Ralph Luker sends a link to the Chronicle of Philanthropy discussion that will take place today at noon, EST. The linked article, "Charity's Political Divide", is very much worth reading, as it quotes some critics whose names (Jim Wallis, Ralph Nader) will be familiar to most.
The book itself appears to be a souped-up version of Brooks' 2004 paper, "Faith, Secularism, and Charity", which found that both frequency of religious practice and intensity of political belief were predictors of charitable giving. If that's all he's found, the differences his book describes are probably just a side effect of the "God gap."
For the past few days, the right half of the blogosphere has been buzzing about Arthur Brooks' new book: Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. Actually, that's not quite true: what they've been talking about is this sensational beliefnet article covering the book. According to the article,
The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
Looking for discussion, I did a technorati search and waded through the ungainly results. I found broad but shallow commentary about Who Really Cares from conservatives who find that the nasty suspicions they've always had about their political opponents are actually true. Most note the article with a couple of snarky remarks, and no further discussion. I'd guess they're mostly surprised. Here's my roundup of the substantive reaction, skipping over references to Bono.
As usual, people who haven't read the book provide the bulk of the commentary:
Moving on to those who actually have read the book, we find Jim Lindgren at The Volokh Conspiracy and ... nobody. Not a single poster found by my technorati search had even read the excerpt posted on the author's website. This — as well as his critical involvement in the Bellesiles and Lott affairs —makes Lindgren's commentary unique.
In addition to reading Brooks, Jim Lindgren had also conducted research on his own in the area. He's posted a 44-page PDF of his unpublished study, "Testing Social Dominance: Is Support for Capitalism and Opposition to Income Redistribution Driven by Racism and Intolerance?" and compares Brooks' results with his own. Despite an unfortunate tendency to confuse Brooks' study with Lindgren's, the comment thread manages to cover most of the issues, since the Volokh site draws commenters from a broad ideological spectrum. Especially worth reading are those questioning motivations to charity, comparing donors' finances, discussing what qualifies as charity, relating gender differences in philanthropy, and general criticism (as summarized by Lindgren).
James Lindgren has also spotted a major flaw in the book. While the data shows that conservatives give far more than liberals, both groups give more than moderates. This doesn't make it into Brooks' analysis. Given the tone of the discussion so far, I'd be surprised to see it revealed once the author hits the talk-show circuit.
In addition to the depressing fact that of all the online commentators, Lindgren's the only one who's read the book, it's also worth noting that my search didn't find a single left-of-center blogger discussing Who Really Cares. I'm afraid that this will be yet another of those many topics that never makes it from one echo chamber to the other.
From Colville's diary entry for May 3, 1945:
My démarche about St James's Park is bearing great fruit. Iron railings are appearing to preserve the grass and the unsightly paths trodden by the side of the lake are being dug up and resown. The Ministry of Works, in obedience to a minute which I submitted to the P. M., have taken rapid action.
Local radio is reporting that disappointed Republican Rick Green swung a punch at Hays County incumbent Patrick Rose at a polling place today. The 2002 race between then-incumbent Green and Rose was the subject of Last Man Standing, a documentary I caught at the 2003 SXSW film festival which is well worth renting.
Charles Kuffner has a summary of coverage over at Off the Kuff, which is where I get most of my state-level political news. Kuffner does not mention that Rose fought back, which a friend with the Hays County Democrats tells me.
How's that for a polling-place irregularity?
I meant to post this on Labor Day, but life intervened.
Sara sent me this article from The New Atlantis: Shop Class as Soulcraft. Although written in journalese, there's a lot of meat in there on the different ways that craftsmen and consumers see the world as well as on the social networks at the heart of crafstmanship.
The point that really struck home with me, however, was Crawford's emphasis on the cognitive demands of craft. Although my acquaintance with wood- or metalworking is only the presumptive over-familiarity of a hobbyist, I have been amazed by how linear the learning curve is. Every time I begin a new step on my rifle project, I have to learn a new skill, a new tool, or even build a tool to suit.
At any rate, read the essay.