2
   

Political Conservatism/Personal Tightfistedness vs. Political Liiberalism/Personal Generosity

 
 
gollum
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2021 01:40 pm
Do political conservatives tend to care most about using their money for themselves with little thought for the less fortunate?

Do political liberals tend to care more about using their money for the less fortunate?
 
engineer
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2021 02:39 pm
@gollum,
I think this is a really complicated question and no, I wouldn't agree with that statement.

I'm probably slightly misremembering this but there was a rabbi (a long time ago) who proposed different levels of generosity. The least charitable was between gifts where both the giver and the receiver knew each other. The most was where both were anonymous. I think you could find people who are not in favor of social programs who are personally very generous, but they give to their causes not to a nebulous "common good".

I also think that taxes are not "generosity", they are payments to support the common society. This is where conservatives and liberals fundamentally disagree. It is not that conservatives are stingy or liberals are generous, it is that conservatives think that society will be stronger if people are motivated to work hard while liberals believe that society will be stronger if it provides some level of support to the weakest elements in it.
gollum
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2021 02:48 pm
@engineer,
engineer-

Thank you.
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2021 06:47 pm
@gollum,
What came 1st - a) conservatist b) narcism c) money?

or -a) liberal b) empathy c) caring?
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2021 07:11 pm
@BillW,
Should have been:


Which came 1st - a) conservative b) narcissism c) money?

and also,

Which came 1st - a) liberal b) empathy c) caring?
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2021 07:34 pm
Factually, self-described political conservatives spend a greater amount, and a greater percentage of their income on charitable spending than political liberals.

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/u.s.-generosity
snood
 
  0  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 02:58 am
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

Factually, self-described political conservatives spend a greater amount, and a greater percentage of their income on charitable spending than political liberals.

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics/u.s.-generosity


Definitely food for thought
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 10:34 am
@maxdancona,
There might be more to it.

Quote:
Voluntary contributions from individuals are the lifeblood of nonprofit organizations, which in turn fund a large portion of social services in the United States. Given this reliance donor generosity, it is important to understand who contributes, and to where. In this paper, we argue against the conventional wisdom that political conservatives are inherently more generous toward private charities than liberals. At the individual level, the large bivariate relationship between giving and conservatism vanishes after adjusting for differences in income and religiosity. At the state level, we find no evidence of a relationship between charitable giving and Republican presidential voteshare. Finally, we show that any remaining differences in giving are an artifact of Republicans' greater propensity to give to religious causes, particularly their own church. Taken together, our results counter the notion that political conservatives compensate for their opposition to governmental intervention by supporting private charities.

Who Really Gives?Partisanship and Charitable Giving in the United States

And this one:

Quote:
Back when Saturday Night Live was funny, Dana Carvey portrayed The Church Lady, a self-righteous, pompous, meddlesome woman. She was fond of doing the Superior Dance, because she was, well, superior -- or so she thought.

Conservatives are doing their own Superior Dance over an article by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which claims individuals in religious states are more charitable than those in less religious states.

At the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby did his Superior Dance under the title "Stingy liberals:"

- Liberals, popular stereotypes notwithstanding, are not more generous and compassionate than conservatives. To an outsider it might seem plausible that Americans whose political rhetoric emphasizes "fairness" and "social justice" would be more charitably inclined than those who stress economic liberty and individual autonomy.

Catholic fundamentalist Bill Donahue put on his Church Lady drag -- not that he ever takes it off -- and crowed:

- Liberals are the least likely to help the poor. That's the inescapable conclusion of this new study: states where people participate in religion at a high rate are also the most generous; conversely, the least generous states are also the least religious.

The report does say religion plays a role:

- Religion has a big influence on giving patterns. Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not. Two of the top nine states -- Utah and Idaho -- have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church. The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.

But conservatives are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of "tithing... to the church." All the survey did was take IRS data "showing the value of charitable deductions claimed by Americans taxpayers." What the IRS may mean by charitable, and what most people think of as charitable, may not be the same thing.

For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.

The report states that the IRS "does not provide data about the specific charities people supported." In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.

Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as "charitable giving," then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don't donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher "charitable" giving.

Donations to churches may get reused in a manner that would not be tax-deductible itself, as it would not be considered charitable. For instance, donations to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, are tax-deductible. Yet the organization gave almost $2 million to fund anti-gay campaigns by the National Organization for Marriage. If the "charitable" Catholics who gave that money had directly donated it to NOM, they would never have received a tax write-off.

However, if you donated to the Human Rights Campaign to counter campaigns funded by the Knights, that donation "can not be classified as tax deductible." Only one funds given to the churches in this political campaign were counted as charitable.

It is not surprising that the most "giving" state is Utah, with a heavy population of Mormons who are required to give 10% of their income to the sect. Their total charitable giving is 10.6% of discretionary income -- a substantial portion of which has to be going to the church as opposed to purely charitable purposes.

But neither Jacoby nor Donahue mentioned West Hollywood, a heavily Democratic city and one of the "gayest." The survey shows residents there give 9% of their discretionary income to charity. I would think most of that went to purely charitable purposes as opposed to religious ones.

The Chronicle of Philanthrophy also made a point that conservatives ignored:

- When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.

They also noted:

- A study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that the residents of New Hampshire -- which ranked dead last in both surveys by The Chronicle -- weren't stingy; they were simply nonbelievers.

"New Hampshire gives next to nothing to religious organizations," says Patrick Rooney, the center's leader, "but their secular giving is identical to the rest of country."

Sometimes it helps to read the whole report, not just the sections that make you feel superior.

Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious?
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 10:42 am
@hightor,
Sure, Hightor.

If you don't like the answer you can always change the question.

This a silly partisan game to make the other side look bad.

hightor
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 10:58 am
@maxdancona,
Quote:

If you don't like the answer you can always change the question.

I don't understand, max. Why is my post "partisan" and yours isn't?

There are different ways of looking at the practice of charitable giving, that's the only point I was trying to make.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 11:02 am
J B Priestley’s An Inspector Calls shows the problems with relying on charity. Mrs Birling the head of the charity is the most nasty and judgemental of all the characters.

A Welfare State provides according to need, charities invariably make judgement calls, divide people into deserving and undeserving.

Instead of paying taxes to provide for the needs of all the rich choose where to send their largesse, their own pet projects regardless of where it’s actually needed.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 11:03 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:

If you don't like the answer you can always change the question.

I don't understand, max. Why is my post "partisan" and yours isn't?

There are different ways of looking at the practice of charitable giving, that's the only point I was trying to make.


Do you not believe the overall assertion in Max’s link, that Republicans and conservatives give more to charity than Democrats and liberals?
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 11:33 am
@snood,
I believe it isn't how much you give; but more, percentage of wealth given and income made on a given base.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 11:39 am
@hightor,
Because...

1) The question "which self-identified political group give more to charity?" is a simple question with a single correct answer.

2) The data is easy to look at (and I provided the objective data) and provides a clear answer. Self-identified conservatives give more to charity both in terms of raw amount, and in terms of percent of income.

3) The actual data didn't match your partisan narrative, so people on your partisan side went to look for different data. That changes the question. It doesn't change the correct answer to the original question.

If you are going to base your beliefs on facts you have to accept that there will be times when the facts don't match with your partisan narrative.

Sorry, that's life.

0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 12:07 pm
@BillW,
BillW wrote:

I believe it isn't how much you give; but more, percentage of wealth given and income made on a given base.


Okay, fine. But do you accept that in gross dollars and cents, conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Is this an assertion you can accept as true?
BillW
 
  0  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 12:12 pm
@snood,
It is one that is possible, however not all wealthy people are conservative! If I remember correctly, Bill Gates created at one time the largest moneyed charity (in the billions of $) at one moment in time. He is hardly considered a conservative!
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 12:16 pm
@snood,
Quote:
Do you not believe the overall assertion in Max’s link, that Republicans and conservatives give more to charity than Democrats and liberals?

It's not the first time I've heard that assertion — usually from somebody like coldjoint trying to score a political point.

I don't believe that Republicans and conservatives are more generous than Democrats and liberals. Nor do I necessarily subscribe to the reverse. As far as charitable contributions go, I think the issue is more complex than is laid out in the Philanthropy Roundtable link. I don't doubt their statistics but I do question their interpretation. The organization itself has ties to the right-wing Bradley Foundation and the Koch brothers.

This is from the conclusion of the first link I supplied:

Quote:
Previous research and media commentary have popularized the notion that conservatives give more to charitable causes than liberals; however, the importance of this question requires careful, corroborated analyses. In this paper, we show that the association between conservatism and generosity is a function of conservatives being wealthier and more religious than liberals. Further, any conservative advantage in giving that remains after adjusting for confounders is driven by a greater propensity by conservatives to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.

While our research increases our knowledge about the relationships that exist between politics and charitable giving, there are open questions for future work. One is whether the political environment affects trends in giving, and not simply levels. A substantial literature in political behavior suggests that Democrats and Republicans feel more optimistic about the economy when their party controls the White House (Bartels 2002). More recently,Gerber and Huber (2009; 2010) presented evidence that these biased perceptions translate into real economic behaviors, such as higher spending by Democrats (Republicans) following a Democratic (Republican) presidential victory. Rather than only considering static political differences in giving, additional work should test whether partisans’ generosity similarly ebbs and flows in response to the political environment.


maxdancona wrote:
This a silly partisan game to make the other side look bad.

No, it really isn't. Not from me — I'm not saying that one side is more generous than the other, or that one side is "bad". I'm saying that if you look at some of the factors behind the statistics the answer is more nuanced. Note the observations of the Chronicle of Philanthrophy at the end of the passage I quoted. (The article itself (in the HuffPost) was written by a libertarian from the Moorfield Storey Institute, not a progressive.)
maxdancona
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 12:22 pm
@hightor,
Hightor,

Can you give an example of a fact that you accept and that supports the conservative narrative?

Facts don't all fall in line with political ideology. Someone who is honest about the facts will find some facts that support a conservative perspective, and other facts that support a liberal narrative.

Whether a fact can be used by conservatives (or liberals) to score a political point is irrelevant. A fact is a fact no matter how it is used.

I strongly disagree with Coldjoint on almost every political issue. But, someone of the things Coldjoint says are facts. Just because Coldjoint says a fact doesn't mean it is untrue.


hightor
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 01:20 pm
@maxdancona,
Quote:
Can you give an example of a fact that you accept and that supports the conservative narrative?

Well, I can think of items in the "conservative narrative" that I can accept. For instance, uncontrolled immigration threatens the national unity of countries. A job is better than a hand-out. Covid stimulus checks should be distributed according to need. I can't think of particular facts but if you supply some I can tell you whether I agree with them or not.

What I found objectionable in your first response to me was your assumption that I was just trying to make conservatives look bad, that I'm just a doctrinaire liberal who responds in knee-jerk fashion to anything which doesn't conform to the party line. That's not what motivated my reply. I simply wanted to share some of the other thinking on the topic because it's a bit more complicated than conservative/generous - liberal/stingy. There's always more to a story behind a short description. There's no reason to be threatened by additional information, closer analysis, or different perspective.
Quote:
Just because Coldjoint says a fact doesn't mean it is untrue.

Just because someone uses facts doesn't mean that his conclusions are justified.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2021 01:49 pm
@hightor,
Interesting.

I consider myself a fact-based liberal. Facts matter over ideology. Obviously policy and opinions and arguments can be based on facts. But in my opinion it is wrong to let opinions affect your understanding or acceptance of the facts.

Facts are different than opinions. Someone with opinions I disagree with can have valid facts. Someone with valid facts can have opinions I disagree with.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Political Conservatism/Personal Tightfistedness vs. Political Liiberalism/Personal Generosity
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/08/2021 at 01:24:36