world away, not the guy next door.

Personal success doesn't always come at other people's expense, of course, but there's no denying that it can do.

In my experience, one person's success is rarely detrimental to other people's success.  If someone is charging too much for coal, then a competitor will come in and undercut them.

It's hard to be successful in ruthless exploitation unless you're a monopoly on a resource or service which is very unusual.

Like I said, as a society we have a general consensus on what success is. When you talk to normal people, i.e. people not like us, in a casual adult gathering people can use the word "successful" and everyone has the same general idea even if some of the particulars are different.

I don't know if that is the case for all societies. Some cultures view success in different ways. Western (and, yes, particularly American) culture is very materialistic. The most successful person is the guy who has the biggest house, the fastest car, and the most expensive wardrobe. Other cultures might not value people who are successful in business at all, rather viewing people who (say) serve in the red cross as being successful, even if their pay is minimal. Their work is deemed as being worthwhile to society, and in a culture that values the society over the individual, that matters more.

On a more personal note, I could probably go off and be very "successful" in that way as a programmer in the finance industry. I might get rich, but I wouldn't necessarily feel very successful. I'd prefer to get rich and have a job I liked! *grin*

My inlaws are horribly liberal, to the extent that they make John Kerry look Conservative! But they are all from academia.. My father inlaw is a Professor, his wife owned her own large scale child care company, and now teaches. Both extremely successful and wealthy. So I would find it pretty hard to say that *ALL* liberals are less successful than conservatives. But in a general sense, I think you are right.

I've met more successful conservatives, than I have liberals. I've been conservative my entire life, and I think for the last 15 years i've been extremely successful. My dad was conservative, and he was a millionaire, and fully successful in all terms of the word. 4 of my friends are die-hard liberals, and they are relatively unsuccessful.. 2 of them have made $10 an hour for the last 5 years, and show no signs of improvement. The other 2 are factory workers, and have been liberal for life.

So i'd almost say, the conserative ideal, puts one into a more goal oriented frame of mind - or would that be stretching it? Of course, this is barring Academic type people, but they aren't generally the norm outside of academia.

Personal success doesn't always come at other people's expense, of course, but there's no denying that it can do.

Sorry, but I can't see the point of trying to make economics a "zero sum" game. Yes, there are people who charge too much, and yes there are people who would be better off it they didn't. On the other hand, most people who spend too much for coal, also spent too much for things they don't need also.

Income has very little to do with spending habits. Having the money to cover the budget, however, has much more to do with spending habits than income.

I agree that, within American society as a whole, it is possible to reach a consensus about the definition of success. Webster's defines consensus as "general agreement" (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=consensus) but then goes on to equate it with unanimity. In a society as diverse as ours, I don't think we will see unanimity on any meaningful issues ever again, if we ever did.

There are many societies, however, where success and morality don't even mix. A successful marriage is one that produces many children. A successful carreer is one in which you can provide for your family's health and material well-being. Look at Asian cultures where there is a very strong sense of "we're in this together", yet there is a very strong drive to out score and out perform the competition.

I see these terms of having more political meaning than anything else. These meanings include (a) do you like your government big or small? and ( with which group of stereotypes are you more comfortable being grouped? Of course there is more than one kind of conservative and more than one kind of liberal, so this is a false dichotomy, just like all dichotomies.

Perhaps the answers to our questions about success have more to do with the historical period in which we live than anything else. If we can agree with the stereotypes for a moment, self-made successes are more likely to be conservatives, and second generation successes are more likely to be "compassionate" liberals, saddled with the guilt of benefiting from something they feel they didn't earn. Isn't that a lot like where America finds itself now? For most of the 20th century, America was a self-made success. Now we find ourselves with an increasingly indirect economy, outsourcing our production, and confronted by the threat of depending on foreign resources. We're like a country of second generation successes who are smart enough to realize we need to be much more like our predecessors or get left behind.

The call-word of conservatism is "be your own man".  The call-word of liberalism is "we're in this together

I think that explains it right there.  Sucessful entreprenuers do not build companies based upon committees or consensus.  They go out and do.  So while you correctly point out that both are noble, the call word for liberalism generally (I know there are exceptions) cannot suceed that way.  WHile most of the self made rich people did not take no for an answer, and just did it.

hmmmmm.... but to be in business you have to take risks.



Ok, ok I know what your saying.

For those of you arguing about the definition of success: Go here: http://draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?AID=57636

Debate it on that thread. 

The question here is whether successful people, as defined in the article that is linked to when I used the word success, were conservative to start with or became conservative after the fact.

The call-word of conservatism is "be your own man". The call-word of liberalism is "we're in this together".

Liberalism as defined by Merriam-Webster

1) the quality or state of being liberal
2) a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity
3) a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard
4) a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties

Seems to me that liberalism by definition better represents "being your own man". Seems an aweful lot of conservatives confuse liberalism with socialism or communism.

In any case if you truly believe that the value of self-reliance leads to success you would more likely be a strong advocate of the libertarian party.

"Success is getting what you want. Happiness is wanting what you get."

-- Dale Carnegie

Independent1 - liberal and conservative in US politics bears little resemblance to their dictionary definitions.

'...she knows there's no success like failure
and that failure is no success at all'

           --bob dylan, 'love minus zero, no limit