David Michael Green on George Will, Arthur Brooks, and Conservative Compassion

[Demeter]

http://www.regressiveantidote.net/Regressive_Watch.html

George F. Will is feeling all happy on hisself! He figures he's outed those treacherous lefties once again. Hah! Seems that he stumbled upon a bit of research showing that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. His article

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

trots out a slew of statistics to show this, finally coming around to this bit of 'logic'...
"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."



What's Wrong With This Picture?

Let's leave aside some of the serious methodological questions that social scientists like to ponder, such as what counts as "charity" in the study. (For example, does giving to John McCain's pal Reverend Hagee's good work count, when the pious Rev pulls down a million bucks for his efforts running the thing – and recently fumed, "I earn every penny of that money!"?)

Then there's the matter of policy logic implied by the quoted paragraph above. Most progressives don't want some rinky-dink ad hoc patchwork system of religious charities to be the social safety net for a country of 300 million people, let alone one now sinking economically under the weight of failed regressive policies. We'd like instead something a little more substantial, more reliable, and more protected from bias based on someone's religious agenda.

Anyhow, it's a misnomer to argue that those who prefer European-style economic programs are not generous. What could be more generous than asking the government to please take more of your money, every year, without choice, in order to take care of fellow citizens in need? I know one progressive, at least, who would rather give money to candidates and activist groups working for broad and lasting national protective policies like single-payer healthcare than to donate it as immediate aid to a couple of individuals today who will once again need help tomorrow.
Maybe there are a few other people out there like me, as well.