posted on December 14, 2006 10:53:15 AMWho gives, who doesn't
WashingtonTimes
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
December 14, 2006
Conservatives who chafe at the twinning of conservatism and selfishness implied or stated outright by liberals should hear charity expert Arthur C. Brooks.
The opposite of the convenient "altruistic liberals, selfish conservatives" stereotype appears to be true -- mostly because the average religious person is very charitable and, more often than not, is also a political conservative.
In total, conservative households donate about 30 percent more money to charity each year than liberal households, Mr. Brooks has found.
Don't plumb this for hidden political significance. The explanation: Churchgoing America is both disproportionately conservative and much likelier to give to charity than non-observant, disproportionately liberal America.
Among Mr. Brooks' most interesting findings, contained in "Who Really Cares:
The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism," is the red state/blue state divide.
Measured as a percentage of income, Maryland is the only blue state to break the top 25. One wonders what has happened to charity in wealthy coastal states like California, New York and Connecticut -- which, for the record, still donate large absolute sums of money.
Residents of these states simply do not donate as large a share of their income as the nice and modest folk in flyover-land cities like Topeka, Kansas, or Sioux Falls, S.D.
Residents in the latter were found by ABC's "20/20" this week to donate twice as much money as San Franciscans to Salvation Army buckets in a test the show arranged.
The discrepancy also crops up in nonfinancial matters.
For instance, if liberals were to give blood at the rates that conservatives do, America's blood supply would rise by 45 percent, Mr. Brooks found.
The fault line in American giving, religion, constitutes a "charity gap," according to Mr. Brooks, which is the best explanation of why certain people give the way they do, and others do not.
There is a culture of giving and altruism in America that is highly associated with religious faith and practice, which in turn is highly associated with conservatism.
Or maybe we could put it simply: Good things go together.
How about this as a compromise:
Conservatives can refrain from reading mean-spiritedness into liberalism on the basis of Mr. Brooks' findings if liberals will simply stop trying to impute cold-heartedness to conservative ideas they don't like.
Now that would be a most charitable and selfless act, for everyone.
posted on December 14, 2006 11:15:37 AM
But Linda, dont you know that all those libs give freely more of their "opinions", whether anyone wants them or not.
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on December 14, 2006 11:58:46 AM
I think you're both confused. A "liberal" is someone who tells you how to spend YOUR money. Kinda like Streisand having squatters hauled off her Malibu beach while giving speeches about po' people.
posted on December 14, 2006 12:17:14 PM
I know bear. I remember WELL when they all had to disclose their tax returns [before the election]....lol...to see the HUGE donations both this President and especially what both Cheney's had given.
Then when I looked at what the cheapskate kerry's had given....it was pretty darn sad.
========
Your almost right, desquirrel. They TAKE our money first....then spend it on what they want. Not JUST telling us how we 'should' spend it. Rather taking it from us for the decisions on how it would be best redistributed.
lol
THUS....just goes to show how WILLING they are to spend other peoples money....but don't ask them to get into their OWN pockets.
[ edited by Linda_K on Dec 14, 2006 12:26 PM ]
They TAKE our money first....then spend it on what they want. Not JUST telling us how we 'should' spend it. Rather taking it from us for the decisions on how it would be best redistributed.
