Hypocrites and uncharitable left

Conservatives More Liberal Givers
>
> By George Will


> 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 =
strong 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 peoples' money to =
government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, =
and conveniently, understand that word.
> georgewill@washpost.com