Culture Wars
The Liberal Conservative
by Tim Lien
In George Will’s column today he offers up some fascinating data. (Washington Post, March 27, 2008, “Conservatives More Liberal Givers”) You can read it in its entirety here:
Here are some tidbits:
• “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). “
• “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. “
I don’t think there is room for any conservative to heave a self-contented sigh, but I think it is very interesting to examine the self-perceptions of both camps. By virtue of my calling and denominational affiliation, most Americans would view me as a “conservative.” Yet, I would not feel that my charitable giving was “excellent” or “good,” even. Contrast that to the “liberals” in Will’s article who would have a generally positive view of their charitable giving. Where is the disconnect? George Will alludes to it at the conclusion of his article.
Posted by Tim Lien at March 27, 2008 10:47 AM
Tim,
I should have something deep and spiritual to say about this, but the immediate thought that comes to mind is that the liberals’ position is perversely logical. If you foist the responsibility for caring for the poor onto “the government,” then what’s the point in giving to charities? But, if you think about it, isn’t that really a lazy, uncaring position? Make others pay for it, and let bureaucrats do the work?
And, this is one of the many things that infuriates me about liberalism: Intentions count for everything and results for nothing. I’m sure that if you asked one of those liberal folks in the poll who thinks that government has an obligation to reduce income inequalities, they’d believe that theirs was the truly caring position. Yet, look at the results of our most comprehensive government program of poverty reduction to date, welfare. Its results were so disastrous - financially (to both government and recipient) and more importantly, morally and socially - that such a liberal icon as Bill Clinton approved its repeal.
But in mainstream media especially, the bad guys are the hard-hearted conservatives - who give to charities quietly and without the compulsion of the state. And, those charities tend to do a better job because they (unlike the state) don’t take a one-size-fits-all approach, and they tend to approach the poor from more of a one-on-one perspective. This adds a human (and in the case of church-based charities, spiritual) element and can address causes of poverty more effectively than just throwing money at the problem.
But don’t hold your breath waiting for the charitable givers to get any good press.
These results were eminently predictable, as well as the resons why, which as Tim knows, I did predict. It crossed my mind that the ultimate example is our Hollywood motion picture community. These incredibly talented people, rich beyond measure, living generally with the morals of alley cats; are among the first to espouse liberal causes to “help” the poor, but all at government expense. And they not only expouse the cause, they jump in with their influence, speaking at rallies, giving concerts, etc. All so that they can elect people who will pass legislation that will force everyone else to take care of the poor.
A year or two ago at the Academy Awards, Sean Penn (a fine actor whose work I enjoy immensely), spoke out against the Iraqi war and for social causes. Now I’m not a huge fan of the Iraqi war and its underlying premise; to force American democracy on the Middle East to solve American problems in the area. But after Mr. Penn’s diatribe, he closed with this statement; “But what do I know. I’m only an actor.” My comment to my wife was, “That’s the most intelligent thing he has said so far.” I suspect Mr. Penn’s giving to charity would be miniscule. I suspect his giving to the Democratic Party would be very high. I also suspect that the second would make him feel much better about the first.