Horizon

I haven't read the book either, but its premise is itself an expression of conservative philosophy, so it's no surprise that the results would be favorable to conservatives.

People who have no faith in the ability of government to represent and help the community will of course campaign to lower taxes and reduce government services, and meanwhile will express their charitable impulses through private charity.

People who expect the government to act as their representative in helping their neighbors, and who find charity more demeaning than entitlement, will put their time and money into campaigning for the government to spend tax money providing public benefits and social services. They will also be more willing to pay the actual taxes required for same.

As usual, the answer you get depends on the question you ask. If you ask, "how much do you give to charities?" the results may very well favor conservatives. If you ask people whether they would pay higher taxes to provide social services, or whether they have given up higher pay to do work they find more morally satisfying, or whether, as part of their jobs, they would engage in harmful activities such as mass layoffs or union-busting, the results might very well be different.

There are many versions in all societies of the "Godfather" figure who gives generously to religious and charitable causes in private life, but has no trouble hurting people when "this is business." It's one way of resolving the eternal tension between self-interest and conscience. There are other ways too.

Via email, Ralph Luker has pointed out that the book's publication date was November 24, so apparently James Lindgren is a quick read, and neither you, nor I, nor most of the bloggers I mentioned are too terribly remiss in discussing the book without having read it.

That said, I'm curious which premise you think is inherently conservative. It's entirely possible that the book is one big tautology -- or even a Bellesiles-style mash of cooked numbers -- but what's conservative about the premise that self-identified conservatives give more blood than self-identified liberals?

Is it Brooks's definition of charity? Here's a relevant snippet from the excerpt:

Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not a voluntary sacrifice by individuals. No matter how beneficial or humane it might be, no matter how necessary it is for providing public services, it is still the obligatory redistribution of tax revenues. [snip]

To evaluate accurately the charity difference between liberals and conservatives, we must consider private, voluntary charity. How do liberals and conservatives compare in their private giving and volunteering?

To be quite honest, I suspect what's going through your, my, and every other commenter's mind is that this book is a sort of comparison of personal virtue between adherents of political ideologies. This is why you have conservative bloggers gloating over the study, and perhaps why liberal bloggers are ignoring it rather than using it as either a call to give more or a "teachable moment" to explain why their philosophy is better.

So perhaps the implicit equation of charitable giving with virtue is what you consider inherently conservative?

Separate from these issues is the question of what qualifies as charity in the author's study. Does Jane's donation to a church group that seeks to convert the heathen? How about Bill's attendence at a political protest? I've seen both debated somewhat, and confess I was gobsmacked by the protest claim. (And was not terribly comfortable with the proselytizing claim either, for what it's worth.)

Outside of Lindgren's comment thread, the best discussion I've seen has been at Mirror of Justice, a Catholic law blog with contributors from across the political spectrum. (Currently they're joking about the 'virtue' point I mentioned above by arguing about whether conservatives or liberals are better drivers.) One post addressed the 'what is charity' question within the context of social justice. Not knowing much about social justice theory, I'm curious what you think of it.

They will also be more willing to pay the actual taxes required for same.

There are two ways to read this statement: either you're saying welfare-statists support higher taxation (in which case I don't have an issue), or you've got some special insight into the mindset of taxpayers as they obey the law.

I presume your Godfather reference is an extreme example to (more or less successfully) illustrate your point, rather than an attempt to smear 40% of the American public.

Hope your turkey was as good as mine.

Well, calling a book "Who Really Cares?" does imply that the intention is to rate people on personal virtue.

The logical disconnect here is in the conservative assumption that charity is the only way to express "caring," and possibly also in the conservative assumption that societies cannot cause their governments to represent them in providing useful social services.

There is an alternate philosophy to the effect that charity is demeaning, whereas the members of a society express mutual respect by granting each other material as well as political rights.

Charity, seen in a certain light, is a way of reinforcing hierarchy. Think about the coercive side of the old Northwestern potlatch tradition: a local big man would hold a festival to give away valuable things or destroy them publicly, and his purposes may have included kindness but that was not the primarily motive. The purpose of the potlatch was to display wealth and to assert dominance over others by putting them in the giver's debt. All charity, however kindly meant, has an element of the potlatch in it -- a tendency to degrade and control the recipient. It's why some old texts of Judaism require that charity must be given anonymously so the giver does not either embarrass the recipient or receive personal glory for giving the gift.

In case it adds to the discussion, I've met a lot of people in a position to ask for material help, and there's always something a person is too proud to do. The "something" varies. Some people will exploit personal relationships or accept condescension from relatives or friends rather than subject themselves to the formal nastiness of applying for welfare. Others will spend long hours asserting their rights under the formal, arm's-length procedures of a welfare office rather than endure the personalized condescension of their families.

In other words, there are cases to be made for and against both private charity and public benefits entitlement. If people choose one or the other that's not necessarily a reflection of whether they "care."

Well, calling a book "Who Really Cares?" does imply that the intention is to rate people on personal virtue.

Ooooh -- don't even get me started on the marketing of this book. I've been reading Brooks's earlier papers and think I've got its history figured out -- at least as well as I can without reading the thing.

From 2000-2004, Brooks does some research on the correlation between philanthropy and religious practice. He's coming at this from an art world perspective, which regards giving as a very good thing indeed (more on views of charity in a later comment), so the research is driven by the desire to understand why donors give (thereby increasing donations). He finds that religious practice (measured by quantity, not quality [i.e. frequency of attendance rather than denomintation]) correlates not only with religious giving, but with secular giving and volunteerism as well.

This is a mighty interesting finding. We all expect church folk to give more to their churches than non-attenders do to the organizations they don't attend, but a connection between church attendence and volunteering at the public library is pretty surprising. You might expect that devoting time and money to a religious organization would lower such participation in other organizations, simply because they compete for the same person's checkbook. Apparently not.

Brooks then controls for religious practice and looks for other factors. He finds the intensity of political opinion also correlates with giving, though again the intensity is what's important -- passionate religious liberals give as much as passionate religious conservatives, but both give more than their moderate religious counterparts. He also finds some mild correlations between people's answers to specific questions and their contribution levels.

Enter the book deal. From the Chronicle of Philanthropy article:

The first draft of the book focused mostly on religion. Lara Heimert, Mr. Brooks's editor at Basic Books, told him there was "an elephant in the room" — his failure to grapple with the connections between politics and giving.

But what are those connections? That people who are more political give more? Ho, hum. That redistributionists give marginally less? Sounds too complicated. How can we cash in on the culture war with this milquetoast stuff about religous observance? I know! Let's stop controlling for relgious observance. Since conservatives are more religous than liberals, we can make them look more charitable!

So Brooks rewrites his analysis as a polemic about hypocritical liberals, and a last-minute title change hauls in a few more hot-button words. Time to hit the talk show circuit!

Honestly, I have no idea if this is how Who Really Cares came to be. I do have some evidence that "compassionate conservatism" was crammed into the title at the last minute -- bizarrely, since the term refers to government expenditures -- but I haven't read the book yet. Near as I can tell, the original findings are legit, but the marketing really isn't, and I suspect that Brooks is probably complicit in that.

"In other words, there are cases to be made for and against both private charity and public benefits entitlement. If people choose one or the other[snip]"

And how, pray tell, does one choose against public benefits entitlement? Those folks doling out the cash to charities are paying just as much in taxes as those who give nothing.

Charity, seen in a certain light, is a way of reinforcing hierarchy....It's why some old texts of Judaism require that charity must be given anonymously so the giver does not either embarrass the recipient or receive personal glory for giving the gift.

There are cultural aspects to this as well. You see it in Catholic churches here in central Texas, where a heirarchical culture of patronage and public giving comes into conflict with a individualistic culture of anonymous donation. Do you publish how much people gave to a campaign? You'll alienate half your donors either way you answer that question.

And of course, anonymous donation isn't entirely confined to old Jewish texts.

I've met a lot of people in a position to ask for material help, and there's always something a person is too proud to do.

I've run into that too -- last week, in fact. Your broader point about the necessity of both is a good one.

And how, pray tell, does one choose against public benefits entitlement? Those folks doling out the cash to charities are paying just as much in taxes as those who give nothing

How? One votes against it.