Who really Cares?

[Nunyo Beeznis]

The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to this logic, is a form of charity.

Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish. (On the contrary, a public attack on the integrity of those who don’t share my beliefs might more legitimately constitute evidence that I am the uncharitable one.)

To evaluate accurately the charity difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private, voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private giving and volunteering? Beyond strident slogans and sarcastic political caricatures, what, exactly, do the data tell us?

The data tell us that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong. In most ways, political conservatives are not personally less charitable than political liberals—they are more so. http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html

Gonna have to get me a copy of this book :)

[perfessor]

I don't often venture into these political waters, so I'll probably get shredded. Whatever.

I thought everyone knew that taxes are not charity. I thought everyone knew that government spending was not charity. I am a liberal, and I know these things. I think the author is equivocating with the word, railing against a strawman version of "conventional wisdom".

Charitable (voluntary by definition) giving is commendable; if it actually turns out that conservatives give more than liberals, good for them. But this is irrelevant to arguments about equitable taxation, and discussions about where that money should be spent.

What, exactly, is the point you wish to discuss?

[laughing dog]

The conventional argument is illogical. My giving more to charity makes little difference to the goals of income redistribution, so why should I give more? Whatever I give is not enough to achieve any sort of reasonable outcome.

[trendkill]

The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to this logic, is a form of charity.This appears to be a negative spin on the concept of social justice, which says conservatives are more concerned with personal giving that makes them feel good about themselves but doesn't really get much done in the big picture (i.e. charity), and leftists are more concerned with justice, i.e. redistributing the wealth so that things are actually fair (whatever that entails exactly).

[Pavlov's Dog]

There are also major problems with the methodology, but I could really care less who gives more to charity. The bottom line is a functioning society, and what contributes most to that.

I would love to see the break down of how many of the conservatives who volunteer, are volunteering for their church.

[Ray Moscow]

Quoted by Nunyo: Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity.

Let us be clear: Giving to religious groups is not charity, either.

[Zebulon]

I've read elsewhere that a good deal of the "charitable giving" by the religious right is to their churches. Putting up a big building and paying the salary of a godbotherer or three isn't really doing much to help the poor.

[nygreenguy]

Wasnt this the book published by the professor here at su?

[Ian Nerr]

Who thinks govenrment spending is charity?

no one

nice strawman

[Esocyn]

Who really Cares?

I ask myself the same thing when you post a thread.

[Worldtraveller]

Who thinks govenrment spending is charity?

no one

nice strawman

What he said. The only thing the author of that book is arguing against is the narrow minded strawman that some other (or the author) conservative has built of what a liberal is.

It's like the religiots that whine about how much atheists hate god, and almost as stupid.

Enjoy the read though.

[perfessor]

Quoted by Nunyo: Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity.

Let us be clear: Giving to religious groups is not charity, either.
This is great.

Giving to a church is not much more charitable than giving to the country club. Perhaps even less so, since you get a tax deduction for one but not the other.

[dancer_rnb]

Giving to the local public radio station or to
your favorite local opera shouldn't count
as charity either.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Who really Cares?

I ask myself the same thing when you post a thread.

You are getting rep for this.

[Esocyn]

Sweet.

[Ray Moscow]

Quoted by Nunyo: Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity.

Let us be clear: Giving to religious groups is not charity, either.
This is great.

Giving to a church is not much more charitable than giving to the country club. Perhaps even less so, since you get a tax deduction for one but not the other.

Well, I was on the business board of three churches in two denominations (one fundie, one liberal).

Never did I see more about 1% of funds going to anything that might actually help poor people -- and I consider most of that just PR.

About the best thing churches do is provide a free counsellor -- the pastor/minister/priest -- to its members. However, these guys are often untrained or poorly qualified to do that sort of work and in any event often give ideological but unsound advice.

Their trained, licensed secular counterparts are usually much better -- and we could afford to provide more of these services to poor people if the churches didn't get by tax free.

[Don Alhambra]

I think an interesting question here, assuming that 'conservatives' give more to charity than 'liberals', is how this is calculated. Do they mean absolute monetary donations? Donations as a proportion of income? Time spent volunteering? And how are 'liberal' and 'conservative' defined anyway?

Another interesting question is: are 'conservatives' generally richer, i.e. do they have more disposable income? Because if so, then they could give more without giving up so much. Bill Gates, for example, gives huge amounts of money to charity in the American philanthropic tradition... but I don't think it inconveniences him too much.