Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous

Belief Net ^ | By Frank Brieaddy

[Ronald ReaganROCKS]

Apparently, conservatives care more about the poor and are more generous when giving to the poor. This shatters the age old myth that Liberals are more compassionate towards the poor. It also destroys the cornerstone of the Liberal argument. Republicans work harder, make more money, and donate more of their money to the poor. We also fight all the wars! God Bless America and all that is great about our country!

Here is the article:

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."

[Admin Moderator]

Please do not alter titles, nor use your name in place of the writer's name.

[gusopol3]

the book is $14.95 at BJ's Buyer's Club, they have a lot of them, and they aren't moving; I don't know about other places like Wal-mart,etc. Where have Rush, Hannity and O'Relly been on this? To me, it's huge. He exposes the leftists for who they are, socialist redistributionists who use the smokescreen of caring about the poor. The most compelling statistic: if liberals gave blood ( which everybody has) the way conservatives do, the blood supply would go up by 25%, if conservatives gave blood the way liberals do, the blood supply would shrink by 30%.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Repeatedly [Brooks] 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."

For years I have been studying the causes of "bias in the media." And my conclusion is "DUH!"

Far from being "startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," it is a general principle that those who talk the most about how other people should do things, don't do them themselves. Journalists proclaim their own objectivity - then proceed to report "news," defined as whatever is most appalling and most unusual, and challenge conservatives to justify being conservative when - according to the artificial reality within their newspapers - the sky is falling.

Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate

[E.G.C.]

BTTT

[EDINVA]

I'm pretty sure I heard him on Fox & Friends either yesterday morning or the day before. Guess to conservatives, there's nothing really new here at all.

Just as one aside, have you noticed for all her talk, Barbra Streisand actually gives very little money to her Democrat candidates, having little to do with contribution limits. She may help to raise money, but write her own check? You should live so long!

On the other hand, at the very hospital where Sen. Tim Johnson had his surgery and is hopefully recuperating, Dick and Lynne Cheney donated, without much fanfare, to the tune of $7M.

[Blind Eye Jones]

A lot of myths need debunking -- this is one of them. That the world population is expanding is another, global warming might even yet another. Things you believe in as a kid can turn out the exact opposite!

[ForGod'sSake]

A COMPANION PIECE? About half way down...

November 23, 2005

"Generosity Index" Mirrors Red State-Blue State Divide

As we approach Thanksgiving, the Catalogue for Philanthropy has ranked the fifty states on their relative generosity, comparing each state's average itemized charitable deductions with its average adjusted gross income (based on 2003 IRS data).

The 50-state ranking has a decided Red State-Blue State flavor: 28 of the 29 "most generous" states are Red States that voted for President Bush (including all 25 of the "most generous" states), while 17 of the 21 "least generous" states are Blue States that voted for Senator Kerry (including all 7 of the "least generous" states):

Note the eerie similarity with the 2004 presidential election map:

Here are the 12 "most generous" and 12 "least generous" states:

Generosity Rank - State	Having Rank	Giving Rank	Rank Relation
1. Mississippi	50	6	44
2. Arkansas	46	5	41
3. South Dakota	44	9	35
4. Oklahoma	42	8	34
5. Tennessee	35	3	32
6. Alabama	38	7	31
7. Louisiana	43	12	31
8. Utah	30	2	28
9. South Carolina	39	13	26
10. West Virginia	48	22	26
11. Idaho	41	20	21
12. Texas	22	4	18
39. Delaware	14	30	- 16
40. Illinois	9	26	- 17
41. Michigan	16	35	- 19
42. Hawaii	24	43	- 19
43. Colorado	10	32	- 22
44, Minnesota	12	36	- 24
45. Connecticut	1	27	- 26
46. Wisconsin	20	46	- 26
47. Rhode Island	15	50	- 35
48. New Jersey	2	38	- 36
49. Massachusetts	3	39	- 36
50. New Hampshire	8	48	- 40

A trend also worth noting: Generally, the states that have the least; give the most, and vice versa.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Perhaps one reason liberals insist that government must provide services is that they are so tight they think that is the only way it will get done. Conservatives, being more generous, know that the private sector, including charities, will provide for the needy, as they did before the government got involved.

Of course, the real reason liberals want the government involved in all possible areas of our lives is power, not compassion.

[Roses0508]

Would you look at Tennessee! I recently moved from TN after living there for 20 years. It was a wonderful place to raise my kids.

I'm buying this guy's book right now. Hopefully its online and I can order it. I REALLY do not want to go anywhere near a store this weekend.

[pleikumud]

Liberals want the government to spend spend spend someone else's money, but they are too dumb to figure out that high taxes kill incentive, private investment, jobs, economic growth and national strength.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I agree. Promoting socialism while denigrating and interfering with free enterprise is very stupid.