PDA

View Full Version : Who are the racists and who helps the poor?



LWW
10-12-2007, 04:40 AM
A reanimated neolib myth was perpetuated in another thread by Purdman on AZB, and being the good compassionate conservative I feel obligated to slay it again before it permeates the brain of yet another DNC brainwashed American.

First off, this is posted not to point at any one individual and certainly no particular member here.

This is posted in an effort to correct some of the myths which exist about racism in the two main parties and the truth, as best as I have ever seen measured, about where it lays and where it hides.

Also, before anyone leaps to a conclusion, this is also not a pass being given to either side as I think it is still too common in both parties and in society as a whole.

Discuss, please, and this (I hope.) leads to a discourse instead of a shoutdown/flamefest.

[ QUOTE ]
...But, what about today? You'd think that with Democrats receiving upwards of 90% of the black vote in some cases, that there would be few, if any, prominent black Republicans while black Americans would be amongst the biggest power players in the Democratic Party. However, the opposite has often turned out to be true. Once you look past the gerrymandered districts that have to remain in place because so many liberal whites simply won't vote for black candidates (There are only five black Democrats in the House representing majority white districts), you'll see that the Republican Party has surpassed the Democrats in many areas...

...Who's one of the fill-ins for the most popular conservative radio host on earth, Rush Limbaugh? Walter Williams. The most desired 2008 nominee as selected by the right side of the blogosphere in 2006? Condi Rice. Who did those same bloggers select as the most desired nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor when she retired? Janice Rogers Brown tied for first place...

...Meanwhile, what do we see from Democrats? We see Oreo cookies being thrown at Maryland's black U.S. Senate candidate Michael Steele and black Republicans being called "Uncle Toms" and compared to "Aunt Jemima."

Moreover, let's take a look at a couple of studies that actually set out to compare how racist Republicans and Democrats actually are. First off, a professor from Yale looked at voting patterns and she found that:
"...(W)hite Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black. ...In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black."...

...Then there is another study, this time from a professor at Stanford -- of how much government largesse Democrats and Republicans believe people deserved to be given after Katrina -- and, surprise, surprise: Democrats behaved in a racist fashion while Republicans didn't:

"But for Democrats, race mattered -- and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority...." Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues."

Here's the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOP's belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, they'll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply won't. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennett's condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans...

Mr. Hawkins runs Right Wing News, a conservative blog. He writes a weekly column for Human Events Online. You can also e-mail him at johnhawkins -at- rightwingnews.com. <hr /></blockquote>

OH MY! (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15893)

LWW

LWW
10-16-2007, 03:57 AM
HERE (http://www.arthurbrooks.net/excerpt.html) is some more stuff for you guys to ponder.

As for me, don't worry, I got a lotta mo fo ya comin, I got a lotta mo.

[ QUOTE ]
The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to this logic, is a form of charity.

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. Because government spending is not charity, sanctimonious yard signs do not prove that the bearers are charitable or that their opponents are selfish. (On the contrary, a public attack on the integrity of those who don’t share my beliefs might more legitimately constitute evidence that I am the uncharitable one.)

To evaluate accurately the charity difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private, voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private giving and volunteering? Beyond strident slogans and sarcastic political caricatures, what, exactly, do the data tell us?

The data tell us that the conventional wisdom is dead wrong. In most ways, political conservatives are not personally less charitable than political liberals—they are more so.

First, we must define “liberals” and “conservatives.” Most surveys ask people not just about their political party affiliation but also about their ideology. In general, about 10 percent of the population classify themselves as “very conservative”; and another 10 percent call themselves “very liberal.” About 20 percent say they are simply “liberal,” and 30 percent or so say they are “conservative.” The remaining 30 percent call themselves “moderates” or “centrists.” In this discussion, by “liberals” I mean the approximately 30 percent in the two most liberal categories, and by conservatives I mean the 40 percent or so in the two most con*servative categories.

So how do liberals and conservatives compare in their charity? When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer.

But this similarity fades away when we consider average dollar amounts donated. In 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more money to charity than households headed by a liberal ($1,600 to $1,227). This discrepancy is not simply an artifact of income differences; on the contrary, liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families, and conservative families gave more than liberal families within every income class, from poor to middle class to rich.

If we look at party affiliation instead of ideology, the story remains largely the same. For example, registered Republicans were seven points more likely to give at least once in 2002 than registered Democrats (90 to 83 percent).

The differences go beyond money and time. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent.

The political stereotypes break down even further when we consider age: “Anyone who is not a socialist before age thirty has no heart, but anyone who is still a socialist after thirty has no head,” goes the old saying. And so we imagine crusty right-wing grandfathers socking their money away in trust funds while their liberal grandchildren work in soup kitchens and save the whales. But young liberals—perhaps the most vocally dissatisfied political constituency in America today—are one of the least generous demographic groups out there. In 2004, self-described liberals younger than thirty belonged to one-third fewer organizations in their communities than young conservatives. In 2002, they were 12 percent less likely to give money to charities, and one-third less likely to give blood. Liberal young Americans in 2004 were also significantly less likely than the young conservatives to express a willingness to sacrifice for their loved ones: A lower percentage said they would prefer to suffer than let a loved one suffer, that they are not happy unless the loved one is happy, or that they would sacrifice their own wishes for those they love.

The compassion of American conservatives becomes even clearer when we compare the results from the 2004 U.S. presidential election to data on how states address charity. Using Internal Revenue Service data on the percentage of household income given away in each state, we can see that the red states are more charitable than the blue states. For instance, of the twenty-five states that donated a portion of household income above the national average, twenty-four gave a majority of their popular votes to George W. Bush for president; only one gave the election to John F. Kerry. Of the twenty-five states below the national giving average, seventeen went for Kerry, but just seven for Bush. In other words, the electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar.

These results are not an artifact of close elections in key states. The average percentage of household income donated to charity in each state tracked closely with the percentage of the popular vote it gave to Mr. Bush. Among the states in which 60 percent or more voted for Bush, the average portion of income donated to charity was 3.5 percent. For states giving Mr. Bush less than 40 percent of the vote, the average was 1.9 percent. The average amount given per household from the five states combined that gave Mr. Bush the highest vote percentages in 2003 was 25 percent more than that donated by the average household in the five northeastern states that gave Bush his lowest vote percentages; and the households in these liberal-leaning states earned, on average, 38 percent more than those in the five conservative states.

People living in conservative states volunteer more than people in liberal states. In 2003, the residents of the top five “Bush states” were 51 percent more likely to volunteer than those of the bottom five, and they volunteered an average of 12 percent more total hours each year. Residents of these Republican-leaning states volunteered more than twice as much for religious organizations, but also far more for secular causes. For example, they were more than twice as likely to volunteer to help the poor.

Surely Jimmy Carter would have been surprised to learn that the selfish Americans he criticized so vociferously were most likely the very people who elected him president.<hr /></blockquote>

LWW