Study finds Cons more generous than Libs

[davebg 0]

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.

 

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

 

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

 

Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

 

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

 

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

 

Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

 

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

 

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.

 

His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

 

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

 

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

 

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.

All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

 

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

 

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

 

In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.

 

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

 

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

 

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

 

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

 

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

 

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

[parrot 789]

Further study finds Lincoln free the slaves!

[davebg 0]

Further study finds Lincoln free the slaves!

Um... ...if it's old news, I appologize. I mean, that is what you're saying, right? You're not saying that this comes as no suprise, are you?

 

Frankly, I find it very suprising (and eye-opening) that the people who make the most noise about social injustice and support public assit programs w/the most fervor also happen to be the ones less likely to actually give on their own.

[parrot 789]

Um... ...if it's old news, I appologize. I mean, that is what you're saying, right? You're not saying that this comes as no suprise, are you?

 

Frankly, I find it very suprising (and eye-opening) that the people who make the most noise about social injustice and support public assit programs w/the most fervor also happen to be the ones less likely to actually give on their own.

Yes, there's another thread, probably page 2 by now though.

 

Couple things, not sure of their methods here, but tithing probably skews the numbers a little, that weekly nut from people who attend church regularly probably looks like charity but a fair portion of it goes to church administration and other not quite charity causes.

 

But that doesn't discount the finding. Lots of religious Conservatives are genuinely compassionate giving people who believe that charity begins in the home. Then again a lot of people who claim to be religious Conservative wouldn't piss on a homeless man if he was on fire.

[Riddlen 1]

other thread summary:

 

church people are more giving and hippies dont have money

[tony hardware 0]

I'm generous! Every week I donate 1/3 of my paycheck to the gubment. This is why I say, "fvck homeless panhandlers." I donate to good causes, i.e. medical research for diseases (not involving stem cells), educational institutions, etc. The others can suck it.

 

(itsatip Dems don't work).

[Ravens 03 0]

Do people on welfare donate much?

[davebg 0]

Couple things, not sure of their methods here, but tithing probably skews the numbers a little, that weekly nut from people who attend church regularly probably looks like charity but a fair portion of it goes to church administration and other not quite charity causes.

You are likely right...although it seems as thought the author is pretty reputable and not the type to manipulate the data. Also, from what the article said, it looks like more than just financial contributions were considered...things like giving blood, donating time, etc.

But that doesn't discount the finding. Lots of religious Conservatives are genuinely compassionate giving people who believe that charity begins in the home. Then again a lot of people who claim to be religious Conservative wouldn't piss on a homeless man if he was on fire.

Yes, there are good people and bad people to be found in any group. However, the fact that the group of people who make social justice and the programs meant to alleviate injusticies such a high priority (libs) are also the ones less likely to give is startling, to say the least.

[Uh-huh 0]

You are likely right...although it seems as thought the author is pretty reputable and not the type to manipulate the data. Also, from what the article said, it looks like more than just financial contributions were considered...things like giving blood, donating time, etc.

Yes, there are good people and bad people to be found in any group. However, the fact that the group of people who make social justice and the programs meant to alleviate injusticies such a high priority (libs) are also the ones less likely to give is startling, to say the least.

It's almost as startling as seeing people who claim to be Christians denigrate gays, minorities, and members of other religions.

 

So what else is new?

[wiffleball 4,648]

Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling gave millions to charity.

 

doesn't make them any less of a focking scum douche bag. REPUBLICAN scum douche bags, but douche bags nonetheless.

[davebg 0]

Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling gave millions to charity.

 

doesn't make them any less of a focking scum douche bag. REPUBLICAN scum douche bags, but douche bags nonetheless.

I don't think anyone here is saying that donating money can compeltely offset all the evil a person may do in the world.

 

The point was that the evidence points to many on the left not having the courage of their convictions. They talk a good game about social injustices and programs to help those that society has forgotten, but then fail to back it up w/action on their part. Meanwhile, the people on the right, who are labeled as uncaring for opposing such government programs are the ones more likely to give of themselves, whether they are giving money, time, blood, etc.

[Montezuma 0]

I don't think anyone here is saying that donating money can compeltely offset all the evil a person may do in the world.

 

The point was that the evidence points to many on the left not having the courage of their convictions. They talk a good game about social injustices and programs to help those that society has forgotten, but then fail to back it up w/action on their part. Meanwhile, the people on the right, who are labeled as uncaring for opposing such government programs are the ones more likely to give of themselves, whether they are giving money, time, blood, etc.

 

How is this suprising? People on the left and right just have different ideas about how to help people. Some people think that its the goverments obligation, others think it should be up to individuals to distribute their money to charity how they see fit. This isn't exactly shocking news to anyone is it? They're both trying to achieve the same end leftists just try to do it through the government.

[De Novo 0]

I'd like to see the actual data. I have some trouble with a few of these statements....

 

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.

 

I have all kinds of problems with this. He demonstrated that values ADVOCATED by conservatives (not conservatives per se) are correlated with more generosity. These values are church attendance, 2 parent families and a Protestant work ethic. So you're saying that conservatives and ONLY conservatives live these values? You must be kidding!

 

So he's comparing divorced, non-church goers, who are lazy and prefer government-funded social services to hardworking, dual-income households who attend church and are opposed to gov't funded social programs. Wow, how insightful!

 

 

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Is this the optimal combination? How much explanatory power is lost when conservatives is replaced with "everyone"?

[itsbigmoni 1]

How is this suprising? People on the left and right just have different ideas about how to help people. Some people think that its the goverments obligation, others think it should be up to individuals to distribute their money to charity how they see fit. This isn't exactly shocking news to anyone is it? They're both trying to achieve the same end leftists just try to do it through the government.

 

 

I agree. Libs see injustice so they would "idealy" put more money in schools to improve struggling schools. How many of those church donations go towards bentleys for the preacher? I'm not trying to belittle the donation because that is a great deed, but you have to be careful to who you donate. Where do these poeple most often donate? What if they're donating to the KKK? Also, richer people tend to be republican so they can afford to donate them. Someone also pointed out that you can be a church going, dual parent house hold and still be liberal. Conservative beliefs like the one stated dont necessarily mean the person is a republican.

[Korben Dallas 0]

First of all, Arthur Brooks is a extremely credible source of information. My best friend was a fellow at the Maxwell school at Syracuse and had nothing but the highest praise. So while its tempting to question his character and some of his outward assumptions, I think you can make some pretty solid mitigating arguments against his analysis.

 

His research, if you choice to actually read it, is from self reporting studies in 50 communities. He makes no assumptions regarding values meaning anything, it is all self reported. A survey that asked religious questions, how you identify yourself and your charitable giving ratio.

 

First of all, the strongest argument he makes is NOT conservatives vs. liberals. It is religious vs. non-religious givers. I don't think that should come as much of a surprise to anyone. Giving to the church creates the largest variation, but even if the donation is non-religous, religous folks give more.

 

His con v. liberal argument is compelling, until you realize that amongst religious folks. 91% of conservatives donate, but still 72% of liberal relgious do. So its not like 5 to 1 or anything.

 

The only thing I found surprising is that the working poor give in similar percentages as the ultra wealthy. While the middle class is the stingiest.

 

Otherwise, the acknowledgement that single, unmarried secular males between the ages of 38 and 48 and without children give little to charity seems pretty obvious, and that conservatives in the same set give in less is a no brainer.

 

The rest is spin to sell books...

[drobeski 3,061]

thats because most of the those liberal bums are the ones lining up and begging for the help, the lazy jobless pieces of dog shiat.

 

 

 

hth

[Korben Dallas 0]

thats because most of the those liberal bums are the ones lining up and begging for the help, the lazy jobless pieces of dog shiat.

hth

 

No, its because religous conservatives are ignorant tools who give their money to pedophile and sexual deviant ministers. A fool and his money is soon parted, I think Jesus said that.

 

I win this thread. Gibby 1 Drob a big fat donut.

[jerryskids 5,212]

No, its because religous conservatives are ignorant tools who give their money to pedophile and sexual deviant ministers. A fool and his money is soon parted, I think Jesus said that.

 

I win this thread. Gibby 1 Drob a big fat donut.

I think you are right, it was Jesus Barnum. He ran circuses in Tijuana.

 

Seriously Korben, this is beneath you. I'm sure you realize that not all ministers or all churches harbor pedophiles and sexual deviants. I'd be willing to guess that the actual percentages are quite low, although churches that do not have that problem rarely make the news for that lacking.

 

Religious contributions aside, as a conservative (and fairly unreligious) I contribute quite a bit to charities. Somebody said earlier that liberals expect the government to support entitlements to spread the wealth, whereas conservatives like to personally choose which organizations get such support. Empirically I agree with this. Do you disagree?

[drobeski 3,061]

No, its because religous conservatives are ignorant tools who give their money to pedophile and sexual deviant ministers. A fool and his money is soon parted, I think Jesus said that.

 

I win this thread. Gibby 1 Drob a big fat donut.

you win nothing, what I stated was fact, and what you stated was just plain old hog ######....not all conservatives are christians but all libs are mooching welfare fags.

 

I win the thread

 

thank you and have a good night

[De Novo 0]

thats because most of the those liberal bums are the ones lining up and begging for the help, the lazy jobless pieces of dog shiat.

hth

 

Once again, conservatives continue to compare themselves to the most radical of liberals. I suppose that's the only comparison you really look good making. How about comparing them to moderates or simply those who are fed up with the bullshit hypocritical conservative agenda? Since it's such a struggle for you to even tie your shoes or spell your name, I can give you a free pass. But the rest of the more radical rights on the board...?

[drobeski 3,061]

Once again, conservatives continue to compare themselves to the most radical of liberals. I suppose that's the only comparison you really look good making. How about comparing them to moderates or simply those who are fed up with the bullshit hypocritical conservative agenda? Since it's such a struggle for you to even tie your shoes or spell your name, I can give you a free pass. But the rest of the more radical rights on the board...?

I could buy and sell you. Probably get about 3 bucks, but still....I could, while tying my shoes lefty.

[Jeremy 0]

Davebg,

 

Didn't you say in an earlier thread that organized religion was worthless? Seems to me a lot of good is done by religious folks, as you point out in this article. Maybe I'm misunderstanding. Church goers come out looking pretty good in this article. I'm a little surprised you posted it given your earlier disdain for religion.

 

One thing I will say is that the article seems to compare religious conservatives with secular liberals. What about religous liberals? We do exist you know. As do secular conservatives.

[itsbigmoni 1]

I think you are right, it was Jesus Barnum. He ran circuses in Tijuana.

 

Seriously Korben, this is beneath you. I'm sure you realize that not all ministers or all churches harbor pedophiles and sexual deviants. I'd be willing to guess that the actual percentages are quite low, although churches that do not have that problem rarely make the news for that lacking.

 

 

Just like the actualy % of muslims that are terroist is pretty low, although muslims that arent have a hard time making the news. Ok ok this is gonna go off into a whole different subject, but the point i was making is that a few bad apples ruin things for everyone.

 

Bush and his crazy crew have ruined the image of your true american conservative republican.

 

A few bad cops makes it a "they're out to get us."

 

A few extreme liberals make it seem like all liberals are tree-hugging, non shaving extremist.

 

Just like the few cases of misconduct in the church puts a major dent in their reputation.

[Doyle Redland 0]

Just like the actualy % of muslims that are terroist is pretty low, although muslims that arent have a hard time making the news. Ok ok this is gonna go off into a whole different subject, but the point i was making is that a few bad apples ruin things for everyone.

 

Bush and his crazy crew have ruined the image of your true american conservative republican.

 

A few bad cops makes it a "they're out to get us."

 

A few extreme liberals make it seem like all liberals are tree-hugging,

non shaving extremist.

 

Just like the few cases of misconduct in the church puts a major dent in their reputation.

finally! somebody realizes It's the facial hair!!!!

[De Novo 0]

I could buy and sell you. Probably get about 3 bucks, but still....I could, while tying my shoes lefty.

 

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I think you are right, it was Jesus Barnum. He ran circuses in Tijuana.

 

Seriously Korben, this is beneath you. I'm sure you realize that not all ministers or all churches harbor pedophiles and sexual deviants. I'd be willing to guess that the actual percentages are quite low, although churches that do not have that problem rarely make the news for that lacking.

 

Religious contributions aside, as a conservative (and fairly unreligious) I contribute quite a bit to charities. Somebody said earlier that liberals expect the government to support entitlements to spread the wealth, whereas conservatives like to personally choose which organizations get such support. Empirically I agree with this. Do you disagree?

 

Don't expect a response from Kornholed Dumbass on this one, he is nothing more than a drive-by poster who likes to take an isolated incident from any Rep, Christian, or Conservative and claim all who disagree with him are the same as whoever he cites.

 

He never comes to the table with facts, links, or anything to back up his assinine claims.

[drobeski 3,061]

a buck fitty ?

[MDC 5,899]

I'm wondering why they were comparing religious conservatives to secular liberals - I'd guess that religious people of all political persuasions donate more to charity. My dad goes to Catholic church every week and donates a lot of money to his church and the United Way. He's not really liberal but he is a lifelong moderate Democrat.

 

At any rate, what's the purpose of this study? The book may not be biased but this reportage of it sure is - since when do liberals hold themselves up as the most moral members of society? Just what we need, more divisive, partisan crapola.

[Toro 1]

I'm wondering why they were comparing religious conservatives to secular liberals - I'd guess that religious people of all political persuasions donate more to charity. My dad goes to Catholic church every week and donates a lot of money to his church and the United Way. He's not really liberal but he is a lifelong moderate Democrat.

 

At any rate, what's the purpose of this study? The book may not be biased but this reportage of it sure is - since when do liberals hold themselves up as the most moral members of society? Just what we need, more divisive, partisan crapola.

 

You are a phag.

[MDC 5,899]

You are a phag.

 

Okay Stephen with a ph(ag).

[Soonerman 0]

since when do liberals hold themselves up as the most moral members of society?

 

They don't. They do however continually pat themselves on the back for their "compassion" and demonize conservatives for allegedly lacking same.

 

HTH

[MDC 5,899]

They don't. They do however continually pat themselves on the back for their "compassion" and demonize conservatives for allegedly lacking same.

 

HTH

 

Really? I guess I don't know many liberals.

[Soonerman 0]

Really? I guess I don't know many liberals.

 

Read the MSM. Plenty of them quoted there.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Really? I guess I don't know many liberals.

 

No friends at all, huh?

[MDC 5,899]

Read the MSM. Plenty of them quoted there.

 

It's weird because according to one poll I live in the second most politically liberal city in the country (behind Detroit) and I've never heard anyone pat himself on the back for being so compassionate.

[Soonerman 0]

It's weird because according to one poll I live in the second most politically liberal city in the country (behind Detroit) and I've never heard anyone pat himself on the back for being so compassionate.

 

Then you're obviously not listening hard enough.

 

HTH

[MDC 5,899]

Then you're obviously not listening hard enough.

 

HTH

 

Either that or you and "beliefnet.com" are imagining things.

[Soonerman 0]

Either that or you and "beliefnet.com" are imagining things.

 

Do you really want me to go to the quotes? You should cut your losses and quit playing like torrid.

[MDC 5,899]

Do you really want me to go to the quotes? You should cut your losses and quit playing like torrid.

 

I just don't see how liberals hold themselves up as the moral members of society, at least not any moreso than conservatives. Anyway, I don't care.

[jerryskids 5,212]

I just don't see how liberals hold themselves up as the moral members of society, at least not any moreso than conservatives. Anyway, I don't care.

Really? You don't think that liberals care more for the downtrodden, whereas conservatives only want to make more money for themselves? I find that hard to believe.