| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Duh: Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous |
| 2006-11-18 |
| Heh. Another data point on the curve that demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Liberal Left. Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous. The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income. In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals. The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24. When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice." For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home." Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise. One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents. Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact. He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions. His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light. His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages. The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure. Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money. Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth. All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis. "These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book." Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood. In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements. Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book. "His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid." Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did. To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information. "I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at." |
| Posted by:.com |
| #8 I've just gotta ask: Where's the Master of the Obvious graphic? Needed ASAP on this article. |
| Posted by: BA 2006-11-18 20:16 |
| #7 Anybody who has to suffer through a Michael Moore money ought to be compensated somehow. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-11-18 14:45 |
| #6 Dirty old money won't help. Hard core, deep, deep caring is called for. I frown 10 minutes a day over the opressed. I also watch Michael Moore movies and do appearances. That's plenty. Hell, they oughta pay me. |
| Posted by: Nama Hollylib 2006-11-18 10:57 |
| #5 Conservatives consider charity a duty and they get personally involved to make individual contributions. Liberals think people should be thoroughly taxed and then the planners/elite/meritocracy (them) should decide who gets what. "I gave at the office." |
| Posted by: KBK 2006-11-18 10:38 |
| #4 Liberals are generous - just with other people's money. They want the government to control "charity" so that they can control it (who it goes to etc.). |
| Posted by: Spot 2006-11-18 10:16 |
| #3 ...are more generous than RICH liberals (like John Kerry). Heh. Howie Carr (local radio guy, Herald columnist) says about John Kerry, 'He throws quarters around like they were manhole covers'. |
| Posted by: Raj 2006-11-18 08:54 |
| #2 And it's not even because conservatives are more able to afford to be generous because they have greedily stolen more wealth in the first place. POOR conservatives (like the members of the black Baptist church down the street from me) are more generous than RICH liberals (like John Kerry). This is in 'absolute' dollars, not 'percentage' of wealth or income. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-11-18 02:21 |
| #1 Another thing liberals don't consider is how tax cuts favor "The Rich". That's because if you're making less than $40k or so, you don't pay enough taxes to stick in your ear, so I guess by default they favor "The Rich" because you can't give back what you don't take. |
| Posted by: gorb 2006-11-18 00:59 |