Charity
Conservatives Give More Money, Time and Blood

FUNDMASTERY BLOG

Full article Fundmastery Blog

Mail Online

Don't listen to the liberals - Right-wingers really are nicer people, latest research shows

By Peter Schweizer

June 14, 2008

Full article Peter Schweizer Mail Online

Excerpts:

George Orwell once wrote that politics was closely related to social identity. 'One sometimes gets the impression,' he wrote in The Road To Wigan Pier, 'that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England'.

Orwell was making an observation. But today a whole body of academic research shows he was correct: your politics influence the manner in which you live your life. And the news is not so good for those on the political Left.

There is plenty of data that shows that Right-wingers are happier, more generous to charities, less likely to commit suicide - and even hug their children more than those on the Left.Come on, you miserable Lefties...

New York Times

Thoroughly Modern Do-Gooders

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: March 21, 2008

Full article New York Times

Excerpts:

Fashions in goodness change, just like fashions in anything else, and these days some of the very noblest people have assumed the manners of the business world — even though they don’t aim for profit. They call themselves social entrepreneurs, and you can find them in the neediest places on earth.

The people who fit into this category tend to have plenty of résumé bling. Bill Drayton, the godfather of this movement, went to Harvard, Yale, Oxford and McKinsey before founding Ashoka, a global change network. Those who follow him typically went to some fancy school and then did a stint with Teach for America or AmeriCorps before graduate school. Then, they worked for a software firm before deciding to use what they’d learned in business to help the less fortunate.

Now they work 80 hours a week, fighting bureaucracies and funding restrictions in order to build, say, mentoring programs for single moms.

US: Giving reached an estimated $295 billion in 2006.

This represents a 4.2 percent increase over the 2005 estimate of $283 billion according to the Giving USA Foundation.

Charitable giving from corporations and corporate foundations came in at $12.7 billion.

________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

Arthur C. Brooks is a professor at Syracuse University, and the author of the book, titled "Who Really Cares"His book examines the actual behavior of liberals and conservatives, in determining how they donate their own time, money, or blood for the benefit of others.

Mr. Brooks' parents were academics. He was raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts.

The professor was not expecting the results to be what they turned out to be. Indeed his findings were the opposite of what he expected. For Instance Conservative households donate 30% more than liberal households.

To define liberal and conservative, Professor Brooks sampled those who called themselves very liberal 10% and liberal , 20%, totaling 30%. On the other side, those calling themselves very conservative , 10% and conservative 30%, totaled 40%.

The 30% who did not declare themselves liberal or conservative, to any degree, calling themselves either centrists or moderates were not included in the sampling.

The book's position is that religiously active conservatives who raise traditional families are the most generous in every measurable area. These conservatives do not accept the belief that forced government spending is a form of charity.

Liberals (secularists), on the other hand, with their strong belief in "entitlements", do desire forced government spending, to support what they consider "charitable causes." When it comes to giving out of their own pocket, according to Mr. Brooks findings, liberals are more hesitant.

Many of us can recall one example from 1997. when Vice President Al Gore and wife Tipper reported Adjusted Gross Income of $197,000, and gave $353 to charity.

This along with Mr. Gore's long time very liberal voting record, reminds us of the not so facetious definition of a liberal. "One who will give the shirt off of someone else's back."

Professor Brooks declares "Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues."

It seems likely that these church attending folks are in agreement with other conservatives in the belief that many government charities, often fail to bring the desired results. Some of these so called charities even encourage the habit of beating the system .

Below are some other examples of the book's findings:

Using Internal Revenue Service data, from the 2004 presidential election:

Comparing red states, (Conservative) and blue states, (Liberal).

There were 25 states that donated a portion of household income above the national average.

In states that donated above the national average the popular vote went to Mr. Bush by a margin of 24 to 1. In states that gave below the national average , John Kerry won 17 to 7.

The trend showed also that the higher the plurality for George W. Bush, the greater the percentage of giving, whereas in those states with very high pluralities for Mr. Kerry, the lower the percentage of giving.

Other findings:

Larger charitable givers are more likely to say they are "very happy" than are non givers.

Religious people help homeless people far more than secularists.

Conservatives give more blood than liberals (secularists) by a wide margin.

For the record, Professor Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent. He says he is not comfortable with either party.

Professor Brooks states emphatically that the generosity of religious people is by no means restricted to church giving.

According to Mr. Brooks:

"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."

Charity To Editorials

.