One of the squirrels' from George Will's back yard.
Some interesting fish wrap found in one of this week's Beacon commentary sections. This fish wrap was authored by that bowtied bruiser of brilliance, George Will. George, always the condescending little pr*ck with a wide vocabulary, decided to write a column telling us liberals how uncharitable we are. Reporting on a book he has read, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" by Arthur Brooks, the bowtied bore recites the charitable giving numbers according to conservative or liberal persuasion and then states that the numbers mean that conservatives really are compassionate….more compassionate than progressives. The reason for such a conclusion?
"The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, (Texas State Supreme Court Justice)Willett says, is religion."
and…
"America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one — secular conservatives." Link
First….I'm not doubting that the numbers in Will's column are correct. But the boring bowtied boy fails to expand upon why it is that religious conservatives give more to charitable organizations than their liberal counterparts. Judge Willett, Will reports, can predict a person's altruistic tendencies simply by finding out how religious the person is.
Unsurprisingly, I disagree…..completely.
Tax exemption is the key. All religious groups and organizations, or almost all, have gratuitously been granted tax exempt status in the good old U.S.A. Where the donation envelope hits the road of tax exempt reality is found the motivation of these compassionate conservatives in giving to charitable organizations in larger numbers than liberals.
But far from being a predictor of altruism (the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others)…..it is instead, a predictor of self-centeredness. I know about this charitable church donations stuff. When a compassionate conservative gives oh-so-charitably to his local church, he is giving to himself. Far and away the majority of charitable donations given to local tax exempt status churches go for those local churches' operational costs. Salaries, building maintenance, building funds, utilities, Sunday School materials, radio/teevee time, etc.
How giving to defray the operational costs of your local church is a predictor of "devotion to the welfare of others"…..well…..I suppose a bowtie is required to comprehend. To apply Willett's, and therefore Will's, thinking……one might come away with the impression that when church goers place their offering envelopes in the plate that they are giving from their hearts to help complete strangers in need. When what they are really doing is helping themselves by financing their own church's budget.
Sure, there are exceptions to what I'm saying. But the rule still stands.
Second….how can giving, altruistically according to Will, really be motivated by "unselfish concern" when the giver benefits by giving? Isn't the tax deduction motivation present in the minds of conservatives? Or does the altruistic minded conservative giver refuse to allow earthly motivations to enter their Spirit filled brain? Not only does the conservative giver benefit directly from his donation by keeping his church open for business…..but in addition…..the conservative giver benefits directly from the tax deduction he receives, often resulting in a tax refund. If that's altruism….I'm Michael the ArchAngel.
No….none of what Will is seeking to convey comes out clean after washing. Instead the opposite dynamic is actually closer to truth.
Conservatives give to their local churches to primarily help themselves and those who belong to their group…..and to get that tax deduction. Those are selfish reasons. Conservative donors, and I know this from experience, also donate out of fear of an angry God. Religious donors also charitably donate for reasons of pride. Many conservative tax exempt religious groups promote an ego-bloating campaign by giving special recognition, special status to the larger donors. Tithing, in many situations, is a test of faith.
None of this can pass for altruism…..or even come close.
The truth is this: Religious conservatives serve themselves and there immediate groups while simultaneously receiving tax deductions from the state and/or credits filed in heaven.
Not altruistic….but inward looking. Conservatives, at the same time, do not want the government to be charitable unless there's something in it for them…..see Faith Based Initiatives. All this should never be mistaken for being charitable, compassionate or altruistic.
Liberals, not as religious as conservatives I admit, are actually being more altruistic, more compassionate than conservatives by supporting truly charitable assistance programs by the federal government to help people they don't know or will never meet. Government programs that conservative Christians, in the majority of cases, simply detest.
My suggestion for George Will? Instead of reading so many new books, tighten up that chic-hip bowtie a bit, go out amongst the unwashed, and try to find reality. Compassionate conservatism has been on display for at least 7 1/2 years now. We know what it looks like.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
I also read how the Manchurian's pretty tight with a nickel when the collection plate comes around, Reverend.
But there's really no excuse for it.
Well Obama did start donating more money to Wright's church (even though he only heard some of his inflamatory statements) once he realized he was running for president and it would look bad if he wasnt giving much money away.
Most of Obama's donations in 2007 went to the illustrious Trinity United Church of Rev. Wright fame, so I guess by our Reverend's up-is-down standards, that wasn't charity at all, it was self-centeredness.
Reverend, I'm surprised you would trash your hero like that.
I would guess that conservatives have more money overall, than liberals, therefore: conservatives have more to donate on the one hand, which is more expediant than actually volunteering for social causes, and they donate with personal ulterior motives (not all, ofcourse), and, on the whole, conservatives feel a sense of guilt from having more, therefore, in order to get right with "god"; a sort of "get through the eye of a needle" syndrome, I would call it), they contribute to assuage their guilt feelings, and to brag to their cronies about how compassionate they are by spouting numbers.
I've witnessed this quite a bit when hanging out with conservative bosses and conservative rich people.
Generally, liberals give of their time to social causes (such as volunteering at soup kitchens or volunteering to build park trails, and so on) moreso than money because they don't have any disposable income and, those that do give money give to the appropriate political causes in order to "fix" the system that causes the problems society generates. These ways of contributing are both intrinsically valuable, regardless of the motivating factors.
Just an educated guess, though.
Blog Alert:
Please direct your attention, ladies and gentlemen, to the first three comments of this post. Then try to find anywhere in The Reverend's post any mention, or any suggestion that I was talking about Barack Obama….in any way.
Find any yet?
While I appreciate the time and effort put forth by each and every commenter…I do…at the same time, you know, at my age and with my addled brain, I try to limit my focus to one or two points at a time.
What Obama gave or didn't give in charitable donations, really has nothing to do with what I posted. That was one of the reasons I posted on the George Will column. To break the monotony of primary election postings.
End of Blog Alert.
Rev,
We know you weren't talking about Obama.
That's what makes it so funny and ironic.