New Talking Points: Conservatives More Compassionate & Giving than Liberals - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 07-13-2007, 10:23 AM

I heard Arthur C. Brookes interviewed on the Dennis Praeger radio show, last night. (On my local Salem Network affiliate....) He represented himself as an econoimist and a former republican, now a registered independent because of his negative impression of "both parties". He said that he was a Roman Catholic. He seemed to me to be trying to portray himself as "neutral". politically and religiously. He said that he began his research believing that liberals were more generous in their charitable giving, but that his research indicated that liberals in the US, as in Europe, prefer higher taxes and government solutions, instead of private donations of time and money which conservatives favor, and do....to a higher degree, on average, according to Arthur Brookes, than liberals do......

I'm skeptical, because I do not believe that Brookes is an impartial researcher and data analyst/interpreter, and I do not believe that he did his research as an independent, personal project, and that his results just happened to be favorable news for conservatives to embrace and distribute.

Do the results of Brookes' research, make sense to you? Is it just a coincidence, as he claims, that what he has found, portrays conservatives as more compassionate?

Quote:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...Y2ZThjN2MyZWU=
December 20, 2006, 6:00 a.m.

The Right Cares
Charitable numbers.

An NRO Q&A

Conservatives aren’t mean? That’s what the numbers reveal, according to Arthur C. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He recently took questions from NRO Editor Kathryn Lopez about his new book, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/redirect/amazon.p?j=0465008216">Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.</a>

Kathryn Jean Lopez: So, conservatives really are compassionate?

Arthur Brooks: Yes, especially when it comes to private charitable giving. This, for much of America, is the “surprising truth” in my book’s title. For a lot of folks, this contradicts an entrenched stereotype that conservatives are stingy and venal because they tend to be against a lot of government income redistribution. According to one ham-handed (but amazingly popular) campaign sign in upstate New York before the 2004 presidential election, “Bush Must Go! Human Need, Not Corporate Greed.” When we look at actual private charity, however, we see conservatives do just fine. For example, conservative-headed families in 2000 gave about 30 percent more money per year than liberal-headed families on average, while (in these data, at least), earning 6 percent less income.

This is not to commit the opposite sin and say that liberals are all selfish (we often find that liberals give more than moderates, for example). It’s just that they are conspicuously not more privately generous than conservatives, in spite of the rhetoric.

Lopez: And conservatives are more generous than liberals — is it really that simple?

Brooks: No, it’s really not a question of politics per se — it goes much deeper, to the values that lie beneath political views. My book explores four areas of our culture that lead people to give, or not: religious faith, attitudes about the government’s role in our lives, the source of one’s income, and family. These are the big drivers of giving in America today, and the biggest is religion. Religious folks give far more than secularists in every way I’ve been able to measure. For example, people who attend a house of worship every week are 25 percentage points more likely to give to charity each year than people who never go to church, and give away about four times as much money. And this is not just a question of religious people giving to their churches, as meritorious as that might be: They also give and volunteer significantly more to explicitly nonreligious causes and charities.

Obviously, religion also correlates pretty strongly with politics, which is one reason why conservatives appear to give so much.

Lopez: Are there any surprising caveats?

Brooks: Yes. Most surprising is that the least privately charitable group out there tends to be secular conservatives, who give and volunteer even less than secular liberals, and far less than religious conservatives. For example, secular conservatives are only about half as likely as religious conservatives to volunteer. The reason secularists don’t drag down the conservative charity numbers overall is that there are three times as many religious conservatives as there are secular conservatives.

Lopez: Surely that religious people are generous isn’t that surprising, right? The collection basket is just a normal part of their lives, right?

Brooks: It’s probably not surprising to NRO readers, but it is surprising to a lot of folks out there, who see religion as superstition leading people to be less accepting of others, and religious contributions as little more than glorified country club dues. Many people I know find it almost unbelievable that religious people are 21 percentage points more likely than secularists to volunteer for totally nonreligious causes; or that they are about twice as likely to donate blood.

Lopez: Why does all of this matter?

Brooks: One of the most exciting areas of social science research involves the benefits of charitable behavior to givers, their communities, and our nation. There is a growing body of evidence that giving stimulates personal prosperity, strong communities, good citizenship, and a healthier nation. In other words, charity is not just about cash for services (which theoretically, the government could provide with tax revenues). Rather, it enhances quality of life for givers and those around them.

Lopez: How will being charitable make me happy, healthy and rich?

Brooks: Charitable giving and volunteering are tremendously pleasurable. They also empower givers, making them feel less like victims, and give people a lot of meaning in their lives. I have talked to clinical psychologists who actually prescribe volunteer work to their patients, with amazing results. Studies also show that givers are admired and elevated to positions of influence and authority. It is hardly surprising, given all the evidence, that givers enjoy (on average) higher happiness and prosperity than non-givers do. In fact, my research leads me to the belief that the single best self-help strategy is to serve others.

Lopez: What does your data mean for the term “bleeding heart”?

Brooks: According to the popular lexicon, “bleeding hearts” are those who most want to raise taxes and redistribute income from the rich to the poor. Yet the data show that these folks are actually less likely to give away their own money than are those whose hearts apparently don’t bleed quite so much. For example, people who disagree that “the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality,” privately give away, on average, four times more money than people who agree.

And speaking of bleeding, one survey in 2002 asked people about their views on government welfare and how often they gave blood. It showed that, if everyone gave blood like “hard-hearted” opponents of government welfare spending, the nation’s blood supply would rise by about 30 percent. I won’t say which side is right about welfare spending (that’s a different question), but I will note that some may find irony in the link with private giving.

Lopez: Have you gotten grief in academia for your book?

Brooks: Not too much — at least not yet. Of course, there will be disagreement, and other scholars will probably look into my results, asking different questions and using new data. But that’s how research is supposed to take knowledge forward. In fact, one measure of the success of this book will be how it stimulates new work and discussion on charity, whether that work agrees with my findings or not.

I’ve had more pushback from some in the media, who occasionally suggest that the book is just part of a political agenda (for the record, I am a registered Independent). This often involves noting my affiliation with the American Enterprise Institute or some appearances on conservative talk radio. Nobody ever seems to point out that I am a professor at Syracuse University — hardly a hotbed of right-wingers — or that I’ve done public radio as well as Rush Limbaugh.

Lopez: Does your research pretty much guarantee that I will be getting more Christmas gifts than Arianna Huffington?

Brooks: Well, that depends on your friends! And even more, it depends on how much you give. I suspect Santa will be pretty good to Arianna Huffington this year, though.

Lopez: You’ve written too about the “fertility gap”? Are all the stingy liberal atheists going to die out?

Brooks: You mean, like Europe?

Lopez: If you could drill one fact from your research into congressional appropriators, what would it be?

Brooks: Government actions have unintended consequences for private charity. When the government subsidizes activities or regulates private behavior, it can and often does dramatically reduce charitable giving. And this has real consequences for individuals and communities. This is not an anti-government philosophy; it is an appeal to policymakers to remember that charity is an exceptional American value, and to respect it as such.

Lopez: What’s the single weirdest fact in your book?

Brooks: There are lots of strange facts about American charity. Here’s one that involves the differences between giving by the rich and poor: Americans with high incomes are more likely than poor folks to give directions to strangers on the street. In contrast, the poor are more likely to give a homeless person food or money. The practical implication of this is that, if you find yourself in a strange city and need directions, ask a rich person. If you need a sandwich, ask a poor person.

Quote:

How to measure types of giving?
Saturday, July 07, 2007
RENEE K. GADOUA
RELIGION NOTEBOOK

A review in the magazine The Christian Century questions some of the conclusions Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks draws in "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism."

Among Brooks' main findings: Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way, charity is good for your health, and religious people are more charitable - including with secular donations - than secularists.

In June's Christian Century, James Haltman, a professor of economics at Wheaton College in Illinois, faults Brooks for not evaluating the relative merits of different types of giving.

"Giving to orchestras, museums, church building funds and parent-teacher associations is considered just as charitable as giving to aid the poor and disadvantaged. Sorting out motives for and benefits from giving is an impossible task, so readers can only speculate about how these variables might affect" Brooks' conclusions, he writes. "After all, giving and caring are not synonymous."

Haltman also says, "It is easy to get lost in all the statistics that Brooks has woven into the prose" and notes that Brooks "does not systematically address the politically moderate middle third of the population."

Still, Haltman recommends what he calls a provocative book.

"It is important to see that religion matters, that working toward a shared vision frequently does not require coercion, and that civil society needs strong institutions of family and religion," he writes.

Trust in religion tumbles

It would be interesting to hear Arthur Brooks discuss the connections between a recent Gallup poll that found Americans' trust in organized religion is at a near-record low and a report that U.S. charitable giving reached a record high of $295.02 billion in 2006.

Americans trust the military and the police force significantly more than the church and organized religion, according to a Religion News Service story on the Gallup poll.

Only 46 percent of respondents interviewed in June said they had either a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the church, compared with 69 percent who said they trusted the military and 54 percent who trust police officers, RNS reported.

The figures are among the lowest for institutionalized religion in the 31/2 decades that Gallup has conducted the poll. Peaking at 68 percent in May 1975, the numbers bottomed out at 45 percent in June of 2003.

Last month, Giving USA Foundation reported that, excluding gifts for extraordinary disaster relief including Hurricane Katrina, charitable giving in 2006 rose 6.6 percent over 2005.

Religious congregations received about 32.8 percent of the total amount donated, according to a news release from the Cen ter on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Award for SU speaker

Robert Egger, founder of the D.C. Central Kitchen, recently received the Duke Zeibert Capital Achievement Award.

Egger, whose organization uses leftover food to feed the homeless, spoke at Hendricks Chapel in March 2005 as part of Syracuse University's lecture series. The award presentation last month included a tribute from U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Egger predicted a change in the attitudes of young people toward giving.

"They see their time as philanthropy," Egger said. "I don't think they're going to be satisfied with traditional charity. They're going to want a very different type of experience, one that's born in that personal connection."

Renee K. Gadoua covers religion and spirituality for The Post-Standard. Reach her at...

Cynthetiq · 07-13-2007, 10:43 AM

I have seen studies like this before, that corroborate this information. Of course now, I cannot find them at all.

What I took away from the readings was that the liberal side tended to think that someone else would do it as opposed to taking action themselves.

nevermind... it was these same things... it was from late 2006.

ubertuber · 07-13-2007, 06:18 PM

host, out of curiosity... Are you skeptical merely because the findings don't agree with your intuition, or is there more to this?

Nizzle · 07-13-2007, 06:41 PM

Red herring. Not exactly news that a lot of rich people (who can thus afford philanthropy) have a conservative agenda.

Does make for a great way to ratchet up the rhetorical bashing each side indulges in.

willynilly · 07-14-2007, 10:15 AM

In my book, giving to organizations with political agendas tends to deflect some of the value. If someone gives a million dollars to a pro-life organization, that does not count for charity in my book. What about the NRA? I am a big fan of guns, but not of conservative, religious based politics that often dominates in any progun group. If you donate to a church that uses its money to throw religious stuff at the people it is helping, then there is an ulterior motive that is not exactly charitable. For example, in the middle east there are many free schools run by religious muslim organizations. These teach (pretty much boys exclusively) reading and writing, and maybe some basic skills. Most of the reading comes straight from the Koran and their interpretation of it. So the kids are getting an education, and also indoctrination into a particular set of beliefs.
Give money to the catholic church, and how much goes to promoting the tenets of the church, building its power base, and also to fighting abortion rights? I have been to a church that sent a second collection plate around to send a bus to DC to protest, but to me that is a political action, not charity.
Of course, liberals do the same thing. Donate money to an organization and some of it is probably going to end up sloughed off to a political action committee that may or may not be aligned with your goals. Maybe that's why the study claims that moderates give the least, because they don't want to inadvertantly help the fringe.

Willravel · 07-14-2007, 10:18 AM

They are more compassionate and giving. They are compassionate to special interests, and they give us war.

pan6467 · 07-14-2007, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I heard Arthur C. Brookes interviewed on the Dennis Praeger radio show, last night. (On my local Salem Network affiliate....) He represented himself as an econoimist and a former republican, now a registered independent because of his negative impression of "both parties". He said that he was a Roman Catholic. He seemed to me to be trying to portray himself as "neutral". politically and religiously. He said that he began his research believing that liberals were more generous in their charitable giving, but that his research indicated that liberals in the US, as in Europe, prefer higher taxes and government solutions, instead of private donations of time and money which conservatives favor, and do....to a higher degree, on average, according to Arthur Brookes, than liberals do......

I'm skeptical, because I do not believe that Brookes is an impartial researcher and data analyst/interpreter, and I do not believe that he did his research as an independent, personal project, and that his results just happened to be favorable news for conservatives to embrace and distribute.

Do the results of Brookes' research, make sense to you? Is it just a coincidence, as he claims, that what he has found, portrays conservatives as more compassionate?

Limbaugh has been hammering that onto his listeners for 15 years. It is one of the ways he was able to grab people's attention and hold it.

It's bullshit, and it tries to get people to believe that the GOP neo-cons are more caring.

What they refuse to say is that they do it for tax write offs and set up their own "charities" run by family that get paid exorbitant amounts and that if they really wanted to help people and the country they would create better paying jobs and and invest in the nation, communities and people by creating those jobs.

It's like a little kid who picks flowers from the neighbors yard to give to his mom.... he sits there telling everyone what a great little kid he is, hoping noone notices that he stole the flowers and destroyed the neighbors flower garden in the process.

irateplatypus · 07-15-2007, 03:37 PM

for those implying that conservatives may give more simply because they have more: brooks took into account potential income disparities...

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html

Quote:

So how do liberals and conservatives compare in their charity? When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer.

But this similarity fades away when we consider average dollar amounts donated. In 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.

dc_dux · 07-15-2007, 03:45 PM

Its difficult to assess the validity of this study.....but charity is not solely measured in dollars.

I would be interested in a similar analysis of community service and other volunteer programs that are of equal value.

irateplatypus · 07-15-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Its difficult to assess the validity of this study.....but charity is not solely measured in dollars.

I would be interested in a similar analysis of community service and other volunteer programs that are of equal value.

from the same study linked above... conservatives are 1-2 percentage points more likely to give money, liberals a single percentage point more likely to volunteer. it's a statistical tie for either method of giving.

dc_dux · 07-15-2007, 03:57 PM

Thanks, Irate.

It seems to me that Americans are charitable in different ways and driven by different motives and personal ideologies, so whats the big deal?

jorgelito · 07-15-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Thanks, Irate.

It seems to me that Americans are charitable in different ways and driven by different motives and personal ideologies, so whats the big deal?

I agree with this post. It does seem silly and petty to be arguing over this doesn't it?

Superbelt · 07-15-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willynilly

In my book, giving to organizations with political agendas tends to deflect some of the value. If someone gives a million dollars to a pro-life organization, that does not count for charity in my book. What about the NRA? I am a big fan of guns, but not of conservative, religious based politics that often dominates in any progun group. If you donate to a church that uses its money to throw religious stuff at the people it is helping, then there is an ulterior motive that is not exactly charitable. For example, in the middle east there are many free schools run by religious muslim organizations. These teach (pretty much boys exclusively) reading and writing, and maybe some basic skills. Most of the reading comes straight from the Koran and their interpretation of it. So the kids are getting an education, and also indoctrination into a particular set of beliefs.
Give money to the catholic church, and how much goes to promoting the tenets of the church, building its power base, and also to fighting abortion rights? I have been to a church that sent a second collection plate around to send a bus to DC to protest, but to me that is a political action, not charity.
Of course, liberals do the same thing. Donate money to an organization and some of it is probably going to end up sloughed off to a political action committee that may or may not be aligned with your goals. Maybe that's why the study claims that moderates give the least, because they don't want to inadvertantly help the fringe.

Yep. I see it the same way. Not all 'charitable' contributions count the same.
So much of the charity that many on either side give goes to political work, indoctrination and other more selfish goals. There is no way to really separate it all out. So, yeah, Conservatives are more likely to donate money to organizations. But is that a good thing? Does it really mean anything? No, I don't believe so.

So any inferences anyone might want to make from that little statistic is bunk.

07-13-2007, 10:43 AM	#2 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I have seen studies like this before, that corroborate this information. Of course now, I cannot find them at all. What I took away from the readings was that the liberal side tended to think that someone else would do it as opposed to taking action themselves. nevermind... it was these same things... it was from late 2006. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION! Last edited by Cynthetiq; 07-13-2007 at 10:45 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

07-13-2007, 06:18 PM	#3 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	host, out of curiosity... Are you skeptical merely because the findings don't agree with your intuition, or is there more to this? __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

07-13-2007, 06:41 PM	#4 (permalink)
Nizzle God-Hating Liberal Location: Silicon Valley, CA	Red herring. Not exactly news that a lot of rich people (who can thus afford philanthropy) have a conservative agenda. Does make for a great way to ratchet up the rhetorical bashing each side indulges in. __________________ Nizzle

07-15-2007, 03:45 PM	#9 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Its difficult to assess the validity of this study.....but charity is not solely measured in dollars. I would be interested in a similar analysis of community service and other volunteer programs that are of equal value. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

07-15-2007, 03:57 PM	#11 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Thanks, Irate. It seems to me that Americans are charitable in different ways and driven by different motives and personal ideologies, so whats the big deal? __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

07-14-2007, 10:15 AM	#5 (permalink)
willynilly Banned	In my book, giving to organizations with political agendas tends to deflect some of the value. If someone gives a million dollars to a pro-life organization, that does not count for charity in my book. What about the NRA? I am a big fan of guns, but not of conservative, religious based politics that often dominates in any progun group. If you donate to a church that uses its money to throw religious stuff at the people it is helping, then there is an ulterior motive that is not exactly charitable. For example, in the middle east there are many free schools run by religious muslim organizations. These teach (pretty much boys exclusively) reading and writing, and maybe some basic skills. Most of the reading comes straight from the Koran and their interpretation of it. So the kids are getting an education, and also indoctrination into a particular set of beliefs. Give money to the catholic church, and how much goes to promoting the tenets of the church, building its power base, and also to fighting abortion rights? I have been to a church that sent a second collection plate around to send a bus to DC to protest, but to me that is a political action, not charity. Of course, liberals do the same thing. Donate money to an organization and some of it is probably going to end up sloughed off to a political action committee that may or may not be aligned with your goals. Maybe that's why the study claims that moderates give the least, because they don't want to inadvertantly help the fringe.

07-14-2007, 10:18 AM	#6 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	They are more compassionate and giving. They are compassionate to special interests, and they give us war.