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.

Define conservatism.

What is your evidence that "conservatives" who meet such a definition contribute more to charity than does anyone else? What organizations can be considered "charities" for the purposes of such a discussion?

You are completely ignoring valid objections to the premise of this polemic.

First, we must define "liberals" and "conservatives." Most surveys ask people not just about their political party affiliation but also about their ideology. In general, about 10 percent of the population classify themselves as "very conservative"; and another 10 percent call themselves "very liberal." About 20 percent say they are simply "liberal," and 30 percent or so say they are "conservative." The remaining 30 percent call themselves "moderates" or "centrists." In this discussion, by "liberals" I mean the approximately 30 percent in the two most liberal categories, and by conservatives I mean the 40 percent or so in the two most con­servative categories.

2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey
2001, 2003 Panel Study of Income Dynamics
1996-2004 General Social Survey
1998-2001 International Social Survey Programme
2004 Maxwell Poll
2000 Giving and Volunteering Survey
2001 America Gives Survey

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.

I haven't seen any posts where the conservatives thought Brook's study was 'just wonderful'. Could you point them out please?

There are a number of posts from the leftists trying to debunk it without ever looking at the data he offers, however. That observation is accurate.

Why do you suppose that is? I find it fascinating. Do you this phenomena adds more or less credibility to Brook's findings?

Some people actually discuss the thesis of the subject if it is of interest. And some just want to discredit the one offering it and/or those who do find it interesting.

Thanks for Monte Cargo for adding some objective observations to the subject. (I hadn't even bothered to do that. )