Who's Got the Lock on Happiness? In "Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals" (Sunday Review, July 8), Arthur C. Brooks suggests that conservatism leads to happiness - at least for most Americans. But there's more to this interesting story. Much research implies that happiness depends on brain chemistry (the pharmaceutical industry thinks so) and might, to some extent, be hard-wired. So maybe happiness makes us conservative, not vice versa. It's logical that happy Americans would be suspicious of change: that they'd be conservative. And that unhappy Americans, wanting to feel happier, would prefer change: that they'd be liberal. Or maybe some unhappy Americans are unhappy because America is relatively conservative: that conservatism by some breeds unhappiness in others. The happiest countries (according to the World Happiness Report, Denmark, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands) are more liberal than America. Presumably, many people manage to be both happy and liberal, at least by our standards. The writer is a biologist. Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute didn't mention a critical element: economic class. He suggests that different rates of marriage and faith are controlling factors, so it's no wonder that conservatives are happier. His implication: If liberals tried a little harder to be moral, they would be happier, and maybe then become conservatives. His alternate "blissfully ignorant" theory still assumes that suffering is done by others. But try to see it from the point of view of the poor and lower middle class. They are less happy because they are less likely to have their basic needs met. They suffer diseases for lack of health insurance, live in violence-plagued neighborhoods, do backbreaking work, have poorer nutrition or can afford less entertainment, education, travel or psychological services. Is it any wonder that, lacking the basics of life, they advocate liberal economic policies to relieve their own and others" suffering? I agree with Arthur C. Brooks that conservatives may be happier than liberals. A parallel may be found in the French society of the 18th century. Versailles and its gardens may testify to the splendor of life for the French aristocrats; similarly, the palaces in St. Petersburg may testify to the sense of well-being among the Russian nobility. This contentment could not have existed without some of the clergy encouraging the aristocrats to enjoy their status and not be concerned with the misery of the lower classes. We know how huge upheavals put an end to this obliviousness, but history is replete with lessons not learned. Arthur C. Brooks argues that conservatives are happier than liberals in part because of their emphasis on faith. He also argues that their happiness is not explained by ignorance or by an unwillingness to recognize the injustice of economic inequality. He suggests that conservatives are not ignorant of economic inequality; they simply deny that the inequality is unjust. But the emphasis on faith-based "knowledge" among some conservatives has led to an unwillingness to accept reality. Some deny evolution, or that global warming exists, or that bank misbehavior was a major cause of the Great Recession, and so on. The denial or ignorance of these depressing facts might well explain some of the conservative bliss. Be Happy," by Elizabeth Dunn and Michael Norton (Sunday Review, July 8), tells us that once you have reached $75,000 a year, earning more doesn't really make you happier. It may be that "conservatives are happier than liberals" because they are more likely to have reached that $75,000 income level.