Charitable giving: Conservatives vs. liberals

[tracyred]

The last sentence is gold.

Conservatives more liberal givers
March 27, 2008
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.

When I think about what Al Gore's income must be and how little of it he is willing to give away to help make a personal difference in changing the wrongs that almost all of us would agree exist in this country, well, it pisses me off. That anyone can admire this man -- this very embodiment of hypocrisy (in a wide range of disciplines) -- amazes me.

This is the same guy who castigates the rest of us for the little things we do in our everyday lives and yet whose carbon footprint would stamp a ****ed-fancy tootsie-size swimming pool that all of our kids (and all of their friends) could splash in.

[intheknow]

Could you say, given this data, that this explains why the liberals want higher taxes? T\Is it that they know they will not give voluntarily themselves, so they have to assume that no one else will either, so that means everyone has to be FORCED to give?

[robine]

The last time something like this was pointed out here, the firestorm was intense..Conservatives were told that the KIND of giving they made did not count since some of it was to religious organizations..It was mocked, ridiculed and ciriticzed. Curious to see the reaction this time arounf

Also it was pointed out then that liberals give more time but as we can see here, THAT does not appear to be true either.


pass the popcorn please..no butter..trying to slim down a tad...

As BOR would say.." What say you??"

[Maddy00]

Oh Tracy, put on your protective gear. It's been a while but the last time this subject was discussed, well, let's just say it didn't go over so well.

I agree with all you said, especially in regards to Gore. Time and again, his actions do not match his words.

As for conservatives giving more on average, I am not surprised. Some will yet again dispute the facts, or say it doesn't matter, but the truth still stands. Those heartless conservatives apparently act on their beliefs. What a concept!

[tracyred]

I didn't realize I had missed a grand firestorm. Well, drat.

Anticipating criticism of the conclusions Brooks reaches, I did a little more research into his research. (And I encourage anyone to research my research of his research ... and so on. )

Here's another article I came across:

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- 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."

There are certainly generous liberals and miserly conservatives, but I don't think we can quickly discredit what appears to be a well-researched and impressively documented work.

How much evidence to the contrary must be presented before the stereotypes about stingy, heartless conservatives start to fall by the wayside?

[Magnolia]

Originally Posted by article posted by tracyred

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.

I would also like to see what tax brackets people on both sides belonged to. Typically, I find that the ones who are most in support of higher taxes aren't paying much or any taxes themselves.

It's always easier to give away someone else's wealth. I don't think the majority of Americans would feel comfortable walking up to a person they don't know, grabbing their purse or wallet, and taking what they wanted. Yet, so many don't have a problem with it as long as it is done via the IRS.

[dr j]

This calls for a smilie ( rarely used by moi) for "the great one" Tracyred -

[dr j]

Originally Posted by Magnolia

I would also like to see what tax brackets people on both sides belonged to. Typically, I find that the ones who are most in support of higher taxes aren't paying much or any taxes themselves.

It's always easier to give away someone else's wealth. I don't think the majority of Americans would feel comfortable walking up to a person they don't know, grabbing their purse or wallet, and taking what they wanted. Yet, so many don't have a problem with it as long as it is done via the IRS.

So true. Was just privy to a conversation of a beloved family member who is experiencing some tough times. He was venting on the "unfairness" of people in the upper income brackets getting[I] any[/] of the economic stimulus package money. Fortunately I heard that conversation via a second party. It's nice to know that those you care about, whom you have just given financial help ( not a loan - a gift for higher ed tuition) feel that way.

J

[intheknow]

Since the most significant part of the Obama's charitable giving has been to their "church", I guess denigrating the conservatives' church-bound charitable giving will now have to be counted as acceptable. On the other hand, since Obama's "church" has been marginalized, then could we consider his contribution to it as unacceptable or inappropriate? Either way, the Obamas come up lacking the values that I would want to see in the leader of my country.

[intheknow]

Originally Posted by dr j

So true. Was just privy to a conversation of a beloved family member who is experiencing some tough times. He was venting on the "unfairness" of people in the upper income brackets getting[I] any[/] of the economic stimulus package money. Fortunately I heard that conversation via a second party. It's nice to know that those you care about, whom you have just given financial help ( not a loan - a gift for higher ed tuition) feel that way.

J

I think the best way to stimulate the economy would be to stimulate the business in this country that hire people and create the economy to begin with.

I've never been offered a job from a poor person.