Who gives more: a liberal or a conservative? Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times is surprised by the answer:
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.
Read the entire column. This is indeed shocking. No, not really. I had long thought that the reason liberals wanted to take more of my money through increased taxes and such was because they really care more about people. No, not really. Turns out that some of them might want to merely appear generous while using other people's money to gain more control, more power, and more influence. Funny how much easier it is to spend other people's money than one's own. Yes, really.
Back in 2003, Brooks wrote an article, "Religious Faith and Charitable Giving," for Policy Review, which suggests that this is not so much a "liberal/conservative" issue as it is "religious/secular":
Charity differences between religious and secular people persist if we look at the actual amounts of donations and volunteering. Indeed, measures of the dollars given and occasions volunteered per year produce a yawning gap between the groups. The average annual giving among the religious is $2,210, whereas it is $642 among the secular. Similarly, religious people volunteer an average of 12 times per year, while secular people volunteer an average of 5.8 times. To put this into perspective, religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered.
Ok, I'll weigh in! I have long thought that liberalism/socialism is the ideology for those who are wealthy and feel a certain guilt about their wealth. But instead of giving generously and freely since God has blessed them, they assuage their guilt by insisting that others should give. Their fellow citizens are to be made to "give" by force, via taxation. Then the socialists can feel that they have done the right thing to help the poor.
Posted by: Jeannine | Tuesday, December 23, 2008 at 08:09 PM