One Back

We don’t normally question the motives or charitable giving of others.  The fact that people willingly give of their wealth, their time and other resources is something we are proud of, and thankful for.  But if you ever wondered about how people give, or who gives more of their money in the U.S., that’s a question that’s been answered, at least recently.   There’s an interesting OP-ED article this week in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristof titled Bleeding Heart Tightwads.

That may give you some indication of the storyline.  Based on the research, it looks like conservatives give a lot more of their personal wealth to charitable causes than do liberals.  It bothers me to stereotype people, but that’s basically what the article, and the research has stated.

“Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.”

“Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares“, cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals”

 The data is surprising, especially given the research when the results didn’t come back as expected. 

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

So assuming the research is accurate, then what is really going on?  Why do liberals give less of their personal wealth than conservatives?  And what does it really tell us?  Mr. Brooks indicates that religion plays a large role in charitable giving, and that religious liberals and conservatives give about the same.  But it’s interesting that conservatives came out ahead on other charitable giving approaches- themselves.

“Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.”

We all have our own opinions of these matters, but personally I believe the values that conservatives and the red states have, especially regarding religious convictions, leave them much more inclined to give of their wealth and time.  It’s something that is instilled within families as children are raised, and it speaks toward a sense of community.   And when your peers (and congregations) are giving, maybe it leaves one more inclined to do the same.

One thing does bother me though- the seeming indifference to the degree of charitable giving that Americans provide internationally.  In the history of the world and all mankind, there has never been a nation that has given so much to others as does the U.S. in foreign aid, food, programs and the help of our people.  Mr. Brooks’ research found the same thing.

“Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.”

“Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.”

This OP-Ed article has generated a lot of interest by readers of course, and Mr. Kristof’s blog, On the Ground, has generated hundreds of “Comments on Stinginess“ by supposed conservatives and liberals espousing their beliefs and opinions.

I am not in agreement with those who believe fostering government policies that increase spending to help the needy is “being charitable.”  For one thing, that’s spending other people’s money, namely taxpayers, and does not reflect a degree of individual charity.  But what about giving to the arts or sciences, or other worthy causes such as the environment?  Well, I agree that may qualify as charitable giving, but does it really help people in need?  I don’t think so… and for me, that’s where charitable giving really makes a difference- in the lives and welfare of our fellow human beings.

All in all, it would be far better not to worry about “who gives more” and to work harder instead on ways to help those really in need.  Liberal or conservative, it really doesn’t matter.  Especially during the holiday season, and the challenging times we face.  Donating more of our money, time or personal attention to helping others is something that can really make a difference.

Filed under: Donations, People and Stories, Uncategorized