House of Eratosthenes

Ann Coulter took a look at the miserly-versus-generous behavior, vis a vis party affiliation, and came to that conclusion. It makes more sense than you might think:

Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks’ study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives.

In his book “Who Really Cares?” Brooks compared the charitable donations of religious conservatives, secular liberals, secular conservatives and “religious” liberals.

His surprising conclusion was … Al Franken gave the most of all!

Ha ha! Just kidding. Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity — $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.

Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is surprising because liberals specialize in “charities” that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children’s elite private schools.

Indeed, religious people, Brooks says, “are more charitable in every measurable nonreligious way.”

Brooks found that conservatives donate more in time, services and even blood than other Americans, noting that if liberals and moderates gave as much blood as conservatives do, the blood supply would increase by about 45 percent.

They ought to set up blood banks at tea parties.

On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more — and 50 times more to secular charities — than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income.

Secular liberals, the second largest group coming in at 10 percent of the population, were the whitest and richest of the four groups. These “bleeding-heart tightwads,” as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof calls them, were the second stingiest, just behind secular conservatives, who are mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.

Despite their wealth and advantages, secular liberals give to charity at a rate of 9 percent less than all Americans and 19 percent less than religious conservatives. They were also “significantly less likely than the population average to return excess change mistakenly given to them by a cashier.”
:
Interestingly, religious liberals were also “most confused” of all the groups. Composed mostly of blacks and Unitarians, religious liberals made nearly as many charitable donations as religious conservatives, but presumably, the Unitarians brought down their numbers, making them second in charitable giving.

Brooks wrote that he was shocked by his conclusions because he believed liberals “genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did” — probably because liberals are always telling us that.

Blogger friend Phil entered a comment yesterday that is even more persuasive:

What was Scrooge’s answer to the charity collectors?

“At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and Destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”

“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.

“Both very busy, sir.”

“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”

“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink. and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”

“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.

“You wish to be anonymous?”

“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned — they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.“

See, he would give none of his post-tax fortunes to ease others’ suffering because that’s the government’s job – in accordance with the progressive viewpoint.

And of course, after his conversion, he gave freely of his fortunes to those to whom he chose to give it. Which would be in accordance with the conservative viewpoint.

Phil nailed it. The liberal has seen to it that we have constructed our state apparatus to deal with this — therefore he has “given at the office,” as it were, and there is nothing to do but scold, scold, and scold some more.

All who doubt this, just let the air out of your own tire at some busy intersection, downtown, in an urban area in the middle of a blue state. Or the water out of your radiator. See what kind of help you get…see what kind of attitude you get…then drive out into the middle of a farming area in a red state and repeat the exercise. This is the real cost of the nanny-state: You get your prisons, workhouses, treadmills and “poor laws” up and running, and with them arrives a horde of Ebenezer Scrooges ready to talk about them. The “gave at the office” attitude. Just get that wreck out of my way!

Reaching out with a helping hand to someone you personally notice needs the help, it becomes a thing of the past. We have programs to deal with that stuff; go there.

Thing I Know #343. The hard obligations of “charity” wax, the charitable feelings wane.

Yes, the study of who gives more to charity was in the back of my head as I was watching A Christmas Carol, which is what led me to the revelation that Scrooge was a liberal.

There’s more to it, of course – when the liberal becomes alarmed at the conditions of the less-well-off, he rails on others to make it law — to use the coercive power of the government — to give more. Then of course they turn around and do things like get waivers for themselves or parking their yachts in different states that have lower taxes, patting themselves on the back that the “poor” are getting “more”, and it’s due to their efforts but much less so to their own pocketbooks.

When the conservative becomes alarmed at the conditions of the less-well-off, he cranks up his giving and perhaps persuades others to join him of their own free will.

And when people do this with their own money, they tend to distinguish better between the less fortunate and the more inclusive less-well-off — and direct their giving to more appreciative and therefore productive, to the recipients’ — ends.

Not only is it morally a morally superior way of doing it… it’s more efficient.
- philmon | 12/29/2010 @ 10:49
Has any course of action ever been as divorced from results as the typical liberal “program”? (note: I’m granting a certain internal consistency to the aggregate of their various wish-fulfillment fantasies and hissy fits for the sake of argument only).

Liberals have a thousand and one “programs” to throw at any conceivable social problem, but they never get around to checking if the “programs” they agitated so vehemently for actually work. Nor do they give a flip if someone (a coldhearted conservative, natch) does the research and finds out that not only do these “programs” not work, they often make the original problem worse.

I’d bet the farm and junior’s college fund, for instance, that we will not hear one single solitary word about gays in the military now that DADT has been repealed, in much the same way as nobody cares about gay marriage in the states where it was “legalized” by judicial fiat. And yet nobody comments on how strange this is. I mean, if I really, honestly, passionately believed that Prop. 8 was a modern Nuremberg Law — as our committed, concerned, caring liberals so vehemently insisted they did — I’d wanna rub every single gay wedding performed in Iowa, Massachusetts, and Hawaii right in Rush Limbaugh’s big fat face. You couldn’t get me to shut up about it for love or money. Either I’m a lot pettier than your average liberal — ahem — or there’s something seriously off about this.

Liberals, it seems, are satisfied by the mere passage of a “program,” which may or may not do anything and quite well might make the situation worse. As long as it burdens the middle class, expands the scope of government, and lets them pat themselves on the back, it’s all good.

And yet we’re the selfish ones….
- Severian | 12/29/2010 @ 16:00
You’re channeling…me. As I was inspired to write in response to a Facebook entry by Cassy:

Same ol’ formula — never changes. Help the good people, hurt the bad people, and anybody who doesn’t go along with the plan is racist.

Give a brilliant speech, commit lots of money from this year’s budget and the budgets for all the years that come afterward…help the good brown poor (or teachers-union) people and put the hurt on the bad white rich people.

It’s their answer to everything. Inflation, ecological issues, high unemployment, weak radio reception, Fox News, toilet paper scratches too much, too much snow……..
- mkfreeberg | 12/29/2010 @ 16:13
[…] Coordinated Anarchists “Nice Handshake” The Utter Futility of Reducing Carbon Emissions Scrooge Was a Liberal! Now That People Are Heading to Texas, What’s That Place Like Anyway? Death Panels Revisited: […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 12/30/2010 @ 08:48
[…] And there’s more. There, and here, and here and here. Blogger friend Phil presented the same argument a few years back. We’ve said so ourselves. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 12/25/2014 @ 07:13

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Scrooge Was a Liberal!Wednesday, December 29th, 2010

Scrooge Was a Liberal!
Wednesday, December 29th, 2010