captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions >> woodruff: after marathon talks the european union has moved closer to a deal to solve the debt crisis. good evening, i'm judy woodruff. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. on the "newshour" tonight, we sift through the details and the ramifications of a pact that only britain refused to endorse. >> woodruff: then, we look at how authorities handled yesterday's virginia tech shooting as compared to their response to the deadly rampage of four years ago. >> brown: mark shields and david brooks analyze the week's news. >> woodruff: and, we have another of paul solman's reports on economic inequality in the united states.

tonight: the connection between ideology, wealth and happiness. >> reporter: study after study, it turns out, finds conservatives happier than liberals. >> woodruff: that's all ahead on tonight's "newshour." major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: >> intelligent computing technology is making its way into everything from cars to retail signs to hospitals; creating new enriching experiences. through intel's philosophy of investing for the future, we're helping to bring these new capabilities to market. we're investing billions of dollars in r&d around the globe to help create the technologies that we hope will be the heart of tomorrow's innovations. i believe that by investing today in technological advances here at intel, we can make a better tomorrow. and the william and flora hewlett foundation, working to solve social and environmental problems at home and around the world.

and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. >> brown: something gained, but was something also lost? european leaders agreed early today to tie their budgets ever closer and force fiscal discipline on individual nations. but there was one big hitch, as the deal to save the euro currency also threatened to split europe anew. it was a late-night showdown in brussels, as leaders of 27 european nations met deep into the early morning hours, struggling to reach a deal that would shore up confidence in the common currency called the euro. in the end, 26 of the 27 member

nations said they'd signed on or had agreed to consider a plan that would make it harder for countries to run up big deficits in the future and help countries now saddled with debt. christine lagarde-- managing director of the international monetary fund-- outlined the major tenets. >> what is really encouraging today is to see that the members that will be party to the agreement have decided three key components. number one, they want to really consolidate their fiscal union, number two they've decided to accelerate the european stability mechanism and number three, they've decided to add to the resources of the international monetary fund by an amount of 270 billion u.s. dollars, that is to be confirmed within ten days. so, that's, that's a really good step in the right direction. >> brown: german chancellor angela merkel, leader of europe's biggest economy, had been pushing hard for such a deal.

>> ( translated ): i believe after long talks there is a very important result because we learn from the past and the mistakes, and we say in the future: binding agreements, binding rules, more influence for the european commission, more unity and therefore more that is our contribution to making the euro safe. >> brown: but there was a very prominent holdout as british prime minister david cameron declared that his country would not be party to the deal. >> if i couldn't get adequate safeguards for britain in a new european treaty, then i wouldn't agree to it. >> brown: cameron said it was a question of protecting britain's national sovereignty. >> britain's interests in the european union-- keeping markets open, free trade, selling our goods and services with rules over which we have a major say-- all those things are protected, they don't change. but this new round of integration and special powers and surrenders of sovereignty for european countries and others that want to join the

euro, they will be carried on outside the european union treaty. so we will not be presenting this new treaty, when it's agreed, to our parliament. it will not involve britain. >> brown: the british decision disappointed french president nicolas sarkozy. he said britain's demands for regulatory exemptions countered the goals of the deal. >> ( translated ): david cameron asked for what we all considered as unacceptable: a protocol, within the treaty, allowing to exonerate the united kingdom of a certain amount of regulation regarding financial services. part of the problems of the world comes from the deregulation of the financial services, hence the necessity of european regulation. >> brown: european leaders want the details of a final agreement nailed down by march. today, financial markets seemed to react favorably. germany's dax index rose 1.9%, as stocks in france and italy shot up as well. in the u.s., stocks on wall street rose after the deal was made.

both the nasdaq and the dow opened on an upswing and finished out the day high. the dow rose over 186 points to close at 12,184. and the nasdaq gained upwards of 50 points to finish the day at 2,647. good news after u.s. markets took a beating from europe's volatility all week long. the dow closed the week up 1.4% and the nasdaq rose 0.8%. for more on today's agreement and what it might mean for the region going forward, i am joined by francois rivasseau, deputy chief of mission for the european union delegation to the united states. and dan mccrum, a correspondent for the british newspaper, "the financial times." he's based in new york. francois rivasseau, so angela merkel said this is the breakthrough to the stability union. now, what exactly does that mean? is this truly a new kind of union within the european union? >> it is a historic day for europe, indeed, because we have made a good step towards more integration as the proper way of

answering the crisis we face. we had two goals, one, to tighten, the rules of the e."u" of the programs of debt and deficits. the other goal was to strengthen the firewalls to defend the euro. that we have also achieved. so i think it was ad any day. >> brown: these changes won't take hold for some time. is the expectation now that because of this deal, the european central bank, the i.m.f., others might step in with greater force to stem the kind of problems we're talking about. >> we shall see what the effect of the decisions taken yesterday are. but all in all, if you look at where we were and where we are today, i think we have made a great step in improving all the figures. there are a number of decisions which have been made, but

everybody has to study quietly, and everybody will realize a very significant message has been made, strengthen our crisis funds to defend the euro, and speed up thea implementation. but also what, is important for the market, solving the problem of the association of... of the private sector decision to be made. and we have decided and that was an important point maybe for new york. we have decide the the rules of i.m.f., the principles and practices will be now followed. greece will not be repeated. >> brown: followed by individual nations. >> followed by the euro zone countries. and, also, we have engage the cooperation of the i.m.f., and i think all that provide, i hope, an answer which will be seen as satisfactory. now nobody can see the future

completely, obviously. >> brown: dan mccrum, explain the reservations from david cameron. what exactly is he afraid of if britain signs on? >> david cameron has a very strong and distinct euro-skeptic political party back at home. and so they are veriant-european. the populous of the u.k. is euro-skeptic as well. he faced a challenge attempting to sell request treaty to that party back home. what he'll get is a short-term political boost from this and he'll be able to say he protected the financial services industry, which is incredibly important both to the economy of london and the economy of the u.k. as a whole. but i think what he will fundamentally come away with is very little in real terms at the cost of really distancing the u.k. from the rest of the europe with some quite dangerous dangerous long-term consequences.

>> brown: what would those be? what are the potential repercussions people are talking about now for britain and the e.u.? >> well, i think it's now much more difficult to answer the question, "will britain still be in the european union in five to 10 times?" and that necessarily will have an effect on the way businesses think about ve investing our trading in the u.k. also, he hasn't really protected financial services industry, the supposed reason for this veto. because the european union can still act to change the rules through majority voting. the countries which are forging ahead without the u.k. still can impose different financial regulations. now they have a-- >> brown: excuse me. >> now they have a particular incentive to do so, now that britain has decide to step away from the negotiating table. >> brown: i was going to say it really comes down to we're talking about a historic day here, but in britn, it seems historic in the sense that britain may no longer be in the e.u. within a few years, you're

saying? >> it certainly could feed into that statement. and i think the important thing to realize about this agreement is that whilest there has been some small steps to help solve the banking crisis and sovereign debt crisis, i think europe has potentially opened up the doors to a new political crise leer which may bring into question the euro and britain's role in the future. >> brown: are you concerned about that political rift? >> we, obviously, would have preferred the u.k. to be in. everybody would have. now at a certain point, you have to choose the choice has been made by all the other 26 countries, either to go go forward, and consider and ask parliament of the other countries not numbers of the euro zone. in my view, fundamental choice, we have to respect the british decision, but fundamental choice has been made when you decided not to take part in the euro.

this is a choice which has been made 20 years ago, almost-- 18 years exactly. what we see today is something which is very important, which is, in my view, a consequence. so i'm not sharing. wew all due respect-- >> brown: you don't see a on terrible-- potential two-track. >> no, in the e.u. we are used to situation where's one country or two can stay out, stay out of euroes, and sometimes out of different dispositions. there are press debts on that. the european union can accommodate such situations. >> brown: mr. mccrumb britain aside here, we've had so many ups and downs in the crisis, moments when the markets go up and they take another look and they go down. what do you look to immediately to see, to know whether enough has been done to stem the immediate problem? >> i think what everybody is

going to be concentrating is on the bond yields for these countries-- spain, italy-- whether their borrowing costs will start to go down. and they're looking forward to the new year. there has to be an awful lot of new debt. they have to roll over some of this debt. italy, in particular, has 300 billion worth of euros of debt it has to issue next year and that is treasurely done at the start of the year. in january, we'll be able to see what the private sector appetite for this government debt is and that will start to give us an indication of the severity of the crise, and whether the incremental steps have been enough to avert the situation pgh >> naoko: >> announcer: he just referred to incremental steps. this is the conundrum we talk about every we discuss this. it looks like it's been solved, and then a few days later it's, no, wait a minute.

>> yesterday that was an important step. as we have said, markets will have their own reaction, but what has also been decided, what we have confidence, if a situation is not seen as satisfactory, there will be steps. the important thing is to restore confidence. to restore confidence we had to prove to the rest of the world that we were absolutely serious and we were able to take all measures needed by the other countries. today we have taken that. if other measures have to be taken-- for example, if the level of the firewalls is seen as not enough, we have already decided we will come back the beginning of the next year to assess. we are determined to do all that is needed to make sure this crisis is over. >> brown: all right, francois rivasseau and dan mccrum, thank you both very much. >> thank you.

>> woodruff: still to come on the "newshour": gun violence revisits virginia tech; shields and brooks and ideology as a predictor of happiness. but first, the other news of the day. here's kwame holman. >> holman: the family of missing retired f.b.i. agent robert levinson has released a video sent by his unidentified captors. levinson vanished in 2007 in iran. the family received the video in november 2010, but posted it on their family website today, along with an urgent plea for his freedom. it was the first proof that the 63-year-old father of seven was alive. a u.s. investigation has not revealed where levinson is now or at the time the video was taken. >> i need the help of the united states government to answer the requests of the group that has held me for three and a half years. please help me get home. 33 years of service to the united states deserves something, please help me.

>> holman: the appeal comes as iran showed off pictures of what it said was a largely intact, captured u.s. drone. the iranian military claimed it shot down the top-secret unmanned aircraft on sunday as it flew a surveillance mission over eastern iran. iranian state television broadcast video displaying the drone yesterday. the u.s. military has acknowledged it lost control of a drone earlier this week. but officials would not confirm or deny it was the aircraft in the video. a fire tore through a hospital in kolkata, india early this morning, killing at least 89 people. authorities said many hospital employees fled the flames instead of helping patients escape. residents from nearby slums rescued some of those trapped in the smoking building. fire equipment took more than an hour to get through narrow streets to the scene. six hospital officials faced homicide charges. u.n. secretary-general ban ki- moon made a surprise visit to somalia's war-torn capital mogadishu today.

it's the first time a u.n. chief has visited the city in two decades. ban said recent security gains in the nation will allow the u.n. to move its political office for somalia from nairobi, kenya to mogadishu in january. president joseph kabila of the democratic republic of congo has won a second term in office. he won 49% of the vote, according to provisional results announced today. but long-time opposition candidate etienne tshisekedi rejected those results and declared himself president. and his supporters have vowed to take to the streets in protest. election-related violence has killed 18 people and wounded more than 100 others. a u.n. climate conference in durban, south africa teetered on the brink of collapse as it neared a close today. the european union has proposed a 2015 target date for a new pact of binding cuts on the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitters. it would replace the kyoto protocol which expires next year.

the u.s., india and china-- the world's three largest carbon emitters-- never signed on to that treaty. the european commissioner for climate change acknowledged negotiations are down to the wire. >> if there is no further movement from what i have seen until 4:00 this morning, then i must say i don't think that there will be a deal in durban. that is what we are faced with. there is still time to move and i must say there have been a lot of constructive talks. >> holman: the climate talks likely will carry over into saturday. they're also expected to produce a fund to help the least- developed countries cope with climate change impacts. ford is recalling more than 100,000 ford fusion and mercury milan sedans because their wheels could fall off. the recall affects the 2010 and 2011 models of the two cars. federal regulators found bolts holding the wheels can fracture, creating a vibration that can cause the wheels to come off.

ford said no crashes have been attributed to the problem and dealers will replacing wheel bolts for customers in january. those are some of the day's major stories. now, back to jeff. >> brown: a tragedy gripped virginia tech again yesterday. but this time, the response by the university and police was different. "newshour" correspondent hari sreenivasan has our report. >> reporter: there were still few details today about the man who shot and killed virginia >> he shot and killed virginia tech police officer yesterday afternoon and apparently took his own life. police would only say that the gunman worked alone and was not airginia tech studenta t nohey d un mr ivd foe thefo shooting ronnection between the gtiman vunndi theim.ct river in a parking lot on thea hmpus near mccom cassell liseum and lane stadium. thr sh teooshe ctelorous catse range while he was in his vehicle. crouse did not have time to return fire.

the gunman was found a short time later in another parking lot. police chief wendell flinchum: >> from what you've heard, read, crouse described as swat officer, received awards. derek more than that, was a friend to many of our department, husband, father. police officers develop close bonds, tremendous loss to our department. >> reporter: heavily armed officers from local, state and federal agencies again swarmed campus and locked it down for hours. today, there was a sense of bewilderment. george russell is a vice president emeritus for alumni relations at virginia tech. >> your heart sinks. it is hard to talk about it. we really were afraid more people might be hurt and it

reminded us so much what happened back in april 2007. >> reporter: on april 16, 2007, a student named seung hui cho murdered 32 people over the course of several hours, then shot himself. in 2007, virginia tech waited hours to alert its students and staff to the initial killings. yesterday, however, the university's elaborate alert system-- devised in the wake of the massacre-- was activated six minutes after the first report of gunfire. university spokesman larry hinckers said the system worked. >> we have text alert. we have phone mail messages. we have computer alerts that show up on the computer. we have electronic signs in our classrooms. indeed, we have just shy of 500 of them around the campus community. we have blast email. and then also they automatically go to our twitter and to our facebook accounts. and so they're a series of communication channels that simply flood the airwaves.

>> reporter: coincidentally, as events unfolded on the campus, many of tech's top officials were in washington yesterday 250 miles to the northeast. they were contesting a $55,000 federal fine levied against the university for its slow response in 2007. there are still lawsuits pending from families of those slain then. stephanie voshell is a graduate student in biology. she was at tech in 2007, and knows the difference first hand. >> i think then people are more alert, they look around their surroundings a bit more i feel like the school is doing a great job with their alert system. over the summer, we also had a campus scare, but it turned out to be nothing, again the alerts worked really well, people were informed. >> reporter: melissa peebles is a freshman. >> the initial 30 minutes i was kind of scared, after i got the alerts and knew they were taking care of it very well, i was not worried at all. when i came here, my family and

i talked about, we were not worried at all. things like this shooting and suicides happen everywhere. it is just like because of april 16, 2007, it is such a big deal here. >> reporter: once the all-clear sounded yesterday, some students gathered last night at a memorial built for the victims of the 2007 killing spree. >> the fear, the nervousness of where is this going to go next? this has happened not once, but twice to a school that really just doesn't deserve to happen to us. >> reporter: virginia tech police chief wendell flinchum was on the scene in 2007. yesterday, he was in northern virginia when the call came. >> i'm not sure i have words to describe how it felt and the emotions i went through when i was told. i was talking with gene by telephone when he was on the scene. incredulous, i guess. it's just very difficult to describe. >> reporter: the haunting specter of that cold april day

looms in blacksburg. larry hincker: >> it's obvious the reason why you are all here is because this is a wanton, random act of violence on the campus with the name virginia tech. i don't believe you'd be here if that was otherwise the case. and we're are all here because of an angry young man who had easy access to violent killing weapons four years ago. i don't believe that i feel any less safe here than i would in any place, any other campus in the country. it is unfortunate that there, that this is not an uncommon occurrence in this country. >> reporter: today was to be the first day of exams in blacksburg, but finals have been delayed until tomorrow. the sprawling campus in the quiet mountains of southwest virginia, scene of such pain then and now was largely empty.

a memorial is scheduled this evening to remember officer derek crouse. the 39-year-old army veteran was a father of five. he joined the tech police force six months after the 2007 killings. >> woodruff: and to the analysis of shields and brooks syndicated columnist mark shields and "new york times" columnist david brooks. hello, gentlemen, it's good to see you. >> it's good to see you. >> woodruff: let's start with the president. david, he gave a speech this week in kansas. maybe a new fighting spirit. he's evoking teddy roosevelt, talking about protecting the middle class. some a theme, a message he can ride to the election? >> it's the one he will ride on and it's made a lot of liberals very happy. he's given them something to fight for, a narrative. a lot of people on the left said we didn't have this, and now

we've got a theme. i think there's a lot to be said for the theme, the idea of a fair deal, the invocation of teddy roosevelt. the two projection i had with it, one, are political. i think this election is about national decline. and he's trying to make it an election about inequality, and i think people agree inequality is a problem. i think they don't see it as a central problem which is about growth and preserving the country as a growing, dynamic country. so i think it's a little off center. and the second a substantive problem. if you look for the policy implications. the only actual policy implied in the speech was raising taxes on the the top 2% to pay for infrastructure spending and basic research. i think they're very good policies. they're extremely modest and i'm running what is he actually going to run on. the policies he's suggesting are quite small. >> woodruff: how do you see

it, mark? >> i think the president stands to-- a number of theories of governance that we could all reason together, the rodney king approach, which and i think underlying this, judy, is not simply barack obama as harry truman populist which i think raises questions of authenticity, because by temperament the president is not a natural populist. it is an college of collegement that the republican party has moved incredibly far to the right. my evidence of that is the debates in the presidential race when chris wallace asked a simple question-- "will you accept $10 in spending cuts for $1in tax increases? all of them, including jon hunts map, said no, no, they wouldn't do that. that's an acknowledgment, i think, in the president's speech that there is no point in trying to reason. they've given on positions

they've long held as a party, including the payroll tax suspension. just simply because they're opposing the president. so i think-- i think david's absolutely right. there are going to be two questions voters ask in 2012-- is it working-- that is is the obama economy-- and is it fair? and i think he obviously wants to emphasize the secondals because the statistics on the first are not that positive. >> woodruff: you're saying to focus on the fairness is off the point, it should be more about what's happening to the country? >> i think it's about growth. we haveanin equality problem, there's no question. we want a stronger economy and strong wage growth. and that's somewhat related to whether the top 1% get super bonuses but it's not totally related to that so you better have a strong story about generating economic growth and i didn't see that story. second, politically, i agree

with mark the republican party has gone very far right but if they sing the hymninal of fox news ydo you sing th hymninal of msnbc? why don't you do something more centrist rift. i think he should acknowledged not only do we have an inequality problem but we have a growth problem and a debt problem. >> it rail was teddy roosevelt. you can argue what phase of teddy roosevelt's career it was, but it was vintage teddy roosevelt speech. you talk to republicans-- john mccain, whoever else it is-- teddy roosevelt of his hero. it was a very adroit approach to what i call rhetorical grave robbing, taking the words of the other party and saying them on their behalf. the republicans time and again have-- president obama has done

it on ronald reagan, invoking ronald reagan's words. i think it makes sense. the republicans have given him enormous running room in this. i disagree with david that there is education. there's no question we are in a global economy. it's an information economy. it's wrenching. it's, it's discouraging to a lot of americans. and i think the president lays out an approach to remedy it. but these are uncertain times, and i think we're looking for a certain-- >> mark alluded to what i think opens up the way for potentially interesting debate, which is late roosevelt versus early roosevelt. as mark 60ed, there were phases to the guy. the early roosevelt, the one people like me who like, is a britain making sure competition was fair but pushing free market competition. the later roosevelt fell under a

book by the name of herbert crowelly where the idea businesses become really big. we have to make a big government to counter-balance that power. that was a different phase of roosevelt and there are two different ways of looking at the economic problem then ask now and it's potentially a good debate. >> woodruff: one of the things the president was upset about yesterday was besides the payroll tax deduction, other was the opposition to the first head of the financial protection bureau. are the republicans justified in blocking this because they don't like the agency would be set up? >> no, they aren't. nobody disputes that richard can cordry is enormously qualified. he was a supreme court clerk for two different justicees, a very successful attorney general who won a $2 billion settlement for retirees. and even dick shellbee, the

republican ranking member from alabama acknowledges that. this is about, judy what, tom mann of brookings has accurately called, the modern equivalent of nullification. that is, we recall a time in this country where states said we're not going to acknowledge-- we're going to ignore. we're gog repudiate laws that are passed by the congress of the united states and signed by the president. this was passed 61-39 in the senate. it was passed by 45 votes in the house. it's the law of the land. and the republicans simply say we don't like it. we don't like the law. therefore, we're not going to abide by it. we're going to kill the position that the law created. i just think it's indefensible. >> i think it's defensible. i think he's completely qualified as mark said. there's no question about that. the question is why should this agency not report to the normal congressional oversight process, some sort of democratic accountability. some agencies report to the fed-- the banking ones, and

some-- the consumer ones-- report to the congress and maybe this is a gray area. it seems defensible that you would want an agency like this with very broad public ramifications to report to the democratic process rather than the fed or non-democratic process. i they certainly have a point, and congress has been used holds and the senate has been using holds on appointments to influence policy since the republic was born. >> woodruff: this is not juge that. >> it capitol hill in the context of all sorts of parties, people holding up all sorts of appoint ease and i think the process lamentable but i think they have some point. >> they can make an argument, they want to change the law, they can change the law. we don't simply stop appointing people because we don't like the law that created the position. that really is unacceptable, and irrational. >> woodruff: all right, we're going to switch over and talk about the republican presidential contest. newt gingrich continues to

build. david, you wrote about this in your column in the "times" today. his surge just seems unstoppable at this point. it's only a few weeks old. now we're starting to hear from the other republicans, mitt romney, surrogate to romney, how do you see that? >> the first thing i observed, sispent a lot of time asking political consultants and really professional political people what are the odds that newt could actually win this thing? and some people say who really know what they're talking about, it's 70-30, he'll probably win. other people who also-- >> you mean the nomination. >> right, right. >> okay. >> others say it's only 10%. so there's a wide variety of how seriously to take this thing and it's interesting to watch republican here's in washington react because i think i know two people who worked with newt in the glower days of the 90s who think he could be a nominee. >> reporter: out of how many. >> those in the republican

group. everybody else i know-- some of them quite publicly, but most privately, have a-- they will not go out and say anything but most think he would be a disaster for the party. when they were back there, they would organize the policy. they'd spend weeks planning it. on the way from the office to the press conference, newt would do a 180 and the exact opposite. i'm very interested to see what dick army says when dick armee comes out and says yes or no. he has been laying low but those sort of people will be interesting. >> the weight of the evidence is just overwhelming. and the conscious is this-- that newt gingrich does not have the emotional stability to be a presidential nominee, let alone to be profit united states. and i think the real test, judy, is going to be in the next week. we have two major debates on abc and then on fox. and the question is whether the candidates who are raising the charges against him right now-- mitt romney and ron paul--

whether they're going to do a dixie, whether they're going to fade when the noderator says, "will you plac this charge right now on this stage to newt gingrich to his face?" if they do what tim pawlenty did in new hampshire, the-- he folded and faded and disappeared at that moment. whether your super pac is buying these ads or friends of yours, this is the strategy of the romney campaign, ron paul's campaign, all the campaigns trying to stop newt gingrich. and i just think this will be the test. we'll find out the character. this is about character. character is destiny and newt gingrich's character, i think, is in the spotlight. >> woodruff: david is all-out

against him glued there's next mealy mouthed about the two of you. we are just delighted to have you here. mark brookes, david shield, thank you. >> we'll be back shortly with a paul soloman report on the relationship between ideology and happiness. first, this is pledge week on pbs. this break allows your public television station to ask for sc yo surrt. and that support helps keep programs like ourselves on the air.

>> woodruff: for those stations not taking a pledge break, a look at one of the nation's premier black drama troupes. the penumbra theater company in saint pau orwa each time, we count on new contributions from a few more people like you. and if you haven't made a gift yet, we're hoping that tonight will be your night! take a minute to consider everything weta has to offer. the "pbs newshour," of course, along with programs like "antiques roadshow," "great performances," "frontline," "nature," "masterpiece," and our many children's shows. no matter what the subject, your pledge funds an amazing array of enlightening programs. but we've always relied on viewer support. that's viewer support from you. and your pledge in any amount: it could be $50, or $75 or $150 for the year. but don't delay. call us now and join us. kimberly? >> thanks, paul. it's so easy to make your contribution. when you call the number on your screen, you can give the operator your name, contact information, and how much you'd

like to pledge. it's that simple. you can even choose a thank you gift. contribute $75 or more and request the "pbs newshour" global tumbler. it shows you're a fan of engaging, long-form journalism -- of substance over sensationalism. you can also show you're a newshour supporter with the "pbs newshour" summit tote. let it be our gift to you for your $100 donation. or for yr pledge of $150, we'll say thank you for supporting the newshour by sending you both the tumbler and the tote. the "pbs newshour" stands head and shoulders above the rest and i'm sure, like us, you have found that you turn to weta and the "pbs newshour" as your trusted source for the news. the correspondents, reporters, producers, field crew and anchors all understand that the information they provide you with helps shape your opinions and your position on world issues and that this is, indeed,

a great responsibility. it is clear that the newshour team rises to the challenge by respecting your intelligence and reporting the news in an unbiased manner. we are now asking you to rise to the occasion and support this valuable news service with your pledge of financial support. simply call the number on your e en right now. >> well, i think it's really important for americans to understand the world, because the world has, after the cold war, become nothing but more complicated. so instead of a simpler world, it has become a harder place to understand, and it's important for news organizations to be out there, making the world coherent to americans. we still play a big part in the world,ig we make decisions that

world, and heading out to do those stories help americans carry a map of the world around in their head, and that's a good thing. america is connected to the world in a very profound way, and americans need to understand that. so that's what we're doing on the program. >> it may seem unbelievable, but when asked, many people say they don't contribute to weta only because they didn't realize we needed the financial support. wow. that's right. they didn't understand how important individual membership contributions are to sustaining this community resource. your pledge right now is very important. these funds keep us financially viable in the marketplace. your pledge gives us the means to purchase and produce new programs and series. most importantly, your pledge makes the "pbs newshour" possible. but we can't do it alone. your help is crucial. so don't delay. give us a call right now and make a generous pledge.

kimberly? >> paul, your contribution to weta is much more than financial support. it is a gift that enriches the lives of everyone in this community. it helps us continue to bring programs that delve into the discoveries, controversies, cultures, excitement, and entertainment the entire world has to offer. we offer so many fascinating programs on television, and many have companion websites with free classroom materials so our schools can benefit as well. we can do so much, but we simply can't reach our potential without your support. make your gift now, won't you? one call will help give everyone access to the world of ideas found on weta. >> your pledge also shows your appreciation for the expertise and effort that go into every newshour broadcast. the reporters, producers, crew and other professionals turn out many excellent stories for broadcast and online every week. it's little wonder that in the past 35 years they've won every prestigious award in the reporting business. don't take their hard work for

granted, though. cast a vote for quality news coverage. call the number on your screen to make your donation. it could be the most rewarding thing you do today. as a matter of fact. >> like you, weta tries to focus on what's important. and for us, it's making sure that our community is provided with the very best of what this powerful medium of television has to offer -- programs that bring the community together, programs that entertain and educate, programs that bring the world right into your living room and provide you with the tools to make positive changes in your life. if weta is something that you are grateful for, please do your part to help make sure it continues. it's the support of our contributing viewers that make it possible. pick up your phone and make a gift of support right now. just call the number on your screen. it takes just a few moments, but it makes such a big difference. paul? >> yes, ma'am. we're getting ready to go back

to the "pbs newshour," so we'll just take a quick look at those thank you gifts one more time. when you pledge $75 or more, you can ask for the "pbs newshour" global tumbler. for a $100 donation, choose the "pbs newshour" summit tote. or for your gift of $150, we'll thank you by sending you the tumbler and the tote as well. thank you for staying with us during this break. though we're about to return to the program, it's not too late to make your contribution. if you have already called, we thank you for investing in the station that america trusts most. >> brown: finally tonight, how do your feelings about economic

inequality impact your sense of happiness? "newshour" economics correspondent paul solman finds out. it's part of his regular reporting on "making sense of financial news." >> reporter: how happy areyou, e not at all happy, four very happy? >> i'm a four. >> reporter: a four. >> i'm very happy. >> reporter: laurie sanders works at the conservative washington think tank the american enterprise institute. a few blocks away, occupy eric is on the more liberal end of the spectrum. what number would you give yourself? >> one. >> reporter: are you unhappy, do you think, because of the inequality, economic inequality in this country? >> well, yeah. >> reporter: study after study, it turns out, finds conservatives happier than liberals. social psychologist jamie nappier has a theory as to why. >> economic inequality really

does affect people's well-being. >> reporter: nappier's work has convinced her conservatives are happier than liberals because they think there's equality of opportunity in america. >> one of the biggest correlates with happiness in the survey was the belief of a meritocracy, the belief that anybody anybody who works hard can make it. that was the biggest predictor of happiness. it was also one of the biggest predictors of politically ideology, that the conservatives were a muchrhigher on the belief than the liberals were. >> reporter: liberals, like the folks we found at occupy d.c., who don't think the opportunities out there are equal these days. their message is clear-- the system is not fair. >> everybody here at this occupy movement is here because they've had enough. they're angry, and chances are, you know, people here are very unhappy with the way that our society works. >> i believe that things should be equal. or people should have more of an

opportunity to become closer to the 1% because right now, it's like the 1% is the 1%, the 99 is the 99, and we kind of don't stand a chance. >> reporter: the conservative... staffs, or on the other hand think we do. how many of you, on average, think americans get what they deserve they deserve economically? s area john who grew up this pakistan, believe in horacio alger sort of. >> i don't think everybody is able to pull off the success stories. but in this country, more than any other, for the work you do, are you able to better yourself. >> that's true no matter who you are said jesse blumenthal. >> the pull yourself up by the bootstraps notion works here more than anywhere else in the world. ♪ oh, happy day ♪. >> reporter: optimism alone does not determine contentment. religion boosthappiness. so does marriage. but nappier's research accounted

for that. >> we adjusted for education, for income, for marital status, religion, people who lived urban versus rural, all kinds of things. so, you know, on average, just your ideology alone is an independent predictor of your subjective well-being. >> reporter: it is true that conservatives tend to be less concerned about income inequality. arthur brooks president of the a.e.i., and the author of "gross national happiness" agrees with nappier about the conservative happiness edge. >> conservatives think fairness is one in which outcomes are based on merit and people start with more or less equal opportunities or at least working for equal opportunities. if you believe those things and you see that some person makes more than others or the top 1% is breaking away from the bottom 99%, that's not going to affect your happy happiness very much at all. >> reporter: with the average wage flat lined and more than 28 million americans still jobless or underemployeed, do merit and

hard work make a difference these day. >> the owners of this country know the truth. it's called the american dream. because you have to be asleep to believe it ( laughter ). >> reporter: nappier says american economic malaise of the past few decades disheartened everyone but liberals most of all. >> so everybody was decreasing in happiness as there was more inequality. but liberals, to a significantly greater expense than conservatives. and in 1974, the difference between liberals and conservatives on happiness was not statistically significant. it was basically ideology did not predict happiness in 1974. >> reporter: and today it does? >> today, it definitely does. >> reporter: how much happier conservatives than liberals, on average? >> it's about a half a point on a 1-4 scale. >> reporter: now it's not as if liberals are clinically depressed.

indeed, besides unhappy eric, the liberals that occupy d.c., a protest movement after all, were a reasonably. ( cheer). y lot. how happy are you on a scale of 1 to 4, 1 not at all happy, 4 very happy? >> i'd probably have to say 3. i would say definitely 3-plus. >> reporter:and there are even a few 4s. ellie, who declined to give her last name, rated herself a two and a half on the happiness scale. is the economic inequality, and growing economic inequality in this country something that has personally, emotionally disturbed you? >> absolutely. no question. >> reporter: allen ball's three-plus came despite his concerns about inequality. >> the reconciliation of inequality is very difficult to do, especially with the system we have right now. but i've tried to get beyond that because i don't want external things to affect my well-being. there's a temple of love right over there that we're going to

put an altar in and set up a space where people can go in to have peace, to meditate. >> reporter: a temple a tad less inviting than the american enterprise institute where it's not ecstatic. neither was any one of them below a three. >> i will three and a half, i would say. >> i'd probably call it three and a half. >> somewhere between 33 and a half or more. >> eric was three and a half. okay, a ludicrously small sample, but on average, our conservatives scored about half a point happier on the 1-4 scales than the liberals will at occupy d.c. and that's the very same half-point advantage found in the study's jamie napier say thes. no surprise to occupier greg hudson. >> it's pretty obvious that conservatives represent the interests of the rich, i mean, for the most part. people are money general generally are happier and

generally like to say, "well, guy to where i am because i worked hard." or "parents--" whatever. and "anybody else, well, they must not have worked hard enough." >> if everyone was a conservative we'd all be a lot happy ei guess, right? >> reporter: probably, but not says arthur brooks because they were wellier. >> it's not true that conservatives are rich. liberals are actually richer than conservatives. the reason the conservatives tend to be less concerned with income inequality is not because they're ignorant. it's not because they're calloused. it's not because they have less of a sense of morality. it has to do with the fact that they see the world differently. >> reporter: see it as a world of just desserts. a.e.i. staffer stewart james. >> hate the idea of sitting around waiting for someone else to come and, you know, sweep you off your feet and save you from student loan debt or an underwater mortgage or whatever it is. you get what you put into something. is it you're going to sit around and wait for someone to do it

for you you're going to be miserable because it ain't going to happen. >> reporter: folks at a.e.i. think their vision of hard work and just desserts would, if applied, make everyone better off and even more equal. >> the inequality makes me unhappy, i just think i can contribute to making that better. >> reporter: meanwhile, back among the so-called 99%, the hope is that a radical change movement will finally address the inequities of our era. and how does that make them feel? >> i am much happier here than i have ever been in washington, d.c. >> when you do band together and create something, it's very exciting and very pleasurable experience. >> reporter: thinking or doing something about economic inequality, in other words, seems to make everyone happier, at least for the moment.

>> woodruff: again, the major developments of the day: european union leaders agreed to move forward on a deal to save the euro, with only britain opposing it. the pact would allow for unprecedented oversight of national budgets. stocks on wall street responded favorably to the news, ending the week on an up note. and police investigating he killed, before turning the gun on himself. and to kwame holman for what's on the "newshour" online. kwame? >> holman: some governments try to control how their citizens use the web on our world page, we look at international efforts to maintain internet freedom. 2011 has been a year of expensive natural disasters in the united states. we look at a slew of storms that cost billions in damage on our making sense page. and on art beat, jeffrey brown talks to the author of a new book about why some art-- from mark twain's "huck finn" to tony kushner's "angels in america"--

stirs protest. all that and more is on our web site, newshour.pbs.org. judy? >> woodruff: and that's the "newshour" for tonight. on monday, we'll talk with the british foreign secretary william hague. i'm judy woodruff. >> brown: and i'm jeffrey brown. "washington week" can be seen later this evening on most pbs stations. we'll see you online and again here monday evening. have a nice weekend. thanks for joining us. good night. major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: ♪ ♪ moving our economy for 160 years. bnsf, the engine that connects us.

>> and by the bill and melinda gates foundation. dedicated to the idea that all people deserve the chance to live a healthy productive life. and with the ongoing support of these institutions and foundations. and... this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting. and by contributions to your pbs station from viewers like you. thank you. captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org