PDA

View Full Version : Compassionate liberalism?



LWW
01-06-2008, 10:55 AM
First of, let me say that in quoting thie piece I am NOT saying that any particular individual behaves in any manner described in the article.

I also would like to say that I have met some very tight fisted rightists and generous leftists, so I do not believe that the author's conclusions are accurate at the micro level...and the author doesn't claim this either.

When viewed at the macro level however it seems to bear out what I have witnessed through my own life experiences.

To me one of the key differences between left and right philosophies, and I accept that in the end they all want a better world, is that those on the right seem to as a group give of their time and money more freely but also want to maintain control of where and how that capital is used. The left seem to, as a group, want to force others to give of their time and money more freely but give the left control of where and how that capital is used.

Something I have always wondered is why this is?
[ QUOTE ]
Philanthropy Expert: Conservatives Are More Generous
By Frank Brieaddy
Religion News Service
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."<hr /></blockquote>

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

LWW

hondo
01-06-2008, 12:30 PM
Wasn't W supposed to be a compassionate conservative?
In my experience Democrats give out of a love for their fellow man.
Republicans give as tax write-off, bribe, or, sometimes,
penance to God.

llotter
01-06-2008, 01:07 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Wasn't W supposed to be a compassionate conservative?
In my experience Democrats give out of a love for their fellow man.
Republicans give as tax write-off, bribe, or, sometimes,
penance to God. <hr /></blockquote>

The Liberals are very liberal with other peoples money. A citizen should never be dependent on the voluntary generosity of others cause they intuitively know that they just might have to be on good behavior and people should never have to behave themselves...too much like a dictatorship. After all, who can actually say what defines good behavior.

hondo
01-06-2008, 01:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Wasn't W supposed to be a compassionate conservative?
In my experience Democrats give out of a love for their fellow man.
Republicans give as tax write-off, bribe, or, sometimes,
penance to God. <hr /></blockquote>

The Liberals are very liberal with other peoples money. A citizen should never be dependent on the voluntary generosity of others cause they intuitively know that they just might have to be on good behavior and people should never have to behave themselves...too much like a dictatorship. After all, who can actually say what defines good behavior. <hr /></blockquote>

Oh, BEHAVE! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

LWW
01-06-2008, 02:48 PM
Don't hurt yourself.

That's quite a stretch.

LWW

heater451
01-06-2008, 06:51 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Wasn't W supposed to be a compassionate conservative?
In my experience Democrats give out of a love for their fellow man.
Republicans give as tax write-off, bribe, or, sometimes,
penance to God. <hr /></blockquote>
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr> The Liberals are very liberal with other peoples money. . . .<hr /></blockquote>
As my highschool Government teacher put it:

"A Democrat wants to take your money and put it in other peoples pockets, and a Republican wants to take your money and put it in his own pocket!"

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote llotter:</font><hr>A citizen should never be dependent on the voluntary generosity of others cause they intuitively know that they just might have to be on good behavior and people should never have to behave themselves...too much like a dictatorship. After all, who can actually say what defines good behavior. <hr /></blockquote>That bit is not written quite clear enough for me, so I may be misunderstanding, but the part about "people should never have to behave themselves. . .too much like a dictatorship", just doesn't make much sense to me at all.

On one hand, people do have to behave themselves for a Republic (that is, a "society based on the rule of law"). On the other hand, taking the words at face-value, I think it would be more like a fascist state, if EVERY action (making a leap of assumption there) were legislated. However, laws exist with the intention of protecting individuals (people), but due to the dual-headed dragon of 1) people exploiting loopholes, and 2) a general lack of "common sense", laws have increasingly been written to finer and finer details, which results in necessitating individual laws for an infinite amount of permutations of action.

As a "real life example", consider rules for pool--"bar rules" is too vague and fluid to be used everywhere, because they may translate to "house rules", which are allowed to be different everywhere. However, when a sanctioning body imposes a particular rule-set, it becomes necessary to define a very large set of rules, and then occasionally, modify or overturn those rules. And of course, when you have multiple sanctioning bodies, you have variances in the same basic rules.

Discrepancies are harder to deal with, when "rules" become "laws", not only because there is a contention between whose laws are better (State vs. Federal), but also that the validity of those rules are constantly in danger of being changed, not just on the basis of their sensibilty, but on the basis of the desires of a majority, or at least the current party in power (or in power of the appropriate branch(es) of gov't). This leads to another argument, about whether America (or the U.S.A., if preferred), is a democracy, a "democratic republic", or other. But, since I've already taken the tangent and run with it, I will just stop. [Is there a lawyer in the house?]


BTW, Larry, I am not intending this as an attack, or a "show you up" post. I just started with what I *thought* you wrote, and kept going.


==============================

llotter
01-07-2008, 05:39 PM
"A Democrat wants to take your money and put it in other peoples pockets, and a Republican wants to take your money and put it in his own pocket!" <font color="blue">Just what is the Republican plan your teacher was referring to??? </font color>

You are right. I am often conflicted between brevity and being too comprehensive and wordy but let me try to clarify what I meant. Conservatives believe in limited government because as bigger government takes over individual responsibility, the less freedom is left for the citizen to make his own decisions.

With minimum, constitutional government however, a commonly accepted value system is needed to provide some guidance to good behavior, what’s expected of people in our society to remain free and civil. Traditionally, that value system evolved from our Judeo-Christian heritage. Many of us believe that the concept of individual freedom itself is a consequence of that same religious heritage.

On the other side of the issue are those who fear religion and its potential to institute a theocratic dictatorship and Lord know problems are easy to document there. In addition, and probably even more important, religion is nothing more than myth and fairy tales, not anything that should be taken seriously by intelligent people let alone the basis of the greater society. They believe that people are perfectly able to control themselves, that they have a conscience and readily know right from wrong without reference to any religion. They reference to ‘the rule of law’ as sufficient itself.

I have been trying to point out how important it is to have common values if you want to avoid a police state and further, at least for argument purposes, I choose the Judeo-Christian value system as the correct one for our society because it is the one that has been so successful. So when I say that good behavior to some seems too much like a dictatorship I was referencing their concept of religious dogma, with its threat of eternal damnation, controlling behavior.

The Left does not feel threatened at all by the growth of a police state at all in spite of what appears to me to be happening all around us and I agree with you here:

<font color="blue"> On the other hand, taking the words at face-value, I think it would be more like a fascist state, if EVERY action (making a leap of assumption there) were legislated. However, laws exist with the intention of protecting individuals (people), but due to the dual-headed dragon of 1) people exploiting loopholes, and 2) a general lack of "common sense", laws have increasingly been written to finer and finer details, which results in necessitating individual laws for an infinite amount of permutations of action.</font color>

I hope this was helpful.