You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Conservative donate more than liberals
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini … nted=print
December 21, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Bleeding Heart Tightwads
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.
Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.
(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)
When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.
It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.
In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.
Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.
So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.
Re: Conservative donate more than liberals
Hmmm...curious that this person defines helping out your community this way.
The rich give money so that someone else will do it, and the not so rich give their time. This is petty ass finger pointing is really childish.
The rich can never win. If they don't donate their time, their selfish assholes. If they donate money (which keeps almost all non-profit organizations running mind you), then they're selfish for not donating time.
I'm sorry but i'm just not buying this being 'petty'. If a liberal-biased article were published, that said rich conservatives don't donate, they'd rip them an asshole, and anything the conservatives responded with would not be taken seriously. But because it's pro-them, it's petty.
This article is very interesting. Like I stated earlier, we are cultured by politicians, analysts, and the media itself to believe liberals are freerer with money, spreading the wealth, and helping out your fellow man. And the conservatives are the big bad rich people, holed up in their mansion, looking down on the little people, and hording over their money. Think the metaphor of Dennis Hopper's character in Land of the Dead.
And this article proposes that it's quite the opposite. It might not be true, but it's interesting nonetheless.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Conservative donate more than liberals
This article strengthens my argument that liberals advocate big government because they're lazy. It's much easier to do nothing and delude yourself into thinking your tax dollars are making the world a better place than actually going out and doing something. It's even easier to point the finger at those who are financially sucessful and say their taxes should be spent to make the world a better place instead of you getting off your ass and doing something.
It all stems back to the traditional conservative/libertarian argument that we should be self-supportive and sustaining, but it is the morally right thing to help your neighbor and improve your community. Liberals think punching a chad in a ballot is equal to hundreds of hours of community service and spending time with the less fortunate. I've never said this before because I never felt a need to, but I particiapte as a big brother to a kid in the seattle area. I also donate a significant amount of money each year to charities. I believe that in order to make the world a better place, you need to sacrifice some things and make it happen. This article proves that there is a strong contingent of people who feel they can make the world better by simply saying yes to spending other people's money and putting out no individual effort. This mentality is a cancer throughout our entire society.
Re: Conservative donate more than liberals
This article strengthens my argument that liberals advocate big government because they're lazy. It's much easier to do nothing and delude yourself into thinking your tax dollars are making the world a better place than actually going out and doing something. It's even easier to point the finger at those who are financially sucessful and say their taxes should be spent to make the world a better place instead of you getting off your ass and doing something.
It all stems back to the traditional conservative/libertarian argument that we should be self-supportive and sustaining, but it is the morally right thing to help your neighbor and improve your community. Liberals think punching a chad in a ballot is equal to hundreds of hours of community service and spending time with the less fortunate. I've never said this before because I never felt a need to, but I particiapte as a big brother to a kid in the seattle area. I also donate a significant amount of money each year to charities. I believe that in order to make the world a better place, you need to sacrifice some things and make it happen. This article proves that there is a strong contingent of people who feel they can make the world better by simply saying yes to spending other people's money and putting out no individual effort. This mentality is a cancer throughout our entire society.
you're right...next time my local friend or neighbor needs health care, I'll give it to him myself...
and what the fuck does self-sustaining mean in 2009?
This article "proves" nothing...and the sense that it's "other people's money" is certianly a strange one...
I love it when you people dig up a smear on liberals and use it as "proof" that we are lazier, inept or just plain the end of the world. The fact of the matter is, what is it that you did to make world a better place other than donating money? What...do you work in the oil business or are you in lawyering? And how is that different from giving money to the government in the form of taxes?
All I can worry about is myself...and I won't be spending any of my time digging up shit about other people.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Conservative donate more than liberals
I didn't dig this up. It was on the front page of yahoo. I just don't look the other way when something pops up that tarnishes my utopian view. The problem is you're not giving anything, that is my argument. By proxy you take money from other people to give to that have nots. It's bullshit. As the article points out, the left does nothing for charity and what charity they do donate to doesn't benefit the people whom they claim they are crusaing for. But you're right, there is nothing special about my line of work and in no way is what I do making the world a better place. You got me there.
Pages: 1
