Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Police accuse bank robbery suspect of gobbling up note (with dashcam video)
Victim of beating in Kent last week is declared dead at Akron hospital
Akron man killed in crash on his street
Browns find another way to lose
Can DNA tests free ex-Akron captain?
Dad accused of forcing son into field, killing him
Man found dead in North Akron home is identified
Blogs:
Pets:
Cat-loving chihuahua suckles seven abandoned kittens
The Heldenfiles:
Sunday Notebook
Patrick McManamon:
Browns sick after sick loss in Detroit
Akron Zips:
Zips advance to Sweet Sixteen
Tribe Matters:
Seven players added to Tribe’s 40-man roster
Cleveland Browns:
Post-game defensive quotes
Kent State Sports:
Kent State defeats Rochester College, 63-44
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Gameblog: Cavs vs. Philadelphia 76ers
Buckeye Blogging:
OSU – Michigan college football rivals meet in Baghdad
Varsity Letters:
Four area football teams play tonight
All Da King's Men:
The Sunday Sanity Challenge
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Will Health Care Reform Pass?
Akron Law Café:
Health Care Financing Reform: (70) Savings in Medicare Advantage
See Jane Style:
Vintage Chic
Car Chase:
TIME TO GET YOUR COLLECTOR CARS WINTERIZED
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Faye Dunaway to be Evicted?
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Monique asks how to get tickets for the Polar Express.
Sound Check:
Steely Dan Plays "The Royal Scam" at E.J. Thomas Hall
HRLite House:
Personal Rant – You are All Wrong About Jobs, or the Lack of Jobs, Being the Reason People Do Not Live in NEO
Akron Gamer:
Nintendo's Mario endures even as games come and go
Published on Thursday, Mar 27, 2008
WASHINGTON: Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers.
Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming ''Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All,'' ''Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty,'' ''The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion,'' ''Arms Are For Hugging,'' ''Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India),'' ''Jesus Is a Liberal,'' ''God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts,'' ''The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans,'' ''Republicans Are People Too — Mean, Selfish, Greedy People'' and so on.
But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: ''The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses.''
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
• Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
• People who reject the idea that ''government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality'' give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and ''the values that lie beneath'' liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, ''the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s.''
America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one — secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin — it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide — is ranked by the Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon — a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes.
Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: ''A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.'' Brooks, however, warns: ''If support for a policy that does not exist . . . substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others.''
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households.
But Gore ''gave at the office.'' By using public office to give other people's money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
Will is a Washington Post columnist. He can be reached at
georgewill@washpost.com.
Get the full article here.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
