Conservatives give more to charity than liberals
"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."
It is a fairly straightforward proposition. Arthur Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, studied charitable giving in America and came across an interesting trend. For all the talk about "bleeding hearts," and not being able to hug kids with nuclear arms, liberals look to government to solve social ills while conservatives look to -- and apparently finance -- charitable organizations accomplish the mission.
George Will has an editorial on Brooks' study at Town Hall. You can buy the study as a book as well.
The study doesn't surprise me. Sure there are liberals who make donations -- even large ones -- to charitable organizations. But if I bundle up the common characteristics that I notice in liberals I know, contrasted with conservatives, I would point to liberals' tendency to universalize problems that they notice. They then want to discuss solutions in terms of some form of taxpayer-funded program. Conservatives that I know have a greater tendency to see a problem as something specific that might be solved by a more local solution. They might develop and fund a foundation, work to get a local church to address a concern or hit up local businesses to complete a task.
So which is better? That is the split.
A great book on the topic is Marvin Olasky's The Tragedy of American Compassion. The book documents some incredible acts of compassion performed 100 years ago by churches and charitable organizations and then contrasts their effectiveness with the modern welfare state. Olasky laments the loss of discernment in the welfare state. Where a charity could carry out its work in a manner that salvaged pride and focused on truly deserving, needy, individuals, the welfare state has means testings, thresholds and depersonalized machinery.
I submit that the former was true compassion.
It is a fairly straightforward proposition. Arthur Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, studied charitable giving in America and came across an interesting trend. For all the talk about "bleeding hearts," and not being able to hug kids with nuclear arms, liberals look to government to solve social ills while conservatives look to -- and apparently finance -- charitable organizations accomplish the mission.
George Will has an editorial on Brooks' study at Town Hall. You can buy the study as a book as well.
The study doesn't surprise me. Sure there are liberals who make donations -- even large ones -- to charitable organizations. But if I bundle up the common characteristics that I notice in liberals I know, contrasted with conservatives, I would point to liberals' tendency to universalize problems that they notice. They then want to discuss solutions in terms of some form of taxpayer-funded program. Conservatives that I know have a greater tendency to see a problem as something specific that might be solved by a more local solution. They might develop and fund a foundation, work to get a local church to address a concern or hit up local businesses to complete a task.
So which is better? That is the split.
A great book on the topic is Marvin Olasky's The Tragedy of American Compassion. The book documents some incredible acts of compassion performed 100 years ago by churches and charitable organizations and then contrasts their effectiveness with the modern welfare state. Olasky laments the loss of discernment in the welfare state. Where a charity could carry out its work in a manner that salvaged pride and focused on truly deserving, needy, individuals, the welfare state has means testings, thresholds and depersonalized machinery.
I submit that the former was true compassion.
Comments