Compassionate Conservatives

Matt Drudge is linking the news that conservatives are more generous in their charitable giving than liberals:

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."

I have no reason to doubt this guys number crunching, especially not having seen the numbers.  However, I got all balky about a Red States Out-Donate Blue States analysis a few years ago.

Comments

[Patrick]

My question is: How does he get a whole book out of this? Maybe a few pages of giving statistics separated by states, income level, ideology and party affiliation. Sounds more like a pamphlet.

[Don]

Newsflash-with a well run functioning government, private charity should be superfluous.

When's the last time someone was passing around a bucket for interstate highway maintenance?

[Ekim]

Who are these liberals who "have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society?" I seem to remember that it has been people like Bill Bennett who claim to be virtuous--no liberals that I know of.

I agree with Don above, if society were equitable, private charity should be superfluous

[Granddaddy Long Legs]

This isn't entirely true. Liberals are much more compassionate and charitable than conservatives. They just prefer to donate "our" money, rather than their own.

[Pofarmer]

Newsflash-with a well run functioning government, private charity should be superfluous.

Please tell me that was a joke? Maybe?

[topsecretk9]

--Newsflash-with a well run functioning government, private charity should be superfluous.--

Or gov't spending discourages people from giving to charities -- i.e. welfare charities.

[Forbes]

A well functioning government ranks right up there with Utopianism and the perfectability of man as science fiction fantasy. And charity as superfluous? Perhaps human nature and human instinct has been repealed, as well.

Yes, yes, outsourced your conscience to the government because we all want a nanny state that "feels your pain".

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. I see we've moved straight to the farce. Congratulations.

[Barney Frank]

I seem to remember that it has been people like Bill Bennett who claim to be virtuous--no liberals that I know of.

Citation please on Mr. Bennett's alleged claim.

What "people like Mr. Bennett" actually claim is that virtue actually does exist although we all fall short of it.
What liberals seem to claim is either there is no such thing as virtue or if it does exist it now includes what for the previous several thousand years was pretty uniformly known as "vice".

[ed]

Hmmm.

The problem with relying on the government for all charity is that in order for the government to provide such charity it requires a bureaucrat to agree with it.

[patch]

"When's the last time someone was passing around a bucket for interstate highway maintenance?"

How does highway maintenance qualify as a charity?

[Soylent Red]

Gee whiz. Conservatives give more to charity?

I wonder if that stems from the inherently conservative idea that problems are best solved privately at a local level, rather than by the federal government.

Or maybe it stems from the fact that conservatives tend to belong to religious organizations for whom charitable giving is a given.

Or possibly it comes from the (predominantly) conservative notion that it is the duty of those who succeed to give a little back.

Golly. Next we'll find out that Libs are all a bunch of narcissistic hypocrites, or that the sun rises in the east.

[Charles Martin]

Newsflash-with a well run functioning government, private charity should be superfluous.

With a really well-run and functioning government, private charity should be more than sufficient.

[boris]

With a really well-run and functioning government, private charity should be more than sufficient.

Given the choice between the two government utopias suggested here, I'm sure the one where private charity is more than sufficient would be a better place to live than the one where private charity is superfluous. Ruling out the obvious overlap, a utoptia where charity, governmnent or private, is unnecessary, the remaining options favor the society rich enough to voluntarily provide for the needy rather than the one where any arbitrary level of wealth is redistributed so all get their "share".

Suppose at some future time the two latter "utopias" coexist and people could emigrate between them. A rich society with private charity and a somewhat poorer one with government redistribution. One would expect the ambitious, the talented, and the lucky to prefer the rich society. Three reasons it would tend to remain the rich society. What about the untalented, the lazy and the unlucky? As the relative wealth of the two socities continued to diverge, would not they prefer private charity in rich surroundings to living in less disparity at the forced expense of others in dreary sameness mile after mile in all directions?

[richard mcenroe]

But remember, liberals want to give away much more of your money than you do...

[bgates]

I've never seen a bucket passed for road maintenance.

I have seen a bucket attached to a booth installed on the road just before the gate, accompanied by the implicit threat that if the guy in the booth sees you skip paying, he can send armed men to your house to collect.

Maybe a sufficiently well-run government could just forcibly collect for charity at the toll booths, too.

[w3]

Who are these liberals who "have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society?"

The claim is implied with the following illogical ad hominem attack: "If you oppose my welfare program, then you must want old people to eat cat food and children to beg in the street." If only greedy, stingy, cruel people oppose a legislatively mandated welfare program, what kind of people advocate government welfare? Any time you hear a liberal saying a conservative is greedy because he opposes so-and-so social program, he is implying that the liberal is virtuous because he supports it.

You see, we conservatives know passive aggressive attacks when we hear them.

And of course liberals give less to charity and private solutions to social problems. Liberals are constantly arguing that only solution to social ills are mandated government-run welfare programs. The logical conclusion for a liberal is that his wages are garnished to help the poor, he did his part, now get him a half-caf, soy milk latte, no foam please.

[jpe]

"If you oppose my welfare program, then you must want old people to eat cat food and children to beg in the street."

It's the equivalent of "if you oppose illegal wiretapping, you want al-Qaeda to win." Both sides have their own obnoxious ad homs, and are always eager to milk 'em.

[jpe]

But remember, liberals want to give away much more of your money than you do...

As the recent years evidence, this better describes the GOP.