Who Really Cares?

Open discussion about the world we live in today. Topics in here can get heated, but please keep it civil.

Moderator: Priests of Syrinx

User avatar
awip2062
Posts: 25518
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:15 am
Contact:

Who Really Cares?

Post by awip2062 »

Tonight I heard about this book on the radio and thought it was interesting. Has anyone else heard of this and what do you think?

Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous
By Frank Brieaddy

Print Page

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

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.

His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

The book's basic findings are 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.

Conversely, 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.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."
Onward and Upward!
User avatar
ElfDude
Posts: 11085
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
Contact:

Post by ElfDude »

Yep. Heard of it. Then heard the author interviewed on the radio yesterday.

I've also heard one criticism of his anaysis. It basically went "he shouldn't be counting any religious tithes and offerings as generousity because the religious are compelled to do that". Buh. *rolls eyes*
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
Image
User avatar
Me
Posts: 3086
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:20 am

Post by Me »

When evil is allowed to compete with good, evil has an emotional populist appeal that wins out unless good men & women stand as a vanguard against abuse.
User avatar
awip2062
Posts: 25518
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:15 am
Contact:

Post by awip2062 »

ElfDude wrote:I've also heard one criticism of his anaysis. It basically went "he shouldn't be counting any religious tithes and offerings as generousity because the religious are compelled to do that". Buh. *rolls eyes*
And, the article Kev put up mentions that:

"...even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities."

and

"...religious people are more likely than the nonreligious to volunteer for secular charitable activities, give blood,..."

Both show that we aren't just talking tithes and offerings that are mandated as well as that religious people give more even to secular groups.
Onward and Upward!
User avatar
Big Blue Owl
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light

Post by Big Blue Owl »

Thank you Religious Right for taking up the generosity slack for the Godless Left.

That's a bit of irony that I can truly appreciate :-D
CygnusX1
Posts: 17306
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: We don't call 911 here.

Post by CygnusX1 »

Call me crazy, but the only three words that come to mind are:

WHO REALLY CARES??? LOL
Don't start none...won't be none.
User avatar
Big Blue Owl
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light

Post by Big Blue Owl »

Heh-heh. I didn't even notice the irony of the title :)

("Ha!" sounds too pompous.)
Last edited by Big Blue Owl on Fri Dec 01, 2006 2:32 pm, edited 4 times in total.
CygnusX1
Posts: 17306
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: We don't call 911 here.

Post by CygnusX1 »

Big Blue Owl wrote:Ha! I didn't even notice the irony of that title :)
:-D
Don't start none...won't be none.
Soup4Rush
Posts: 17557
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 8:17 am

Post by Soup4Rush »

awip2062 wrote: Both show that we aren't just talking tithes and offerings that are mandated as well as that religious people give more even to secular groups.
Who is talking about titties? :-D
Happy 2015!
CygnusX1
Posts: 17306
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 12:53 pm
Location: We don't call 911 here.

Post by CygnusX1 »

LMAO
Don't start none...won't be none.
User avatar
ElfDude
Posts: 11085
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:19 pm
Location: In the shadows of the everlasting hills
Contact:

Post by ElfDude »

*glazed over eyes suddenly snap open*

Huh?
Aren't you the guy who hit me in the eye?
Image
User avatar
Big Blue Owl
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light

Post by Big Blue Owl »

Seriously, though; If, in fact, Conservatives are more generous, Liberals/lefties/progressives should step up to the giving vat and help out a bit more.
User avatar
awip2062
Posts: 25518
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:15 am
Contact:

Post by awip2062 »

Agreed. We should all be doing it at similar amounts.

Put our money where out mouths are, so to speak.
Onward and Upward!
Soup4Rush
Posts: 17557
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 8:17 am

Post by Soup4Rush »

*Was going to make a strip club remark but wisely changed his mind*
Happy 2015!
User avatar
awip2062
Posts: 25518
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 9:15 am
Contact:

Post by awip2062 »

LOL
Onward and Upward!
Post Reply