« Kofi's Biggest Regret: Saddam's Rape Rooms Are Closed | Main | AFA Signs 400,000 to Boycott Wal-Mart for Black Friday Weekend »
November 21, 2006
Professor Stumbles on the Obvious: Conservatives More Generous Than Liberals
Poor liberals. Blindsided with science, yet again.
In his book "Who Really Cares: the Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" Arthur C. Brooks has mustered the forces of science to learn what those of us who have been in the charity business have known all along: when it comes to the charitable impulse, liberals are only compelled to give away other peoples' money. Left to their own devices, they'd just as soon pass the plate up and have somebody else fill it.
According to the findings, not only are conservatives more compassionate than liberals, as measured by financial generosity, religious conservatives are the most giving people in America. In fact, while liberals make more money, poor conservatives still give more as a percentage of their income.
Conservatives give, on the average, 30% more of their income than liberals, and not only to their churches. Even when we're talking about social causes, the arts, and entertainment, conservatives are more generous than liberals. This, indeed, is a major cause of the long-held financial advantage of the Republican party. The Democrats could always raise large sums from interest groups, but when it came to small, individual donations and party loyalists, they didn't have a snowball's chance of beating the fund-raising prowess of the conservatives in the GOP. Even this year, conservatives out-raised and out-spent liberals by a wide margin; it was not better funding that beat the GOP this time out.
Conservatives of faith are far more reliable a source of personal charity than people of no faith. Not only do they give four times as much money as secularists, they even give ten percent more to explicitly non-religious charities. And they are more likely to give blood, volunteer time, or help a homeless person.
And lifestyle seems to matter, as well. Those who are living what might be considered conservative lifestyles also give more generously. Married parents are 9 percent more likely to give than divorced ones, and 29% more likely to give than parents who have never been married. (So it would seem that the Administration's impulse to fund marriage preservation programs might not be so unrelated to the functions of government, after all--more marriages mean more charity, which translates into less need for government largesse.)
However, there is something for the non-religious, non-conservative to be proud of here, too. American families, on average, give far more than citizens of any European country. Three and half times as much as French families, seven times as much as the Germans, and 14 times as much as the Italians.
So, take heart, America! As long as you have conservatism, you will have generosity--oh, wait. What were those election results again?
We may be in trouble here, folks.
Posted by Kerry at November 21, 2006 11:30 AM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
Left to their own devices, they'd just as soon pass the plate up and have somebody else fill it.
The last time I checked we all paid taxes, and the only ones always complaining about, and paying lawyers millions to get out paying them were republicans.
Posted by ahmanrah ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.pardonmyenglish.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at November 21, 2006 09:33 PM
There is another distinction between taxes and charity to....taxes force you to give money to people and things you wouldn't otherwise want to support. Just like the constitution which was designed to support the interests of all, not just those of the majority or those with money.
Posted by ahmanrah at November 21, 2006 09:38 PM
Ahmanrah, you prove my point. Liberals are all in favor of giving away EVERYBODY'S money. Conservatives prefer to give their own--and they don't have to be forced to do it. They do it gladly, generously, and far more often than liberals.
"The last time I checked we all paid taxes, and the only ones always complaining about, and paying lawyers millions to get out paying them were republicans."
Really? Where exactly (and when) did you "check" that? Or is that another liberal use of the rhetorical made-up fact? Do the Kennedys and the Dodds and the Clintons and the Kerrys and all the other Democrats (who are richer than Republicans, by the way; Nancy Pelosi's net worth is 55 times that of Dennis Hastert) have no lawyers? And, guess what--the people who make the most money pay the most taxes. And many people pay no income tax at all.
What is it that Democrats fear about reducing taxation? It cannot be that they fear Republicans would not provide for the poor--for it is they themselves who fail to do so. Republicans and conservatives--and most especially RELIGIOUS conservatives--give to poor without being taxed to. So it can only mean that Democrats wouldn't give their fair share without confiscatory taxes. But, alas, no. I fear the truth is that legislative liberals are not concerned with their own level of giving--it's that great monster "the people" that they do not trust.
If Democrats didn't force them to, they believe that average people wouldn't provide charity. But they would. The conservatives would. Recall that conservatives also are more likely to give blood and help the homeless. Liberals, one assumes, if they are bothered to do anything at all, are more likely to express their charitable impulse through legislation--as in passing laws that take the money of the middle class and the better off and give it to people that DEMOCRATS want to help--even though the middle class and the better off who are conservatives are ALREADY giving those people money.
To a liberal, helping a homeless person means voting for an appropriation of funds to hire a consulting firm to determine the extent to which the community needs a new homeless shelter. To a conservative, it means getting them into a faith-based shelter with a rehab program and mentoring them through to recovery. It means hiring them in a church program adjunct to the half-way house that places employees of risk with employers who have a heart for that program. It means teaching them financial management, interviewing skills, and Kingdom living principles and having patience when they mess up and being there to help them try again.
A conservative can have a homeless guy in a job with a paycheck and an apartment before a liberal has taken the final bribe to get the concrete poured for the shelter.
That's the difference. Liberals love programs. Conservatives love people.
Posted by Kerry at November 21, 2006 10:12 PM
What is it that Democrats fear about reducing taxation? It cannot be that they fear Republicans would not provide for the poor--for it is they themselves who fail to do so.
Let me take a quick stab at it. THE US IS IN DEBT UP TO ITS EYEBALLS, and President Bush raised federal spending 45%, HIGHER THAN ANY PRESIDENT IN RECENT MEMORY. HE ADDED OVER 4 TRILLION IN DEBT. WHAT IS YOUR DISCONNECT HERE KERRY, THE US DOLLAR IS NOT FUNNY MONEY, YOU MUST PAY BACK WHAT YOU OWE.
Posted by ahmanrah at November 22, 2006 04:14 PM
almanrah,
the Constitution was certainly designed to protect rich landowners. the Constitution, at least the Bill of Rights, was specifically designed to protect the individual, not the collective citizenry.
or were you referring to Cuba's constitution?
Posted by BenRhodes at November 27, 2006 02:16 PM
The last time I checked we all paid taxes, and the only ones always complaining about, and paying lawyers millions to get out paying them were republicans.Just another ignorant blinder-fed piece of shit untruth. Teddy doesn't keep his cash in off-shore accounts and his holdings in a family trust....nope. No Democrat has followed any loopholes in the law to hide their cash from taxation.....nope. Some ignrant ass on a political site said it was all a republican thing.
Got any more lies?
Posted by Sarge at November 29, 2006 11:17 AM
By the way, John Stossel has a 20/20 piece about this tonight, called "Cheap America" that deals with this subject and features Arthur Brooks.
ABC, 10 Eastern.
Posted by Kerry at November 29, 2006 04:09 PM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
