Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth
What follows is a discussion about the issue of whether Conservatives or Liberals; Republicans or Democrats give more charity.
Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism
However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:
In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.
However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.
So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.
You can read more support for this at conservatives give to religious organizations; liberals to secular charitable organizations and are conservatives more charitable or simply more religious.
You also might be interested in We're Stealing the Tithe Again; What Should a Christian Church Be Like? and The "We Don't Want Your Money" Church.
*******************************
What follows is further discussion on this issue, between Kris and Mojo, beginning with the conservative argument (feel free to join in by posting your comment below):
Kris: Is it really charity when you give money to the church you attend to fund buildings, salaries and programs that you benefit from? We all know that the vast majority of money we give our churches goes to these things that church members directly benefit from. Very, very little goes to actually give food, shelter, clothing or medical care to poor people.
Republican generosity, their personal generosity that is, has been documented many times over the years to exceed that of Democrats and liberals in general.
Now I am not a republican - I am a libertarian ... as I believe Jesus would have been today. A libertarian is fiscally conservative and socially tolerant and welcoming of diverse cultures and lifestyles. A libertarian simply expects individuals to be accountable for their own actions.
The primary beef we libertarians have is not that a social gospel be promoted but that that implies the government should compel us to be generous and that the government shall administer that generosity.
Jesus despised institutions. He condemned them for the godless, soul-sucking entities that they are. His message was for us individually to act on God's Will for the meek, the poor, and those in need... as he did.
What Other Visitors Have Said:
Proper Role of Government - by Mojo
Hi, thanks for your comments. Your views are quite common (unfortunately in my estimation) in Christian circles.
First, the point about conservatives being more personally generous than liberals is interesting but I'm not sure it matters much in the end. However, I have read the studies you refer to and others that counter them. The central issue comes down to what you count as charity. If you include tithing to a church as charity, then yes, conservatives and Republicans are more charitable simply because as a rule they attend church more and are more committed to religious institutions.
Whether those contributions, the vast majority of which go to pay for buildings and salaries should count as "charity" is debatable. Certainly, very little of that money goes to help the poor and/or needy.
Which brings me to the real issue of this website: politics. It is easy for your personal generosity to be more than offset by your politics if you oppose the big things that would make the earth more consistent with Jesus/Christian/Kingdom values.
One cannot ignore politics or endorse selfish politics and justify it by saying one gives personally. It doesn't make up for the selfish politics.
In the end, this is a discussion about the role of government, which is discussed thoroughly at the gospel and the role of government so I won't repeat it all here.
I'd love if you'd read that article and share your thoughts there.
Again, thanks for reading and commenting.
Now I really Disagree... - by Kris
You make a particularly revealing comment in the linked article in your reply above that reflects the fundamental difference between us... "
I use the terms "community" and "government" nearly interchangeably".
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, government dominion is the death of real communities in this country. Government is the reason we've all become calloused toward helping those in need. Government has convinced us that our personal contributions are little more than nice, cute efforts but we need the might of bureaucracy to shepherd the growing needs of the meek. Government charity is essentially a bureaucratic jobs bill to secure votes.
As for forms of giving, I was not talking about tithing. You probably know Cincinnati (at least the surrounding area) is somewhat conservative. And yet this conservative community funds some of the most effective charitable foundations in the country. These foundations are the primary reason most of the private, charitable social services organizations in this town even survive. And they are good organizations serving good people in need, many of whom find their way back to productive lives in society - unlike ANY government program I am aware of.
Like all politics, real charity is local.
I admire your heart, Mojo. But your approach has a long precedent of growing and lasting dependency.
Good Conversation - by Mojo
Thanks for continuing on Kris. So, a couple things. First, if you take out tithing, then you will find that liberals contribute more, far more, to charity than conservatives. The vast bulk of conservative giving to "charity" is in the form of tithing.
Second, how do you define "government"? To you -- what is the government?
We'll Agree to Disagree on the First Point... - by Anonymous
...but your question about the difference between government and community is probably at the root of most conservative vs liberal debates, isn't it (or maybe I would phrase it as conservative/liberal vs libertarian debates)?
I live in a community of communities. We all live, work, socialize, and volunteer in neighborhoods and towns that thrive or die depending on the level of engagement, respect, participation, support, and common purpose those in the community share.
Community is where life, liberty, and salvation happens.
Governments (of the people, for the people, and by the people?) are supposed to exist to serve that end but inevitably concentrate power for the sake of perpetuating the position of those in power. The means to doing that justifies the end which is why most government programs and legislation is more about solidifying support and loyalty than it is about solving anything.
Government programs and spending are a front for building power bases. In doing so, Government, as often as not, undermines real community.
"Lord of the Flies", "1984", "the Book of Revelations"... take your pick - Government is Babylon. It perpetuates oppression.
I'm not really the depressing, paranoid cynic that may make me sound like but look at history and the current reality. The future is very predictable.
I Don't Get It - by Mojo
OK, so you think government always degenerates into some terrible thing.
So, I assume you oppose social security, medicaid, medicare, roads, schools, libraries, fire stations, police forces, the military, clean air and water laws and regulations, child labor laws and regulations, anti-slavery laws, the minimum wage, mass transit and I could go on and on.
You can't have it any which way you want. If government is so bad I would think you would want to move to Somalia. There you will find the conservative utopia perhaps you seek. There is no government at all. Everyone is free and has the liberty to pursue development of communities without the pernicious influence of the evil "government."
When you land in Mogadishu I would suggest you quickly hook up with a benevolent warlord to provide you the community services you will need to survive more than 6 hours.
Seriously, you really can't have it any which way you want. You can fight to change the government if you think it should be changed, but our government is a government of the people. That's in the constitution. So, we are the government. We have only ourselves to blame if we don't like what we have created.
Perhaps we have allowed wealthy interests to dominate our political system. Of course we have. So, do support election finance laws to limit corporate and wealthy contributions?
You simply cannot just say government is bad and leave it there. If that's your position, again, Somalia is the place you will find your "government is bad" ideas have been fully implemented.
Kris - by Anonymous
And so it is with you libs - its one absurd extreme or the other.
Government is supposed to a couple things - protect the borders, provide appropriate infrastructure, and respond to disasters.
Police, Fire, and many of the other functions of government you mentioned do awesome work because they have awesome people. Unfortunately the unions that represent these people have abused the rest of us by saddling unsustainable benefits on us for those awsome service providers.
Its all about crossing the line from good governance that works for everyone's benefit into pandering for one group at the expense of another.
And that is what government ends up doing ... every time.
Let's Talk About It - by Mojo
OK, so you are good with all the stuff government does, you want the benefits of government, all of them apparently, but you don't want to pay for them.
Our "awesome" public service workers are not overpaid. They are paid a decent working wage, with decent benefits, to raise a family with. No more, no less.
But, if you think they are over-compensated, well then you should work to change that. AGain, the big bad government is you. If you want to see the "government" -- look in the darn mirror.
It's you, it's me, it's your neighbor. So, work to make it better if you don't like something about it.
By far the runaway cause of high cost of benefits is high health care costs. They are outrageous, mostly benefitting wealthy profiteers. Of course to fix the problem would require moving to a single-payer system -- as every other developed country in the world has. THey all do health care better and much cheaper than we do. What is different? They ALL have "socialized" medicine.
Despite the evidence, I bet you oppose moving in that direction and instead want to blame others ("unions" for instance) for the runaway health care costs in our health care system which is bankrupting our state, county, federal government as well as individuals and businesses. Again, we rely more on the private sector for our health care than any other country in the world. And, you know what -- our system is the most inefficient and wasteful in the world.
Learn more (and send your conservative friends) here.
I'm happy to discuss anything, anytime.
Custom Search
