Well, this ought to ruin a few Christmas parties.

Building on the post below about the religious right, here comes unsurprising word that conservative Christians give generously to charitable causes. Excerpt:

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.

The truth is actually unsurprising given (a) conservative Christians’ emphasis on tithing, and (b) the belief among secular liberals that taking care of the unfortunate is properly government’s job (hence, perhaps, not necessarily theirs).

(Hat tip: Say Anything)

Update: The title of this post might seem a trifle in-your-face, but it simply echoes one of the charges most frequently hurled at those on the right side of the political spectrum. Today’s New York Times, for instance, carries an article about the Mackinac Center, a school for conservative think-tankery. It quotes a critic of think tanks that support free-market values:

“Their philosophy encourages selfishness and greed,” said Iris J. Lav, who runs the State Fiscal Analysis Initiative, a network of 29 liberal state-level groups organized in part as a countervailing force. “If you have problems, they don’t care — just too bad.”

This type of accusation tends to make free-marketers’ blood pressure go through the stratosphere. It implies that compassion necessitates coercion: that there is only one way to help those in need—through government programs—and that anyone who demurs from this view is not only wrong, but callous and cruel. For more examples, see some of the comments on Metafilter, a community weblog, about the passing of economic genius Milton Friedman. He advocated freedom, say some, and therefore he should burn in hell. That’s not an exaggeration. (Okay, not much of one.) Yet, as previously noted:

A virtue that is imposed from above ceases to be virtuous; only when someone is free to choose is he to be commended for choosing well. It is courageous to run into a burning building to save a child—unless someone with a gun is threatening to shoot you if you don’t. Indeed, the purpose of moral education is to teach people to do the right thing even when no one is watching. A society seeking to encourage virtue must therefore rely on persuasion rather than coercion.

If Brooks’ book is accurate, then it underscores a crucial point: One can both oppose government-mandated charity through social-assistance programs, and demonstrate compassion to an extent greater even than that shown by those who do support such programs.

Wow, Roger, that’s a pretty wide brush you’re painting with!

It doesen’t surprise me at all to find that liberals are stingy. They aren’t actually concerned with the people they claim to sympahize with. They merely want credit for pretending to care so they can flaunt thier compassion at the next meeting of the TD diversity committee meeting. They wear causes like jewelry. It’s all for show.

Although my last comment may have shunted your underlying point, I hope you don’t mind one last (worthy?) comment on Govt. Assistance:

In the aftermath of one of the recent big hurricanes—it was either Katrina or Isabel—I was listening to one of those Neo-con talk show hosts on a rant. (By the way, why do they all have Irish surnames?).

The fiery host, in exasperation, asked “Do we really want Big Daddy Government wiping our a** after every disaster?“

I remember that my initial gut response was, ‘Well, yes, I do!!!‘

In retrospect, I don’t think my gut was wrong. Somebody has to do the cleaning up. Doesn’t matter if its govt., private people, or a combination of the both. Just so long as its done.

Says Margie, “Most people are generous, but not dependably so.“

Yeah, that’s the way I see it also.

And to Bart: I personally don’t think the major issue is whether the care comes from an altruistic saint or whether it comes from a govt. program—taking good care of the ill must be achieved. Just for a moment, we should try to imagine ourselves being in a dire, grave situation with no family to help us out.

I pay taxes too. I am ok with my taxes going toward socialized programs for the needy.

Nice post.  Results of the study are not surprising though.  Most liberals I know personally are consummed with a sense of entitlement and victimization. They are good at slinging vitriol though as Friedman’s death proves.

That would be well and good if private charity could sustain all the people with disabilities who need extensive and long term care. People’s generosity is not dependable enough to keep the many alive who depend on government agencies for their very lives. Try to apply that principle to any other function of government, such as roads or education and see how voluntary contributions work out. Most people are generous, but not dependably so. I see no difference in coercing people with no kids to pay for education, people without cars to pay for roads.

This is a good post, Bart, but I can’t help but think it’s sad that people must argue about who is more compassionate. Doesn’t Proverbs say something about not boasting of your generosity? It’s not compassion when you’re looking to score some personal gain out of it.

Post Your Comments: