0
   

Conservatives Are More Generous Than Liberals

 
 
Foxfyre
 
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 09:41 am
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous
BY FRANK BRIEADDY
c.2006 Newhouse News Service

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right wing 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. . . .

. . . AMONG OF BROOKS' FINDINGS: Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way.

More here: http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/brieaddy111406.html

Given these facts, where do you think our elected officials should place their initiatives and votes?

1) Government should create a climate that encourages private charity to provide social programs even if such charities are faith based and this will increase resources available to those who need them. Government should not be in the business of social charity.

2) Government, not private charities, should provide the social safety net for its citizens.

3) I am somewhere between these two extremes.

Please explain your position.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,170 • Replies: 50
No top replies

 
Gargamel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 10:12 am
Re: Conservatives Are More Generous Than Liberals
Foxfyre wrote:
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous
BY FRANK BRIEADDY
c.2006 Newhouse News Service

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right wing 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. . . .

. . . AMONG OF BROOKS' FINDINGS: Conservatives outgive liberals in every measurable way.

More here: http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/brieaddy111406.html

Given these facts, where do you think our elected officials should place their initiatives and votes?

1) Government should create a climate that encourages private charity to provide social programs even if such charities are faith based and this will increase resources available to those who need them. Government should not be in the business of social charity.

2) Government, not private charities, should provide the social safety net for its citizens.

3) I am somewhere between these two extremes.

Please explain your position.



Philanthropy isn't the only form of charity; it's only the most removed, wherein "givers" don't have to come into contact with the underprivaleged. Meanwhile, conservative politicians cut funding for social programs, for example the Heartland Alliance, for whom my liberal sister works. In fact, most people I know working for such charitable organizations are "liberal," or at least vote Democrat, so that their programs can receive necessary funding.

In short, applying such a narrow definition of the word "generous" doesn't make much sense to me, except for the purpose of spinning an argument.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 10:24 am
Quote:


2) Government, not private charities, should provide the social safety net for its citizens.


I choose 2.

The government has the right to spend your tax dollars in a fashion that they determine to be productive and efficient whether you agree with it or not. This is the answer that I gave you in the other thread, which you purposefully ignored because you didn't have a good reply to it.

How much of the money donated by Conservatives goes to churches, who use that money to spread their influence? I really couldn't give a damn about that, don't consider it to be a charitable donation at all, just funding one's team here on planet Earth.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 10:33 am
I question the validity of the study for several reasons...

1) This is the opinion of one professor based on one study. The research hasn't been replicated by any other researchers.

2) I looked for the scientific method used in this study. Real researchers will publish definitions of their terms-- for example whether Mr. Brooks counted tithing to a church as "charitible giving" is unclear. It is possible that there is a valid scientific description of the research that Mr. Brooks doesn, but it certainly doesn't seem to be available.

3) This contradicts other reasearch. You would think from this puff piece that People in the Bible Belt would be the most generous (since they are more religious).

The Center on Wealth and Philanthropy numbers say that the North East, and particularly New England is the most charitible region. These number are on taxable contributions and are measured by percentage of income.

4) It is clear that Brooks had the opinion that Religious people were more charitble BEFORE he started this research. A quick Google search reveals his position and that he has been writing about the superiority of religious people to non-religious people for some time.

There is the at least possibility that he was looking for research that merely validated his previous beliefs.


I have an open mind, and I would love to see any link to his scientific method-- particularly what techniques he used to make sure that his findings were objective (i.e. not tainted by his personal bias). There are ways to do this and any good scientist will make these available.

But I think there is good reason to be skeptical.

For the record, I am a centrist on the poll question. I think leaving charity to the religious would be a disaster on many levels.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 10:55 am
The following is Mr. Brooks' biography, taken from his own web site:

Quote:


Arthur C. Brooks is Professor of Public Administration and Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. In 2007, he will be a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Brooks earned his PhD in Public Policy Analysis from the Pardee Rand Graduate School in 1998, and also holds an MA and BA in economics.

Mr. Brooks has published many articles and books on the connections between culture, politics, and economic life in America. He speaks frequently in the U.S., Europe, and Asia, and is a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His latest book is entitled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books). He is currently working on a new book about the government's impact on citizens' happiness (forthcoming from Basic Books), as well as a textbook on social entrepreneurship (forthcoming from Prentice-Hall).

Preceding his work in academia, Mr. Brooks spent 12 years as a professional French hornist, holding positions with the Barcelona Symphony Orchestra and other ensembles. He is a native of Seattle, Washington, and currently lives in Syracuse, New York, with his wife Ester and their three children.


Mr. Brooks is quite an interesting polemicist. In this article posted at CBS News-dot-com, Mr. Brooks says:

Quote:
An ice-cold score is equivalent to saying "I don't like certain people simply because of the views they hold." It is the essence of intolerance, and it describes two-thirds of America's far left today (and nearly half of America's far right).


The burden of Mr. Brooks' article is that conservatives like other conservatives, and don't like liberals, and that liberals like other liberals, and don't like conservatives. (Mr. Brooks' percipient penetration is breathtaking!)

In this article at The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal site, Mr. Brooks' says that "liberals" are losing ground in elections because they don't reproduce sufficiently to replenish their ranks. Written before the mid-term elections, one wonders what Mr. Brooks' polemical response would now be.

In this article at the same site, Mr. Brooks explains why the mid-term elections (the full results of which were not yet known at the time he wrote) does not actually mean a repudiation of conservative politics.

Mr. Brooks is obviously a conservative polemicist, regardless of the academic credentials he claims. His PhD comes from the Frederick S. Pardee-RAND Graduate School, a project of the RAND Corporation. Graduates are required to do a practicum of 400 days of work on RAND Corporation projects. Previous associates and employees of the Rand Corporation include Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Donald Rumsfeld (a former chair of the corporation) and Condoleeza Rice (a former trustee). The RAND corporation is widely seen as being at the core of the military-industrial complex about which the Republican President Dwight Eisenhower warned the nation in his final state of the union message.

Mr. Brooks' credentials as a conservative polemicist are sterling, and conservative and conservative christian web sites have jumped all over this book. Anyone with an ounce of sense will see that Fox is peddling yet another "conservatives and christians are superior" thesis.

Nothing new here.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 11:21 am
I definitely need more information before I can comment on the study. I'm interested to see how he accounts for wealth disparities between conservatives and liberals, as well as how he determines who is a conservative and who is a liberal. I wonder if he looked at religious liberals and compared them to religious conservatives. I'm sure it's all in there, but I haven't read the book and I'm not willing to accept someone else's analysis of it, especially when that someone else clearly favors that analysis.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 11:33 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:


2) Government, not private charities, should provide the social safety net for its citizens.


I choose 2.

The government has the right to spend your tax dollars in a fashion that they determine to be productive and efficient whether you agree with it or not. This is the answer that I gave you in the other thread, which you purposefully ignored because you didn't have a good reply to it.

How much of the money donated by Conservatives goes to churches, who use that money to spread their influence? I really couldn't give a damn about that, don't consider it to be a charitable donation at all, just funding one's team here on planet Earth.

Cycloptichorn


Your right the govt does have the right to spend our tax dollars in a fashion that they determine to be productive as long as it is done in a Constututional way.

If the govt wanted to spend our tax dollars on faith based programs you wouldn't agree with that would you? They would see it as most effective but you would see it as a violation of Church and state. Others might agree with the govt. that the money being spent is worth while.

I wonder if there has ever been a Constitutional test on the welfare system and other govt sponsered chariety programs? I don't agree with the govt spending money on the amount of chariety programs that it supports. I think it needs to be changed and the people who receive money from such programs need to be reevaluted to make sure they need the money they receive. We don't need to support lazy people but there are people out there who do need help. If we elimanate the lazy we could provide more money and better support to those who really do need it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 11:33 am
Although most web search results that i found on Mr. Brooks were either direct links to book reviews or articles which he has published, or were conservative and christian conservative web sites crowing about his book--i did find comments online which questioned his methodology. It would also be interesting to see how he defines charity. As E_Brown points out, he may have included tithing in the total. The National Rifle Association does not have charitable organization tax status, because they lobby legislators. However, the NRA Foundation does have tax exempt status, so one wonders if he would count the millions of dollars donated to the NRA Foundation in his total. Basically, this is a very vague, fuzzy contention, but i'm sure it warms the cockles of Fox's heart.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 11:57 am
Baldimo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:


2) Government, not private charities, should provide the social safety net for its citizens.


I choose 2.

The government has the right to spend your tax dollars in a fashion that they determine to be productive and efficient whether you agree with it or not. This is the answer that I gave you in the other thread, which you purposefully ignored because you didn't have a good reply to it.

How much of the money donated by Conservatives goes to churches, who use that money to spread their influence? I really couldn't give a damn about that, don't consider it to be a charitable donation at all, just funding one's team here on planet Earth.

Cycloptichorn


Your right the govt does have the right to spend our tax dollars in a fashion that they determine to be productive as long as it is done in a Constututional way.

If the govt wanted to spend our tax dollars on faith based programs you wouldn't agree with that would you? They would see it as most effective but you would see it as a violation of Church and state. Others might agree with the govt. that the money being spent is worth while.

I wonder if there has ever been a Constitutional test on the welfare system and other govt sponsered chariety programs? I don't agree with the govt spending money on the amount of chariety programs that it supports. I think it needs to be changed and the people who receive money from such programs need to be reevaluted to make sure they need the money they receive. We don't need to support lazy people but there are people out there who do need help. If we elimanate the lazy we could provide more money and better support to those who really do need it.


The government has done exactly that with regards to faith-based programs; nearly 5 billion during Bush's term, though I will hunt those numbers up.

Here's a question

Quote:
I think it needs to be changed and the people who receive money from such programs need to be reevaluted to make sure they need the money they receive. We don't need to support lazy people but there are people out there who do need help. If we elimanate the lazy we could provide more money and better support to those who really do need it.


What happens to the 'lazy' after we eliminate them? Not that I disagree with you morally. But do you think that they will just starve, or buck up and go get all those jobs just waiting for them out there?

I think that crime is a far more likely answer....

I like the Texas solution: barring disability, those who are on welfare have two or three years to get their sh*t together, and that's it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 12:10 pm
I voted "private cahirty". The less gov't can intrude in lives, the better off we are for it.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 12:13 pm
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I voted "private cahirty". The less gov't can intrude in lives, the better off we are for it.


That's my argument for why we should allow gay marriage.
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 12:27 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
LoneStarMadam wrote:
I voted "private cahirty". The less gov't can intrude in lives, the better off we are for it.


That's my argument for why we should allow gay marriage.

But did you vote that? Or did you vote for gov't to provide a safety net?
I believe that gay marriage is a states right issue.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 12:31 pm
My position is between the extremes. But you already knew that.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 02:01 pm
As it has been mentioned, here is the Syracuse University version of Brook's bio. The credentials look pretty solid. Link also furnished to his website providing more stuff.

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/Images/Brooks.jpg

Arthur C. Brooks is Professor of Public Administration and Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. In 2007, he will be a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Brooks earned his PhD in Public Policy Analysis from the Pardee Rand Graduate School in 1998, and also holds an MA and BA in economics.

Mr. Brooks has published many articles and books on the connections between culture, politics, and economic life in America. He speaks frequently in the U.S., Europe, and Asia, and is a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His latest book is entitled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books). He is currently working on a new book about the government's impact on citizens' happiness (forthcoming from Basic Books), as well as a textbook on social entrepreneurship (forthcoming from Prentice-Hall).

Preceding his work in academia, Mr. Brooks spent 12 years as a professional French hornist, holding positions with the Barcelona Symphony Orchestra and other ensembles. He is a native of Seattle, Washington, and currently lives in Syracuse, New York, with his wife Ester and their three children
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/Pages/bio.htm

And from the Educause Peer Directory reference indicating that at least some of his stuff is being peer reviewed:
Quote:
ARTHUR BROOKS is Professor of Public Administration and Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He is also a consultant to the Rand Corporation, and in 2007, will be a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. He holds a Ph.D. and MPhil in policy analysis, and an M.A. and B.A. in economics. Over the past eight years, Brooks has published approximately 100 articles and books on the connections between culture, politics, and economic life in America. He speaks frequently in the U.S., Europe, and Asia, and is a regular contributor to The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Preceding his work in academia, he spent 12 years as a professional French hornist, holding positions with the Barcelona Symphony Orchestra and other ensembles. His newest book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism was published in November 2006.

http://www.educause.edu/content.asp?page_id=750&ID=152825&bhcp=1

Brooks' website:
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/acbrooks/Default.htm
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 02:20 pm
For this guy's work to be credible to me I would need three things.

1) A statement of his scientific methods. This would include what statistical instrument he used to determine who was "religious" and the method he used to calculate "charitable giving".

2) An explaination of why other studies say the secular Northeast has the highest amount of charitable giving as a percentage of salary.

3) References to any other similar studies that either support or contradict his conclusions.

I would ask this of anyone who was making a political point that he claimed was based on research.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 02:23 pm
I'm guessing that he pretty much knows what he's doing:

EPISTEMOLOGY AND METHODOLOGY
Enhancing Policy Models with Exploratory Analysis
Arthur C. Brooks, Gregory B. Lewis and Georgia State University

Traditional empirical policy analysis generally takes up to three pieces of information from regression results: the statistical significance, direction, and (in some cases) size of the impacts of policy variables on the outcome of interest. In this article we introduce a policy modeling technique called exploratory analysis, which can squeeze additional information from regression results, providing a clearer sense of a variable's policy significance and allowing decision makers to find combinations of interventions that achieve particular objectives. We provide a brief primer on this technique, employing as an example a binary choice model on private charitable giving in Russia.
http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/12/1/129
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 02:24 pm
It's been said (i have no data) that Catholic Social Services is the single largest charitable organization in the US of A.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 03:38 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
For this guy's work to be credible to me I would need three things.

1) A statement of his scientific methods. This would include what statistical instrument he used to determine who was "religious" and the method he used to calculate "charitable giving".

2) An explaination of why other studies say the secular Northeast has the highest amount of charitable giving as a percentage of salary.

3) References to any other similar studies that either support or contradict his conclusions.

I would ask this of anyone who was making a political point that he claimed was based on research.


Sure are asking for a lot from someone you don't agree with. Do you require the same info from people you agree with?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 03:44 pm
Baldimo wrote:
ebrown_p wrote:
For this guy's work to be credible to me I would need three things.

1) A statement of his scientific methods. This would include what statistical instrument he used to determine who was "religious" and the method he used to calculate "charitable giving".

2) An explaination of why other studies say the secular Northeast has the highest amount of charitable giving as a percentage of salary.

3) References to any other similar studies that either support or contradict his conclusions.

I would ask this of anyone who was making a political point that he claimed was based on research.


Sure are asking for a lot from someone you don't agree with. Do you require the same info from people you agree with?


I've certainly never seen it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 6 Dec, 2006 03:44 pm
I wasn't aware that the guy was making a political point. I thought he was making a social observation based on scientifically produced polling information.

Here's another review by somebody who appears to have read the book and is throwing in some additional 'evidence':

December 06, 2006
Who Gives to Charity?
By John Stossel

Americans are pretty generous. Three-quarters of American families give to charity -- and those who do, give an average of $1,800. Of course that means one-quarter of us don't give at all. What distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

To test them, ABC's "20/20" went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money? I'll get to that in a minute.

San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.

San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to "care more" about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot.

But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last presidential election.

"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

Researching his book, "Who Really Cares", Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:


"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away."

Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood.

The second myth is that people with the most money are the most generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income.

Says Brooks: "The most charitable people in America today are the working poor."

We saw that in Sioux Falls, S.D. The workers at the meat packing plant make about $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees there than anywhere else.

Note that Brooks said the "working" poor. The nonworking poor -- people on welfare -- are very different, even though they have the same income. The nonworking poor don't give much at all.

What about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, when compared to both the rich and working poor in America, Brooks says, "They give less."

When asked why, many say, "I don't have enough money to spare." But it's telling that the working poor manage to give.

And the rich? What about America's 400 billionaires? I'll report on them in next week's column.

Finally, Brooks says one thing stands out as the biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable: "their religious participation." Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money -- four times as much.

But doesn't that giving just stay within the religion?

"No," says Brooks, "Religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly nonreligious charities. Religious people give more blood; religious people give more to homeless people on the street."

And what happened in our little test? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money.

Another myth bites the dust.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/12/who_gives_to_charity.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Conservatives Are More Generous Than Liberals
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/29/2024 at 03:38:35