Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times examines the evidence and determines it really is true that liberals give to the needy much less than conservatives. Sounds like a good reminder to our liberal friends for the holidays.
The Millennial Star
Nicholas Kristof of the NY Times examines the evidence and determines it really is true that liberals give to the needy much less than conservatives. Sounds like a good reminder to our liberal friends for the holidays.
Good stuff. Thanks for the reminder, we could all use it. Granted, as a leftist, I do not come here for advice.
It might be that since conservatives seek after wealth first, they might have extra income to give. People like my wife and I go into teaching and social work. Our work focuses on the social good and does not pay much. Therefore our contribution is of a different nature. Isn’t conservatives (at least amongst my students) who are always arguing that
time is just as important as money?
I doubt however, that one could really quantify such findings. However, if we can agree to everything presented in the NY Times is true, then I will except this data. Deal?
And Chris H teaches these students proper subject verb agreement? I’d rather you pay than teach them to speak incorrectly {G}. “Isn’t conservatives who are always arguing.”
I’ll paraphrase what I wrote on another thread: people who make fun of other people’s grammar on a blog should be punished.
Having said that, Chris H, you may want to read the NY Times article again. There’s a fair amount of actual quantifying going on.
NOYDMB,
Sorry my casual blogging on a Sunday night is not well edited. Don’t you have a witch burning that you should be at?
Yes it should read “Isn’t it…..”
Thanks for reminding me why I like conservative like Geoff B.
On a more serious note:
I’d like to point out some of the philosphical differences I’ve personally observed between cons and libs.
Conservatives tend to feel a personal example is better than 100 lectures. For them, personally reducing ones carbon footprint is a stronger that passing a law. Personally helping someone who is homeless is better than simply paying a tax. Personally turning your heat down is better than turning down someone elses.
My biased observation, is that liberals tend to the opposite. It is better to teach 100 students to do something the way you tell them to, even if you personally don’t follow your own advice (conservatives call this hypocrisy).
Help me change this observation, and we’ll have more to talk about. But until we start to address the fundamental philosphical differences between conservatives and liberals, we will always talk past one another.
Geoff,
I am not say that there is not quantifying going on, but that it is a question that cannot be done with significant accuracy. It is something worth thinking about. Even a liberal like me is open to some self evaluation.
NOYDMD,
I will let your blogging example speak for itself.
For what it’s worth, I spent most of my youth around secular liberals, and none of them ever gave to charities of any kind. They spent a lot of time around this time of year feeling guilty about it, but when January came around they got over the guilt. Now I spend most of my time around religious conservatives, and they spend hours every week on various Church-related and non Church-related charity activities, in addition to presumably being full tithe payers.
I think it is true that secular liberals (for the most part) tend to think the government (meaning the collective society) should do the giving, not them personally.
I don’t think this observation necessarily applies to members of the Church. Most liberals I know in Church are just as active in charity events as the conservatives. So, personally, I think membership and activity in a church, any church, is likely to increase charitable giving. The story also points out that secular conservatives are much less likely to be charitable.
My conclusion: it is church membership and activity that most affects charitable giving, not necessarily ideology. This is of course a generalization, and there are, I’m sure, many exceptions.
Fine Chris.
Don’t try and change perceptions. Silence is agreement, right?
One of your logical blunders, is assuming that everyone’s time is equally weighted. That’s simply not an assumption that everyone else accepts. I personally think the time of a brain surgeon is worth a lot more than someone who works at McDonalds. I think the time of a good mother is worth a lot more than a social worker. I’m not saying we don’t need social workers, (I am saying we don’t need McDonalds workers), yet one simply can’t equate the time/money simply because it makes the libs feel better. If you think everyone should give their all their money to the poor, be an example. But remember, Jesus didn’t tell the rich man to go and sell everything his neighbor had. This is the common, stereotypical limousine liberal, or the faith without works argument.
If you really believe in global warming, voluntarily put on a sweater instead of turning the heat up to 75 or 80. Or how about riding the bus instead of driving into school. I personally live with a libertarian and a liberal. The conservative (myself) and the libertarian ride the bus 5/7 days a week, while the liberal drives in (to the same place) 7/7 days a week, making multiple trips every day, and not even married or with a kid, so none of the normal “I can’t afford to be environmentally friendly” excuses.
If you really beleive in helping the poor, do something personally, and don’t just rely on government funding.
About the witchhunt:
Give me your address, I’ll be there with my witch burning crew and we’ll see what we can do.
Yes I do recognize that my spelling has gone to pot, but it is very late, so I guess I understand what you mean about late night grammar and spelling. I just found a certain irony to someone taking the high-road about being a teacher using such horrendous grammar. If he wasn’t a teacher, I would have granted him the fast-typing grace.
Chris, it is standard liberal rhetoric to indict conservatives with being bad Christians because they “seek after money first” before the kingdom of God. I’ve only heard one person say that in my life, and I wasn’t convinced he was conservative or liberal, certainly greedy. If it makes you feel better to attack the character of people with different social philosophies, then I guess it would be just as fair for me to label liberals as those who seek after contention? No, that doesn’t seem like something Jesus would say, just like your original assertion.
Guys, this whole post is obviously an attempt to drive up readership at this blog, but can I ask you to tone down the rhetoric just a tad? I know I started it all by broking such a controversial topic, but I actually do think there are some interesting philosophical issues to explore. But can we explore them in a nice way, rather than calling each other names and questioning each other’s grammar?
If the nastiness continues, the old delete button will start getting pushed. Be nice — it’s almost Christmas, the time when secular liberals don’t give to charities and Christian conservatives do. 🙂
Thanks for the mediation Geoff.
I agree with you that the difference in charitable giving is more a matter of where one falls on the secular-religious spectrum rather than the conservative-liberal one. I’m still forming a hypothesis on what accounts for the differences, but I think that secular people view society as a collective rather than seeing it as a collection of individuals. Truly charitable people help others on an intimate, one-on-one basis. The ministry of Jesus Christ is a good model for such behavior. Religious people view others not only as physical beings, but as spiritual sons and daughters of a Heavenly Father; so they also see an eternal relationship between themselves and others — spiritual brothers and sisters. It might be easier for them to be charitable because of this difference in world view.
Again, I’m not arguing that liberals can’t be as charitable as conservatives, but the real difference seems to fall along secular-religious lines.
The entire plan of Leftist philosophy is to do away the any excess that anyone can voluntarily give. As long as there is voluntary giving leftism is a failure.
“Guys, this whole post is obviously an attempt to drive up readership at this blog, but can I ask you to tone down the rhetoric just a tad?”
That is what I used to do while posting on bloggernacle blog (now I just drive up that comment numbers at other blogs). It is amazing how these posts can generate attention.
Geoff, since I have a certain liking for secular liberals, I will just say that we could all do more.
Geoff, Merry Christmas.
NOYDMB, Happy Holidays.
Darn it. I cannot write tonight.
I remember seeing a state by state study on charitable donations earlier this year. It showed Utah and other heavily conservative states near the top in donations.
It showed Conn., Mass. and other highly liberal states near the bottom in donations. At the time I did not make the connection to libs and cons – but it makes a lot of sense.
The jist of the survey – article was that Utah made a lot of donations to charities, but the makers of the survey (United Way) were disappointed that Utah and other big red states were behind in donating to them. However the Lib states led in their donations to the United Way.
I found this interesting in that United Way only passes along a small amount of what they collect to real charities. So therefore I believed the survey results to be even more askew.
The columnist shows how out of touch he is with conservative/religious givers. He seems to think that in today’s economy, that people don’t think about giving!!
“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.”
Today’s economy is very likely to inspire people to give to others. The people I know are more likely to cut back for themselves and give more since they see more need. Of course some donations might go down, some people who actually have lost their jobs can’t donate, and others in real trouble might donate less, but the majority of people still will be generous and giving to those around them, as well as impersonal charities.
Kristof makes a good point. Similar to a religious leader reminding his flock to adhere to the standard his flock believe in.
Similarly, Jesus advised his followers to “love their enemy,” to do good to them that hate them. Sounds like a good reminder to our conservative religious friends for the holidays.
Conservatives understand that “charities” like the United Way give only to liberal causes: Planned Parenthood, Battered Women and the like. Most refuse to donate to the Boy Scouts, quasi-religious organizations, etc. The United Way focuses on remediation rather than prevention. Conservatives (and church-going folks) value prevention over remediation
A dollar spent on prevention is worth $12 on remediation.
Defend Marriage,
Can you please name conservative charities that focus on “prevention” and compare with liberal charities that focus on “prevention.” If you can prove that conservative charities actually do focus more on prevention than liberal ones, then you have a point.
If I thought you actually cared about giving instead of bashing people whose political views you don’t like, I would love to get involved in this topic. Let’s abolish all tax breaks for charitable giving and then see how things shake out.
John, You are quite right. Leftists must do everything to stop independent giving and make sure that control over spending on “charity” is controlled by elites. Giving is entirely passé. The new order of things is taking.
Dan, it is time that people like you and I learn that coming by M* is a waste of our time.
@Geoff B.
“My conclusion: it is church membership and activity that most affects charitable giving, not necessarily ideology. “
A quote from the article supports you: “It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives”
Furthermore: “Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.”
I agree with John. I wonder how things would change if the tax breaks for charitable giving were taken out of the equation. I remember one particular instance where a woman I know was going to donate something she had to a particular group, but when she found out there was no tax break for the donation, she found a different group that did give one. Now, I don’t know whether she was Liberal or conservative, but I wonder…
I found the article very interesting and perhaps enlightening. I would like to see more data from an LDS perspective. For example, take the LDS church out of the equation. What percentage of members give to other charities outside the church. What about volunteering at soup kitchens or womens shelters? How many members do those things. I’ve spoken to at least a handful of members who feel that the only charity they can trust is the church and they don’t donate time or money to anything else. I guess that’s not completely bad, but there is some good in other organizations.
Ian and John, I think that would be an interesting thought exercise. The NY Times actually indirectly addresses this issue by pointing out that conservatives usually give to churches but that liberals often give to liberal non-profits. So, I don’t think it’s necessarily a given that taking away the tax breaks would automatically change the ratio of giving.
Chris H, (#24), my secret plot is to keep you busy fighting a losing battle on this conservative blog so that you don’t have any time to pursue your collectivist machinations elsewhere. Muahahahahahahahaha!
Chris,
It is for the most part a waste of our time, but at least we can attempt to poke a hole in the bubble that conservative Mormons live in. Maybe something good will come of it. 🙂
True enough. The real question is, how many people only donate to charity so they can lower their tax bracket? Or, addressing the question of liberals/conservatives, would more conservatives or liberals quit donating. Or would the percentages decrease equally?
Dan, you are such an optimist. Good for you. As for myself, I give up.
Chris,
No, I’m just a stubborn Eastern European male. I actually did give up on M* long ago but they’ve since tempered their views and have been more kind (though still not adequate) to the views of those not of their own.
Dan, feel free to submit a guest post. 🙂
@NOYDMB
“Conservatives tend to feel a personal example is better than 100 lectures. For them, personally reducing ones carbon footprint is a stronger that passing a law. Personally helping someone who is homeless is better than simply paying a tax. Personally turning your heat down is better than turning down someone elses.”
And my “personal experience” is that conservatives don’t give a rip about any of that stuff. They don’t care about carbon footprint, energy conservation, or the homeless.
We can sit here and argue “personal experience” till the cows come home. It’s an exercise in nothing. Come back when you’ve got something more than “personal experience” to back up your opinions.
Jeremy, here’s a personal experience for you:
–I don’t care a rip about my carbon footprint (because I believe with all my heart and soul and mind that the global warming hype is a hoax invented by people who are only interested in taking away our freedom), but I do care about energy conservation because it means I pay less in electricity and gas bills.
–I spend a lot of time on recycling every week (separating out the garbage — yay!) because I’ve come to believe that some things should not be in landfills.
–I care a lot about the homeless and volunteer inside and outside the Church to help them in many ways. Some of those ways have been discussed on this blog — others are private and between me and the Father.
As for NOYDMB having more than personal experiences to back up his/her claims, I’ll let him/her defend himself/herself, but I will say that the article I attached has a lot of actual facts and details you may find interesting.
Since incremental tax rates are not (yet) 100% no one can make money deducting charitable contributions. Of course the Leftist view is that our entire incomes are a tax expenditure and that they are granted back to us by the mercy of the government.
…or that is the perceived view of conservatives, the straw man they have created to pummel, their boggeyman. It really is a tired, outdated argument. You guys need to find something new and more realistic.
I think that the more salient point is that for secular left-liberals, the welfare state is their religion. They pay their tithing in the form of taxes, and if they feel there are unmet needs somewhere, they donate money to non-profits whose primary activity is to lobby the government to meet those needs, and ultimately to increase taxes to cover the expense.
Nothing unrealistic about it Dan and just because you say it is outdated doesn’t make it so, Liberal tax policy wonks routinely call tax deductions and tax credits expenditures. It doesn’t take a genius to see that anything they let us keep is –in their minds– a reduction of what they get and is indeed a tax expenditure.
Mark D.,
I think you’re right on–there is an ideological comparison to made between tithing and taxes. But even so, it seems that is the religious folk are willing to pay both (according to the article).
Jack,
I suspect the big government types would say that they are willing to pay just as much in total taxes. Perhaps that is why they feel such a need to increase them…
Big government types pay taxes?! Not if they can help it. My father was a liberal and I did his tax return for many years. It was all howling. When I suggested he start voting for conservatives he just growled at me. No big government types think that there is always someone richer than them who should be paying for everything.
Mark D.,
I can see how, in principle, liberals might view the best way of giving charitably to be through taxation. But, as aloysiusmiller implies, they also feel that the government should play a role in determining how much the various economic strata should be giving–respectively. This (imo) has a tendency to take the charity out of charitable giving.
Geoff, what happened here? What started as an interesting question quickly turned into name-calling followed up by blanket statements “supported” (at best) by a single anecdotal experience. I don’t think that’s what you were going for, of course.
Well Brian, what happened here is so typical when right wingers get involved. They are not sophisticated and nuanced and all capable of the kind of reason and penetrating insight that brilliant liberals and leftists are so outstandingly capable of. They get very emotional when people talk about voluntary giving versus state enforced equalization. It is part of their selfish and graspy character that they don’t worship the state as their temporal salvation.
Saw an interesting related post at another blog today. It discusses an article in Christianity Today that claims Mormons give more than other religious groups. The interesting note is that while our total giving is about double or triple that of any other group’s, our giving to non-religious organizations is less than all other groups except the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Nothing surprising given the covenants that LDS people make. In fact it is rather heart warming.
I’m glad you found it worth reading. I don’t know that I was surprised, exactly, but I found it relevant to this discussion because I don’t (for the most part) consider my tithing donations to be charitable—at least not in the sense that the article Geoff linked to has in mind—because I benefit directly from the tithing I donate. That’s one of the points the article makes: churchgoers give to their churches and museum-goers give to their museums. Other donations to the church (humanitarian aid, PEF, etc.) are more strictly charitable, but the article I linked doesn’t break donations down into those categories.
I agree that the portion of tithing that can be fairly be considered to provide a direct temporal benefit to the contributor is not strictly charitable by any reasonable definition. The amount corresponding to the pro rata allocation of the ward budget plus a good percentage of the building overhead, perhaps.
However, contributions that go to build and operate missions, temples, bishop’s storehouses, buildings in foreign countries, local buildings beyond the per member allocation, the use of local buildings to provide services to non-tithe payers, and so on must be considered to be strictly charitable in nature because they do not provide any significant direct temporal benefit to the contributor.
Having some cursory familiarity with the finances of a typical ward, I estimate (not having a direct accounting for building costs) that perhaps 70-80% of all tithing contributions are indeed strictly charitable in nature. The ward budget is very small compared to tithing contributions, for example.
Ezra Taft Benson said:
“The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of the people — and they take themselves out of the slums.”
The Church’s mission is to bring Christ to the people. Consecration is the best use of one’s money.
Mark D: I was careful to use the word “I” instead of “we.” You see, my small tithing probably only covers my family’s portion of the ward budget and building upkeep, etc. One day soon, however…. {smile}