Today’s editorial, “Really Caring,“ discusses Arthur Brooks’ Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (also discussed on this blog in November, here).

Brooks’ research finds that religious conservatives really do put their money where their mouths are, and give the most to genuinely charitable causes (as opposed to merely deductible “charitable” causes, such as one’s alma mater). He picks apart the numbers to show as well that religious liberals are more generous than secular conservatives—while secular liberals are the least generous of all. (N.B., these are generalities and norms; generalities and norms almost always have exceptions.)

The editorial brought a response from a local reader, who describes herself as a “somewhat informed source” but prefers not to be named. Her comments add depth to the discussion. Here they are:

As a non-profit fundraiser for more than 20 years, I can tell you that the assumptions made about liberals vs. conservatives in regard to giving to “worthy causes” are somewhat misleading.  Now that I am out of the business of begging for money for a good cause, I can share some trends that I saw over and over during those years.  Arthur Brooks probably based his findings on published information,  and that is not the whole story.

In my own experience I have seen that conservative people tended to give in greater numbers than liberals when their income was modest while many wealthy conservatives give the most generously when there was perceived social benefit to their families or good public relations for their businesses.  Not surprisingly, conservatives gave extremely generously to their churches and schools.  Liberals tended to donate to causes which often cannot be classified as “charitable” (because they have a political connection) and to smaller charities with a greater need for support than the large organizations (that can offer huge social events and/or cache for donors).  Liberals also tended to make multiple smaller donations— all of which were not officially recorded because of the smaller amounts.  Gifts from liberals were and continue to be outstanding to arts organizations.

Also, volunteer time was far greater among liberals of all income levels and lower income conservatives—unless there was a company policy or official involvement with a charity.

Neither group is inherently better or more generous than the other.  They just have different interests and go about their giving in different ways.

Margie,

Don’t worry, it was never my intention to change your feelings. My time would be better spent discussing evolution with Pat Robertson. It’s just that I knew how you would respond…conservatives, intolerant, bigoted,... want people to crawl off and die but, liberals never present themselves as morally superior and more noble….

I doubt you even get the point.

Never the less, I knew it would be an excellent opportunity to make the point using someone elses words.

And BTW, the religious freedom you were so eager to defend when Virgil Goode made his remarks about Muslims also applies to evangelical Christians who don’t agree with gay marraige. We haven’t banned them from voting…yet.

Hey Larry! Why do think it is wrong for someone to be a “compassionate conservative”? Or do you think it is an oxymoron? Does your version of compassion mean feeding the homeless on Thanksgiving? Perhaps, it is food stamps or free lunches? Liberals think that is compassion. Of course it keeps the minorities and poor enslaved to the Dems.

On the other hand, how about a clean sweep of the streets and relocating homeless people to closed military bases? They would have good shelter, a chow hall, a gym, a movie theater, and most of all a bathroom & shower area. How about this for compassion from a conservative.

Me thinks that most liberals yelling compassion really want to keep the homeless, minorities and poor in bondage to their handouts. Instead of meaningful action to change their lives(What if they voted for the GOP?)in a positive meaningful way, bondage insures bloc voting for Dems.

Just so the liberals reading this will know that their social programs are not working.
There are far more homeless and poor now than there were before social programs.
Social programs are a breding ground for failure and crime.

Margie
They still have people on payroll who ride around picking up the dead people who froze to death or died of heat stroke under bridges and in back alleys.

Nearly every person/family that churchs help, with grocerys, clothing,health care,and home repairs, are already on government assistance.

If a liberals idea of compassion is voting for a social program and then feeling good about yourselves because the government mails out checks on the first of each month, then your missing the point.

Just about everyone in need gets those checks.
Just sending money with out accountability does nothing but enslave people.
There are second and third generation welfare recipients.
A lot of them feel that they can not achieve anything more, so they settle for the monthly check.

Basicly the government is paying them to stagnate, and waste their lives waiting on the mailman to arrive.

On a side note.

This may seem selfish but volunteering and donating to help others isnt just about making sure the needy get help.

I have found it to be a great blessing to my family and myself.
I have gained far more in return than I ever gave away.

One example.

Both my daughters have been involved with womens prison ministry for a couple years.
They have gone inside those prisons every week during their teenage years, and cryed and prayed with the young girls who have gotten pregnant, or involved with driugs and crime.
The result is that my girls have seen the suffering first hand and I believe that experience is what has kept them from getting into trouble themselves.

For that, I am thankful, and I couldnt even begin to put a price tag on that.

Once you meet a person in need and pray with them, and mentor them to a point that they can be self sufficient, then you have earned a friend like no other friend you could have.
Most will tell you that they cant believe they wasted so much of their lives just recieving government handouts.

If that person isnt capable of becoming self sufficient then you still have a great friend for bieng involved in their lives.

Now thats something that a cold government check will never achieve!

Whats missing is government working with churchs and civic organizations for the better good.

Right now its the opposite.
Government is hostile to the church, due to the liberal mindset.

Call me selfish, but you can find me volunteering and giving as much as I possibly can nearly every weekend.

R. Smith:

Lampooning liberals as thinking of themselves as ‘society’s most empathetic and noblest heros’ has been a favorite way for conservatives to ridicule without finding wrong-doing for a long time now. An empty phrase. Seems to me conservatives are pretty good at representing themselves as ‘holier-than-thou do-gooders. A disservice to those who truly are doing so much good.

The question was, sorry, inarticulated.
An article I read recently said,“ Don’t bring the boss a problem without bringing a solution with it.“ Conservatives consistently criticize social nets without offering a viable alternative. Just a vague reference to private charities. Yeah, sure. That’s always worked well.

But I have been a few rounds with ya’ll on this one and could go a zillion more without anyone changing their minds or bringing fresh ideas into play. So I’ll let this one drop.

I hate speaking in questions, but in this case its appropriate:

Is “compassionate” what the giver thinks compassion is, or, what the recipient sees as compassion? Which is one is right or wrong? In other words—if I walk past someone and spit on their shoe, calling it compassion or “tough love”, can it really be an act of compassion if the victim doesn’t appreciate it?

I offer this food-for-thought because I’ve noticed that so-called givers of compassion(e.g. conservatives sitting on boards of Free Clinics, shelters and such) seem to think the recipients’ opinion shouldn’t matter. Who cares if they like it? WE call it compassion…

Margie,

An answer to what? I wasn’t aware you’d asked a question. Unless you are referring to this.

“How can people so ready to condemn, foster bigotry, judge with self- righteous certainty, discriminate, still turn around and offer so much help to those in need?“

Assuming, for a moment, that thats a fair representation and not another cartoonish caricature, perhaps it’s because they are not above helping the people they disagree with?

I know, crazy talk.

And judgementalism is the foundation of all religion. You can’t take a position on ANY issue unless you first make a judgement. Even if you belong to a supposedly non judgemental Interfaith Church, you’ve still judged all other churches as unworthy by virtue of rejecting them.

This is why I avoid religion.

I also try to give credit where credit is due and, with respect to charitable giving, conservatives are due far more respect than they are given, maybe even more since they apparently do so while being reviled by liberals who hold themselves up as societies most empathetic and noblest heros.

Charitable giving and volunteerism has more to do with one’s particular interest,e.g. juvenile diabetes or Boys Clubs, etc. It crosses political and philosophic lines based on personal interest.

If one is to put a political spin on giving, then it is interesting that two of the biggest political names have given the least according to tax returns in the 21st Century: Mr. Global Warming Gore and M/Ms. Redistribute Your Income Clinton.

Nimble dodging R. Smith, but not an answer. Here comes more flak:

Conservatives are good at waxing eloquent at the unfairness of “income redistibution”, translate, using taxdollars to help people survive who otherwise would not. However they are not so good at coming up with real alternatives with some basis in reality. A vague, ‘let private charitys deal with it the way they used to in the good old days’. No recognition of the inadaquacy of volunteerism, the limits of peoples generosity when called on long term, for problems that don’t have a permanent solution. An liberals are impractical and simply blowing hot air?

  That link was the biggest bunch of BS I’ve ever read.

Like they say, you know you’re over the target when you start taking flak!

Feelings never helped a hungry man feed himself. Opinions never helped an elderly woman get to the grocery store.

As for conservatives wanting the poor to crawl off and die….that’s interesting. It reminds me of the story told by muslim parents to their children, about how Jews kidnapped Muslim and Christian children, kill them and made pastries from their blood. I asked my Afgan friend about this a few years back and, he said yes, he’d been told the same story when he was little but, everyone knew it wasn’t really true, except for the people who just hated jews, and they would believe anything you told them. I guess they just need to.

Jim Patrick,

The article you linked to was good. I think we may be witnessing the results play out right here before us.

Ya’ll just may have stumbled on the solution to all our money problems. Let’s just abolish all social programs and let the churches take care of the unfortunates as in yesteryear. It will even bring back jobs that got abolished when the starving, old, and homeless that had died during the night had to be gathered up the next morning. That’s at least a minimum wage job.

It doesn’t make me feel self-righteous or in any way good about myself to espouse liberal views and encounter mockery for it . It makes me feel ill.

Post Your Comments: