Democrats are making an effort to peel off evangelical Christians from the Republican base by stressing their commitment to "social justice." Conservatives are not very good at talking about the poor and are often assumed to be greedy and uncaring.
To start, social justice, as promoted by the left, is based on the false premise that inequality is evidence of injustice. Inequality is portrayed as a societal problem to be remedied by government. However, I think most people would agree that people choose different paths in life and some acquire skills that are more useful to society than others. The fact that a brain surgeon, who after years of training makes more money than a fast food worker should surprise and upset no one. The chance to make more money than the fast food worker probably played a part in the surgeon's desire to complete the necessary training. People have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and equal protection under the law. People do not have a right to economic equality.
Although the poor are not, as a rule, being denied justice, that does not mean we are free of responsibility to help them. Liberals have labeled conservatives as greedy and uncaring because we oppose income redistribution, however, Arthur C. Brooks' research in his book Who Really Cares shows that label to be the furthest thing from the truth. Brooks found that in the U.S., conservatives actually give more of their money to charity than liberals.
Brooks defined "liberals" as the 30% of the population calling themselves "liberal" or "very liberal" and conservatives as the 40% of the population calling themselves "conservative" or "very conservative." He was surprised to find that in 2000, conservative households gave 30% more than liberal households, even though liberal households earned 6% more on average. 24 out of 25 of the most giving states (charitable gifts/adjusted gross income) went for Bush in the 2000 election.
Brooks saw an even bigger difference when people were asked whether "the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality." This is the crux of the argument between fiscal conservatism and liberalism. The 43% who disagreed with the statement gave 12 times as much as those who agreed strongly. The difference also carried over into volunteer hours and blood donation.
Many (certainly not all) liberals substitute political opinions for private giving while conservatives are more likely to actually give and volunteer. Favoring tax policies that "donate" other people's money is not charity and opposing them is not greed.
So conservatives do care about the poor. Why do we oppose income redistribution? It takes away economic freedom and stifles opportunity. Punitive tax policies reduce incentives to be productive. Less production means less opportunity. As Ronald Reagan once said: "I believe the best social program is a job." Private charities are much more efficient than government. Thoughtful givers can focus their gifts on efforts that help lift people out of poverty while government programs tend to keep poor people dependent and, well, poor. What's more, Brooks' research shows that these programs depress charitable giving.
I fear that President-elect Obama's policies will not help the poor. Instead his policies are likely to make them more dependent on government and reduce their opportunities to help themselves. I believe conservative policies are better for everyone, we just need to get better at explaining them.
Sorry for the book, but I had a hard time condensing my argument. I'm interested to hear everybody's thoughts.
3 comments:
No comments yet. I guess I crafted a convincing argument for once and you are all wallowing in guilt for thinking conservatives are greedy and selfish. Or does no one read this blog anymore?
Easy Jon...I wish I could see your post while I type my comment. First I think that these statistics are skewed by the fact that most people of faith consider themselves conservative and republicans. I would say this is a good indication of who gives charitably to organizations and I would guess that tithes are included in this charitable giving. I believe you said even more than being a person of faith the fact that if you answered the government is responsible for redistributing wealth was the biggest predictor of who would give more. This still doesnt disentangle people's religious beliefs because, Religious people for the most part, buy the whole conservative package. if they believe part of it that adopt all of it. This has a long history. It is a bit curious to me that conservatives are up in arms about about liberals encroaching on their moral turf. I almost sense some indignation. For Years conservatives have claimed to be the moral ideology, now they are all offended that some might imply otherwise and they are all bent out of shape. And basically that issue boils down to abortion and gay rights. I dont want to get into that now, but their are other moral issues besides those two. Another flaw to this argument is that some inequality in our country is systemic. It is all not because poor people dont want to get jobs. If you had one person that trained every day for a year and another person that was confined to a 2 x 2 cell for a year and had muscle atrophy and then you took both of those people put them on a track and told them to race who would win. The race is fair. They both have to run the same distance and they start at the same time, but one is at a huge disadvantage. Even though the process is fair the results never can be. In a way that is what has happened in this country to some extent. separate but "equal" was only 40 years ago and that is just one example of a systemic enequality. You hear stories of average guys who because their parents were wealthy got to go to private schools, got hooked up with powerful jobs and now are extremely wealthy. They are more a product of their situation than their own potential. We dont have to make it so everyone makes $55,000. Just give a little nudge to those that need a bit of help to get over a hurdle to the next step. Some wont make it but others will. the thing is even if you have children with the same IQ, two parents, same personality but one grows up in a suburb at a great school and one grows up in an inner city at a failing school they are going to come out with different results. I worked at a failing school for a while, the smartest kid in the world would have a hard time surviving let alone thriving. So on one hand the process isnt fair and even if it was some are already at a disadvantage. You look at the poor. Someone who cant afford health care or day care. In this case the parent might loose their job when they have to stay home with their kid or go into financial ruin if they get hurt or sick. So a tax break on this class is an attempt to free up some money so they can take a step up. A step, an opportunity they cant take without a little help. A step others better off can take. So even though the process may be fair. The same jobs are available to everyone or school is open to everyone not everyone can take advantage. Another thing. Most religious based organizations I know are more interested in getting out the gospel. This is a good thing, but it doesnt address other needs. That is where some of these government organizations can step in. There is room for both. Granted peoples decisions play into this. and sometimes people make bad decisions and maybe they dont deserve the aid, but too often children get punished for the parents mistakes and poverty, abuse, and crime are cyclical. This turned into a stream of consciousness. Happy Thanks giving everyone!!!
Micah thanks for your comment. I agree with much of what you said about how many people have a harder time in life than others, hopefully we can continue to discuss how to help these people because I value your opinion on this issue - you have devoted far more of your life to these issues than I have.
The point I was trying to make in my post is that conservatives are wrongly vilified by the left as uncaring and greedy. Conservatives do care and back it up with their own money.
Conservatives do claim the moral high ground on abortion and gay marriage, but don't liberals claim the moral high ground on poverty? I think Brooks' research indicates that liberals do not have a monopoly on compassion for those less fortunate.
Brooks' research indicated that being religious was the second most important variable influencing a person's giving. However, the biggest difference was not between those who were religious and those who weren't, but between those who favored wealth redistribution and those who opposed it. So, if you had two people alike in every way - background, income, education, that are equally religious, but one is fiscally liberal and the other fiscally conservative (defined by their position on income redistribution), the fiscally conservative person would give a lot more on average.
Hopefully we can differentiate between political opinions and actual charity. Supporting higher taxes for someone else is not charity and opposing them is not greed.
Post a Comment