Who’s more generous: Conservatives or Liberals?
November 18th, 2006 | by Walter Greenspan |Craig, I betcha that your sinestra pals will have a hissy-fit about this:
In the book, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism”, Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks, shows 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.
[ ] 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.
According to professor Brooks, liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.
As Powerlineblog.com puts it, “Liberals tend to specialize in giving away other peoples’ money.”
21 Responses to “Who’s more generous: Conservatives or Liberals?”
By Mark Tokarski on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
Americans are a very generous people, but by far the lions share of contributions go to churches. Liberals are less likely to be religious believers, and therefore less likely to contribute to churches. Therefore it’s logical that conservatives would contribute more money to “charity”. I’d be very curious, however, of the how the picture looked when churches are removed.
There’s an evangelical curch down the road from us, populated by religious conservatives. They probably tithe - it’s a biblican mandate. That is the source of Brooks’ revelation, I suspect. But I’d have to read the book.
By Walter Greenspan on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
Mark, according to the author:
People who are religious give more across the board to all causes than their non-religious counterparts
There is a huge “charity gap†that follows religion: On average, religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time and money. This is not just because of giving to churches—religious people are more generous than secularists towards explicitly non-religious charities as well. They are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly.
By Dani on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
The same is true of volunteer hours. While volunteer hours given directly to religious organizations is about 25% of all hours volunteered, religious people tend to volunteer for many other things, not just for overtly religious organizations. Interestingly, it’s only recently that the literature on volunteerism has even looked at religiosity- I’ve researched the motivations of volunteers pretty extensively for my master’s thesis, and there are truly only a half-dozen studies that look at this, even peripherally. I’d say there is either an unwillingness to examine this aspect of religiosity, or (I hope) the researchers just didn’t know anything about it.
One really excellent study of black male community leaders showed that religiosity correlated directly with volunteerism, much more so than being involved in politics, rights organizations, or anything else.
There’s a researcher from Israel by the unusual name of Ram Cnaan, and he, in particular, has been struck by American’s generosity and the impact of Christianity on that. What he found was that it’s just expected that people will serve. I guess it takes someone from another culture to be able to see the forest as well as the trees.
By Wulfgar on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
So, taking coincedence for what it is, the headline for this post should be:
Who’s more generous (by the way the author chooses the metric); Christians or Atheists?
Or would being accurate be too much like having a hissy-fit?
By Jeff on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
I read another article by Brooks that I assume most of his claims are based on. Mark’s point is pretty accurate: the gap becomes 10 percent (down from 25 or so) when you remove religious causes (still in the 20s for volunteering, though). I would love to see that controlled for other variables, which Brooks does in the article for all charity, but not specifically for non-religious charity.
Wulfgar’s closer, but it isn’t really a comparison of Christians and atheists either. It’s a comparison of religious and non-religious. It’s really not even that, as his measure of non-religious includes those who attend services a few times a year. That includes people like my parents, who would not consider themselves “secular” (nor liberals, for that matter). Atheist activists make a similar mistake, often taking those who don’t go to church or involve themselves much in religion as allies of some sort.
I’d like to see a comparison of those who identify as secular humanists (or some similar variation) and the religious, myself. As it stands, it looks like Brooks has found that there’s some apathy in the religiously uninterested middle, but I’m not sure you can go much further than that on the data we have.
By Matt Singer on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
Looking at the data, I would imagine that he is largely correct. I notice that you ignore some of his data that is probably less interesting to you — that the working poor give more than the middle class and the wealthy give the least of all, as a share of income.
Why is that income data relevant? Because working poor vote Democratic and high-income vote Republican.
Regardless, there probably is something to what he reports, but a full accounting of this would involve looking at types of charitable giving. The closer you look, the muddier it gets (this is generally true).
Still, if your point is basically that truly religious people tend to also be very charitable, then we agree.
And huzzah for them.
By Gman on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
Well, the willingness of liberals to pay taxes shows that their “church” is the gov’t. Really, this is a matter of two divergent worldviews — one that tends to shun gov’t and one that worships it.
I would say a more accurate interpretation of history is that the State is the opiate of the people. I bet liberals sit around saying: “I support social welfare programs, so I don’t need to give to private charities. I’ve fulfilled my civic responsibility.”
By Walter Greenspan on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
Gman, it’s my observation that there is a willingness of liberals for others to pay the higher taxes advocated by the liberals.
By Matt Singer on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
Gman — I actually was drinking some beers the other night with a group of like-minded ilk and we were saying exactly that. None of us ever volunteer or donate because we ephemerally support social programs.
And so I’d say you’re being unfair, Walter. I support not just higher taxes for others, but also, in some cases, for myself. I am an on-again off-again smoker who supported the last tobacco tax hike.
By Dani on Nov 19, 2006 | Reply
Matt, you might want to take a look at the Generosity Index, which tracks charitable giving by state. Mississippi is number one- and generally considered a “red” state, as well as being at the bottom of the wage scale, too (or neck-and-neck with Montana). Since the Generosity Index is adjusted by income, one could argue that somehow Mississippi happens to have a lot of millionaires balancing out the very poor- but actually, they have the fewest millionaires of any state, too. The top 20 to 25 states in terms of giving are “red” states. Many of those states have the lowest per-capita incomes as well. Whereas, the typically “blue” states with the highest per-capita incomes (NY, MA) have the lowest rates of giving.
It is impossible to generalize that poor folks are all Democrats and the rich are Republicans- in fact, I remember looking at the demographics for the Senate race and found that those with the lowest incomes were more likely to vote for Burns in the last election.
I have a friend who always wonders why the poor “Keep voting against their own best interests.” I believe that their best interests might not be what she thinks they are. I think they’ve got their own ideas about that.
By Phil on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
So Matt, what you’re saying is that folks who would rather just have a the government take their money and distribute it for them, and do not bother to take part of their own time out to volunteer or donate money themselves are lazy?
Or are you suggesting that they are just apathetic: Not caring enough about their fellow man/woman to give up even a miniscule portion of their lives for them?
Either way, I would hope the left has learned their lesson with Bush’s “Faith Based Initiative” that they bitched so much about(though I seriously doubt it); that when they rely on the government to distribute their money for them so that they can go on about their lives not having to care, that sometimes the money doesn’t go where they want it to.
Now you know how I feel when my tax money goes to people who I don’t want to have it (drug rehab programs, Egypt, etc.).
By Matt Singer on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Dani — I acknowledged most of the larger point, but you cannot conflate geographic location and partisan identity or religiosity and geographic location that clearly either. In Alabama, a “red” state, I believe there is still Democratic majorities in the legislature. And many of the working poor, religious charitable givers are likely African-American Democrats. My point is simply that this stuff is muddier than Walter makes it out to be.
Your statement that those with the lowest-incomes were more likely to vote for Burns is just not true. Tester won among Montanans with incomes between $0 and $50,000, narrowly lost the upper middle class ($50,000-$100,000), and won the upper class. It’s actually a myth that low-income voters vote against their own best interest.
As for my comment #9, Phil, it was snark.
By Dani on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Matt- yup, I must have been looking at some earlier results, or maybe just one county regarding that Tester/Burns vote. I agree it is a myth that people vote against their own best interests, it wasn’t me who said that, it was my liberal buddy. My point is that one can’t limit interests solely to economic ones.
You might not be able to conflate religion, politics, geopraphical location and charitible giving all that well, but you certainly can correlate them. And the Generosity Index does just that, and has for decades. That’s the whole purpose of demographics- to deduce trends from large amounts of data, and it works, because the Index is a tool widely used by all sorts of non-profit organizations. There isn’t a large organization dealing with the general public that doesn’t rely on statistics just like these. Cause and effect is elusive, to be certain, but that’s where the fun discussions like these come in.
By Matt Singer on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Dani, I’d agree that people have interests other than economic ones.
As for the mix between religion, politics, geographical location, and charitable giving, my point above was that noting the connection that religious individuals donate more and that red staters donate more would lead one to tie charitable giving to Republicans. Looking at the higher rates of giving by the working poor would lead one to tie charitable giving to Democrats. Combining religiosity, geography, and income could lead one easily to pinpoint likely givers as southern African-Americans, who tend to be quite religious and overwhelmingly Democratic.
Large organizations do use these sorts of measurements, but they also do not stop seeking donations from wealthy people (for other obvious reasons).
A point I did not make, but perhaps should have, is that using these sorts of statistics for vitriolic political points is damn near worthless, especially coming from someone who eschews collectivism as much as Walter Greenspan. It reminds me greatly of reading about Rob Natelson crowing about the intellectual greatness of certain “conservative” groups, as though the only claim Natelson could make to intelligence hinged on him being a conservative, and most rural Montanans being conservative and intelligent. It’s a ludicrous argument, doubly so for people who border on Objectivism as a foundation for beliefs.
By Andy B. Hammonda on Nov 20, 2006 | Reply
Matt,
I bet that I pay more taxes than you and all of your drinking buddies combined. I would also bet I donate more time and money to non profits than you and yours as well.
It angers me that you and your ilk sit around and smugly rationalize your lack of charity because you pay taxes. It further angers me that you support higher taxes to fund wastefull government programs.
By Matt Singer on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
Andy,
I bet that I understand sarcasm 30% more often than you and your charity buddies combined. Honestly, that post was a joke.
As for taxes, if you’re doing well enough for yourself that you pay more in taxes than me and all of drinking buddies (I’m a liberal in Missoula — I’ve got a lot of friends), then congratulations on doing well for yourself.
By The Polish Wolf on Nov 21, 2006 | Reply
Of course this is so. Conservatives give money to churches, and lots of it. That money then goes to pay pastors and run shiny lights. Honestly, churches must be among the least efficient charities at actually helping people.
By Craig on Nov 22, 2006 | Reply
In that case, I would encourage you to do a little “feet on ground” research. Go out tomorrow to all the places that are serving food for Thanksgiving — or that do it every day — and ask the staff whether or not they are religious.
My guess is that you’ll find a very high percentage who are.
By Andy B. Hammonda on Nov 22, 2006 | Reply
You got me good, Matt. Touche’.
I get worked up sometimes.
Have a good Thanksgiving!
By The Polish Wolf on Nov 22, 2006 | Reply
I’ll not deny that’d probably be the case (and hell, I might even try to find out; but volunteering is also, generally, by far the least efficient method of charity.
http://www.slate.com/id/2151244
By Gman on Nov 23, 2006 | Reply
What’s “efficient” isn’t always right. “Efficient” seems to be codeword for gov’t control. Since when is the gov’t efficient? Also, since when is it compassionate?