Political Crossfire Forums

[flamboyant]

Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous

By Frank Brieaddy

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."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

----------------

I've always known this instinctively, but it's great to see that the research bears it out - and before you try to impugn the source as a right-wing shrill, try reading where the author is coming from:

Quote: 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.

It's quite simple really:

* Liberals believe in showing their compassion by taking - electing liberal politicians who promise they will take in more taxes from the public than their conservative counterparts.

* Conservatives believe in showing their compassion by giving - giving freely by their own freewill amounts far greater than their liberal counterparts.

* Liberals look at the economy and try to play upon the lowest of human emotions, trying to incite jealousy and class envy and use it to their advantage, demonizing all those filthy, stinking rich conservatives.

* Conservatives look at people who become filthy, stinking rich and realize that many of them will end up like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, giving far more to the world through their charitable donations than any tax and spend liberal ever has.

I don't even know how you can argue with that, but I'll give you a chance.

[JLB]

Liberals give more, it's just that they steal it first from somebody else.

[Fishstyx]

Their contribution is to make all others feel guitly enough to donate! Im still waiting for "Fight to Cure Liberalism" foundation to be established! :-D (That was joke for those who take stuff too seriously in here!)

[StrawHat]

That's interesting... but I think it's more complicated than that. Especially since in my experience, liberals tend to think of the poor more. Or could it be that there are different flavors of conservatives? There are religious conseratives, whose values may make them give more. There are economic conservatives, who think of what's best for the economy. Question is, does an improved economy necessarily help everyone? If not, can we really call people who are interested in improving the economy charitable, even if it doesnt help those that need it most? Doesn't an imporved economy just help the people that already have the money do whatever they want? Or maybe i'm just to naive about these issues... :(

At any rate, i'll try to make time to read the book, and look forward to seeing if anybody can find kinks in the argument, if in fact there are any. I wonder to what degree this will affect politics? Especially poor minority voters. They, from my experience, are more socially conservative, and if it turns out that conservatives really want to help them more, then "voting your wallet" as my mom has called it, would mean a vote for conservatives.

Could be interesting I think....

[FL Conservative]

Well conservatives are christians right?

nuf said

[Black Sheep 5]

StrawHat wrote: That's interesting... but I think it's more complicated than that. Especially since in my experience, liberals tend to think of the poor more. Or could it be that there are different flavors of conservatives? There are religious conseratives, whose values may make them give more. There are economic conservatives, who think of what's best for the economy. Question is, does an improved economy necessarily help everyone? If not, can we really call people who are interested in improving the economy charitable, even if it doesnt help those that need it most? Doesn't an imporved economy just help the people that already have the money do whatever they want? Or maybe i'm just to naive about these issues... :(

At any rate, i'll try to make time to read the book, and look forward to seeing if anybody can find kinks in the argument, if in fact there are any. I wonder to what degree this will affect politics? Especially poor minority voters. They, from my experience, are more socially conservative, and if it turns out that conservatives really want to help them more, then "voting your wallet" as my mom has called it, would mean a vote for conservatives.

Could be interesting I think.... All of the conservatives I know give to their respective churches and or charities, which in turn give to the poor. The thing is, bragging about how much you give to your church is very very unethical.

Are Warren Buffet and Bill Gates conservatives or liberals?

[sLiPpY]

JLB wrote: Liberals give more, it's just that they steal it first from somebody else.

JLB is correct. Liberals are more generous with their err...cash.

Especially the billionare Liberals such as Bill Gates, and what's the old crusty Liberal's name that was the wealthiest man in the USA for a while?

Dang it I can't remember...

But when you add up the wealth. Liberals do indeed have infinately more money than Conservatives when all's done and said. :lol:

[Violaxcore]

The difference is how: one is through government, the other is through private donations.

[homerjay_s]

I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority of those that label themselves conservative are are required by their religious denomination to give away 10% of everything they make to the church(read charity).

The church knows how to levy a tax. Even across the board for everyone, and rather than spending a huge percentage of that revenue on accounting and threatening people that don't cough it up, they threaten eternal damnation and the sheeple give until it hurts.

[Black Sheep 5]

homerjay_s wrote: I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority of those that label themselves conservative are are required by their religious denomination to give away 10% of everything they make to the church(read charity).

The church knows how to levy a tax. Even across the board for everyone, and rather than spending a huge percentage of that revenue on accounting and threatening people that don't cough it up, they threaten eternal damnation and the sheeple give until it hurts. Wow knocking Christianity for its charity. I know people hate Christians, but damn.

[sLiPpY]

homerjay_s wrote: I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority of those that label themselves conservative are are required by their religious denomination to give away 10% of everything they make to the church(read charity).

The church knows how to levy a tax. Even across the board for everyone, and rather than spending a huge percentage of that revenue on accounting and threatening people that don't cough it up, they threaten eternal damnation and the sheeple give until it hurts.

yup, they're worse than "telemarketers" i.e. Telemarketers ask for donations of the police funds, then there's the 90 percent overhead taken out of the "Telemarketer's expense" About six months later a retired policeman gets a pizza.

[Black Sheep 5]

sLiPpY wrote: homerjay_s wrote: I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority of those that label themselves conservative are are required by their religious denomination to give away 10% of everything they make to the church(read charity).

The church knows how to levy a tax. Even across the board for everyone, and rather than spending a huge percentage of that revenue on accounting and threatening people that don't cough it up, they threaten eternal damnation and the sheeple give until it hurts.

yup, they're worse than "telemarketers" i.e. Telemarketers ask for donations of the police funds, then there's the 90 percent overhead taken out of the "Telemarketer's expense" About six months later a retired policeman gets a pizza. I hope your not stereotyping all of Christianity for the VERY few idiots who tarnish our name?

[JLB]

sLiPpY wrote: JLB wrote: Liberals give more, it's just that they steal it first from somebody else.

JLB is correct. Liberals are more generous with their err...cash.

Especially the billionare Liberals such as Bill Gates, and what's the old crusty Liberal's name that was the wealthiest man in the USA for a while?

Dang it I can't remember...

But when you add up the wealth. Liberals do indeed have infinately more money than Conservatives when all's done and said. :lol:

Sam Walton.

After Gates the list gets pretty slim, doesn't it?

Dick Cheney gave away over $7 million, all of his Halliburton options to charity last year.

Bill Clinton gave away his old underwear.

See the difference?

[JLB]

homerjay_s wrote: I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority of those that label themselves conservative are are required by their religious denomination to give away 10% of everything they make to the church(read charity).

The church knows how to levy a tax. Even across the board for everyone, and rather than spending a huge percentage of that revenue on accounting and threatening people that don't cough it up, they threaten eternal damnation and the sheeple give until it hurts.

I'm not a Christian, but I seem to remember that tithing is voluntary, while excessive taxation is not.

[Black Sheep 5]

JLB wrote: sLiPpY wrote: JLB wrote: Liberals give more, it's just that they steal it first from somebody else.

JLB is correct. Liberals are more generous with their err...cash.

Especially the billionare Liberals such as Bill Gates, and what's the old crusty Liberal's name that was the wealthiest man in the USA for a while?

Dang it I can't remember...

But when you add up the wealth. Liberals do indeed have infinately more money than Conservatives when all's done and said. :lol:

Sam Walton.

After Gates the list gets pretty slim, doesn't it?

Dick Cheney gave away over $7 million, all of his Halliburton options to charity last year.

Bill Clinton gave away his old underwear.

See the difference? The home depot dude who built the Georgia aquariam and gave it to the city of Atlanta.

[homerjay_s]

JLB wrote: homerjay_s wrote: I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority of those that label themselves conservative are are required by their religious denomination to give away 10% of everything they make to the church(read charity).

The church knows how to levy a tax. Even across the board for everyone, and rather than spending a huge percentage of that revenue on accounting and threatening people that don't cough it up, they threaten eternal damnation and the sheeple give until it hurts.

I'm not a Christian, but I seem to remember that tithing is voluntary, while excessive taxation is not.

Getting into heaven is "voluntary", too. If you don't want to burn in hell, you'll pay their tithe.

Anything it voluntary if you're willing to accept the consequences of your own actions.

[sLiPpY]

JLB wrote: sLiPpY wrote: JLB wrote: Liberals give more, it's just that they steal it first from somebody else.

JLB is correct. Liberals are more generous with their err...cash.

Especially the billionare Liberals such as Bill Gates, and what's the old crusty Liberal's name that was the wealthiest man in the USA for a while?

Dang it I can't remember...

But when you add up the wealth. Liberals do indeed have infinately more money than Conservatives when all's done and said. :lol:

Sam Walton.

After Gates the list gets pretty slim, doesn't it?

Dick Cheney gave away over $7 million, all of his Halliburton options to charity last year.

Bill Clinton gave away his old underwear.

See the difference?

Actually it doesn't :lol:

I could rattle off the names of about 80 out of 100 of the wealthiest Americans. And they're all Liberals...and they all gave $1 Million dollars a piece to a George Soros "Think Tank" so that us progressive folks could whip the tar out of joo publicans. :lol:

[Black Sheep 5]

homerjay_s wrote: JLB wrote: homerjay_s wrote: I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority of those that label themselves conservative are are required by their religious denomination to give away 10% of everything they make to the church(read charity).

The church knows how to levy a tax. Even across the board for everyone, and rather than spending a huge percentage of that revenue on accounting and threatening people that don't cough it up, they threaten eternal damnation and the sheeple give until it hurts.

I'm not a Christian, but I seem to remember that tithing is voluntary, while excessive taxation is not.

Getting into heaven is "voluntary", too. If you don't want to burn in hell, you'll pay their tithe.

Anything it voluntary if you're willing to accept the consequences of your own actions. This hyperbolic BS. There are very few mainstream Christians who believe you can buy your way into heaven. Keep in mind that most Christians do not consider Tammy Faye Baker a Christian. Very few people consider preachers who drive Mercedes and wear Rolexes to be devout in their faith.

[ontheyslay]

Black Sheep 5 wrote: StrawHat wrote: That's interesting... but I think it's more complicated than that. Especially since in my experience, liberals tend to think of the poor more. Or could it be that there are different flavors of conservatives? There are religious conseratives, whose values may make them give more. There are economic conservatives, who think of what's best for the economy. Question is, does an improved economy necessarily help everyone? If not, can we really call people who are interested in improving the economy charitable, even if it doesnt help those that need it most? Doesn't an imporved economy just help the people that already have the money do whatever they want? Or maybe i'm just to naive about these issues... :(

At any rate, i'll try to make time to read the book, and look forward to seeing if anybody can find kinks in the argument, if in fact there are any. I wonder to what degree this will affect politics? Especially poor minority voters. They, from my experience, are more socially conservative, and if it turns out that conservatives really want to help them more, then "voting your wallet" as my mom has called it, would mean a vote for conservatives.

Could be interesting I think.... All of the conservatives I know give to their respective churches and or charities, which in turn give to the poor. The thing is, bragging about how much you give to your church is very very unethical.

Are Warren Buffet and Bill Gates conservatives or liberals?

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are atheists, so I'm assuming they are liberals. But obviously I could be wrong.

[JLB]

[quote="homerjay_s"] JLB wrote: homerjay_s wrote: I would like to point out that the overwhelming majority of those that label themselves conservative are are required by their religious denomination to give away 10% of everything they make to the church(read charity).

The church knows how to levy a tax. Even across the board for everyone, and rather than spending a huge percentage of that revenue on accounting and threatening people that don't cough it up, they threaten eternal damnation and the sheeple give until it hurts.

I'm not a Christian, but I seem to remember that tithing is voluntary, while excessive taxation is not.

Quote: Getting into heaven is "voluntary", too. If you don't want to burn in hell, you'll pay their tithe.

I went to a religious prep school, and that wasn't part of what I remember.


Quote: Anything it voluntary if you're willing to accept the consequences of your own actions.

The end justifies the means, eh?