Nicholas Kristof at the Times is calling attention to those Arthur Brooks figures about how conservatives give more to charity than liberals, and religious persons give more than secular:
A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals. …It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
To answer the obvious question: yes, if you exclude contributions to religious organizations, conservatives and liberals show a much more similar level of generosity. On the other hand, many of those contributions to religious organizations do wind up going to what by any reasonable definition is charity — feeding the hungry, bringing succor to disaster victims, and so forth — as opposed to, say, church administration or the distribution of religious texts.
Something we at this site should feel uneasy about? Or are the numbers not telling the whole story? Or both?
Something we at this site should feel uneasy about?
No.
We’re already giving way too much to an overfed charity-dispenser named Uncle Sam as it is.
The best “charity” you can give, IMO, is to use your disposable income to overtip good service workers. There you know your money is going to a worthy cause and probably won’t be misspent. If your waiter is busting his hump, give him or her 25% instead of the usual 15 to 20%. That’s better than wasting your money on some bureaucracy that spends a portion of its time coddling winos.
I’m curious what percentage of those donations are weekly offerings to the church, which I understand largely go toward keeping the church operating – paying the minister, keeping up the buildings etc. If someone can disabuse me of that notion, please do.
Ebenezer Scrooge, original secular conservative:
““At this festive season of the year, Mr. Scrooge,” said the gentleman, taking up a pen, “it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the Poor and destitute, who suffer greatly at the present time. Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir.”
“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.
“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.
“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”
“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”
“The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?” said Scrooge.
“Both very busy, sir.”
“Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course,” said Scrooge. “I’m very glad to hear it.”
“Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude,” returned the gentleman, “a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?”
“Nothing!” Scrooge replied.
“You wish to be anonymous?”
“I wish to be left alone,” said Scrooge. “Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned–they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there.”
Bah, humbug. That excerpt from Dickens should have been italicized. I screwed it up. Sorry.
My understanding–and, no, I don’t have a reference–is that the original study tried to correct for kinds of giving. In other words, the scales weren’t tipped the way they were because of a lot of religious people giving to religious charities. The results purport to show that nonbelievers are less charitable across the board.
If–IF–this is true, we ought to be ashamed. Making excuses is not the answer.
And Kristof doesn’t mention it, but Brooks also finds that secular conservatives give even less than secular liberals.
Other studies show that economists give less to charity than other professions. No, I think this is just a point the religious have over the secular: the structure of religion in one’s life creates incentives (be they social pressure or fear of the celestial gulag) to donate to charity, and human beings respond to incentives.
Of course, charity is defined here purely as monetary contributions. If you ask liberals to rebut the study, I imagine many would believe that their active or even passive support for “do-good” causes–even when they are as meaningless as recycling–counts as charity that salves their internal moral obligation. In Judaism, tzedekah–charity–is just a subset of the idea of good deeds–mitzvot–as part of the inherent obligation of tikkun olam, improving the world. (On the other hand, Brooks also finds that the religious volunteer more than the secular, though I haven’t seen the numbers that divide out religious volunteering from other kinds.)
Tikkun olam has a leftist tinge to it since Michael Lerner adopted it as a motto for “social justice,” but there is no reason that secular conservatives cannot adopt the concept, or that the concept should not include the idea of creating consumer surplus or other positive externalities as such good deeds. As Robert Barro has written, Bill Gates did far more good through the wealth created by Microsoft than through his charitable foundation.
Depends on the church. However, while there may be people who consider tithing to the church “charity”, most of us do not. We understand that we are paying for the building, the paved parking lot, the staff salaries (even though many people are volunteers) and the utilities. A building big enough to accomodate a library, a meeting room, kitchen, nursery, and a sanctuary that can hold 300+ people at once, as mine does, costs quite a bit to maintain. Of course, each church also supports various charities. Mine supports quite a few because we are big enough to do so. We also pay tuition for a number of students, etc. I wish I had the ’09 budget at hand so that I could give percentage breakdowns.
Ultimately, the percentages don’t much matter because support for the church is rarely considered charity. My own parish asks each Sept. (as it starts making the budget for the next fiscal year) that we consider giving the traditional 10%– tithing 5% to the Church and 5% to the charity or charities of our choice. This is not an unusual arrangement. There is no sense trying to run the numbers in such a was as to make non-religious people look as good. It can’t be done. A major, if not the major reason has already been alluded to– liberals tend to think that it is the business of government to take care of those in need and, heaven knows, it is not unreasonable to look at our taxes and think that should be the case.
Conservatives know (or should know) better. Yes, there is a place for some kinds of government intervention but there are too many people who slip through the cracks. You don’t have to look hard to find lots of people in need who are ineligible for any sort of help from the gov.
I do know some secular conservatives who are unhappy with the way monetary donations to charities are used–i.e., spiffy office accommodations for the charity’s executives, etc.–so they prefer to donate time and skills that have direct tangible results. One example: a woman I know was aware that the local food pantry was being extremely badly run, so she offered to reorganize it so it would operate more efficiently. The pantry accepted the offer, and it did become a much better run organization as a result. And if you donate a few hours a week to a soup kitchen, that benefits people in need.
The liberal-left is very good at coming up with all kinds of ideas that should be funded – with other peoples’ money. They never put their own money into their ideas.
I find it easy to believe that the study is on to something, just as I think there’s something to the claim that religion, all else being equal, makes people nicer.
It’s not so much troubling as it is unfortunate and inconvenient. As is occasionally noted around here, “ideas have consequences” kind of arguments are clearly secondary to whether or not a claim is true. It’s sad that failing to have a certain set of false beliefs is a predictor of worse behavior in this sense, and it’s inconvenient because it’s fuel for the “atheism is untrue because atheists are bad people” crowd, but it makes sense that the world would work this way, and while we can strive to be better, there’s no use crying over it.
Just found this: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Excerpt:
If I as an average churchgoer gave $10 a week to church offering, that would more than make up the difference.
Note I’m not trying to start an argument here. Just some info I noticed.
jurt9, your point is easily disproved by Barack Obama’s fundraising and the existence of George Soros. Meanwhile Focus on the Family is laying people off.
Oh my, so many thoughts on this subject… I could write an epistle on it; but will try to break it into separate comments.
First, Secular Conservatives, who to my mind are closet libertarians, are precisely the rational folks who understand the virtue of selfishness and the evil of altruism. One would hope that a Secular Conservative would not succumb to guilt, and allow their self-worth to be judged by the role models of the altruistic Robin Hoods of the Secular Left, or the altruistic Good Samaritans of the Christian Right.
Both exalt victimhood and demonize the industrious geese that lay the golden eggs, which they so enjoy redistributing as charity. All either is peddling is guilt; and I for one, am not buying it. I am not a serf or slave in a collective, and owe no one outside my household a living.
Yes, I acknowledge that I am totally selfish and immune to guilt over it. I posit that there is no such thing as an altruistic act. Those who think so, are ignoring the personal pleasure the giver takes from the giving. When I do someone a kindness, the good feeling I received exceeded the value of my charity. Otherwise, I would not have voluntarily done it. Could it be otherwise?
That said, those I regularly encounter around me, generally benefit from my selfish industry; be they employees, customers, or neighbors. One thing is sure; as a self-sufficient member of society, I am not a drain on their resources in the slightest. ◄Dave►
“First, Secular Conservatives, who to my mind are closet libertarians, are precisely the rational folks who understand the virtue of selfishness and the evil of altruism.”
I think you are conflating secular conservatives, libertarians and objectivists, with your post demonstrating objectivism.
I don’t give anything to charity.
David Henderson has a different take on that Scrooge quote:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/12/the_essence_of.html
Let me hazard a guess. You’re currently unmarried?
Selfishness is never a virtue; quite the opposite. It takes wisdom to know when (if ever) charity is the wrong response, which is not nearly the same thing. I wish I could say how many times I have seen people encounter difficulties that, if they could just get a break and get past that particular difficulty, they would be able to recover and go on independently. Once you start looking, you will be amazed at how many people there are who could and would benefit from limited intervention.
There is at least one charity out there (Modest Needs) to which one can contribute that does just that– it meets one-time needs; the mortgage that can’t be paid that month or the medical bill that breaks the budget. Its website=http://www.modestneeds.org/ and you can check it out at the Charity Navigator (http://www.charitynavigator.org/) which rates charities on a number of criteria– thus helping to ensure that your giving is “rational”.
I wonder how much charity by the rationally selfish goes unreported. Mine certainly never is.
I rather enjoy being charitable, when I personally know the recipient, or otherwise can see for myself the positive effect of my act of charity. I never have a coin left in my pocket after walking past a Salvation Army kettle, and sometimes stuff a bill or two in one as well; but that is the only organized charity I ever contribute to.
I discovered long ago the immeasurable pleasure I could purchase for myself, by the simple act of giving a hundred dollar tip for a cup of coffee at this time of year. When I can see for myself the determination of a struggling young single mom to provide for her family, giving her a hand in making their Christmas special is incredibly satisfying. The utterly sincere gratitude I receive from another diligent human, who does not claim entitlement to my earnings, nor consider my gift coerced from me or extracted out of guilt, is just priceless.
I own a preschool, with an authentic Montessori education program second to none, and struggle to keep tuition rates affordable to average families in my community. Since we could easily double them and cater to the elite, as so many other Montessori schools do, that in itself is arguably an unreported act of charity.
Moreover, we always accept a few welfare subsidized students, for the diversity it provides in our environment, even though the paperwork this entails is onerous, and it is not uncommon for a parent to lose eligibility midyear and not be able to afford the tuition without it. Frequently when this happens, we will absorb the lost income for the sake of the child, if not the too often hopelessly screwed up parent. Since space in a classroom is all that we have to sell, this too represents thousands of dollars of unreported charity from a very selfish man.
Needless to say, I do it for the gratification of knowing I am making a difference in the life of a hapless child I personally know and have grown fond of. Color me selfish and proud of it; but at least I do it voluntarily, avoid the wasted overhead of a middleman, get to choose my own cause, and see the positive effect for myself. ◄Dave►
@Ivan Karamazov
Yes. I was in a childless marriage for ten years, spent sixteen years raising the children of a second mate without marriage, and twelve years post family with a third without marriage. We all understood the virtue of selfishness, that we were kind and giving to each other for the rewards and pleasure our kindness earned, got along very well, and remain friends. Your point? ◄Dave►
Agreed; but when the subject is altruism vs. individual Liberty, these are distinctions without a difference, which most could not articulate. Generally, once they are fully understood rationally, one discovers one is an objectivist. 🙂 ◄Dave►
Giving to most social-uplift charities is as much of a faith-based act as religion itself. This May, the United Way’s president acknowledged that its millions of dollars invested in social-services programs had produced no positive impact. The United Way’s record is absolutely typical. It turns out that it is extremely hard to produce positive social change through giving money away or by trying to persuade someone to alter his behavior. The law of unintended consequences reigns supreme in philanthropy–you may be able to change what you don’t understand, but not necessarily in ways that you intend. The best thing any individual can do to alleviate poverty is start a business and create jobs.
The fact that the charitable impulse may only rarely be effective does not necessarily mean that it is not virtuous, however. If it is true that secular conservatives give the least, I don’t know if that’s because they are more aware of the difficulties of improving people’s lives through charity or if they are simply more hard-hearted. And there are certainly causes which do not risk unintended consequences–such as giving blood or emergency relief to disaster victims–to which a philanthropic realist could give with a fair amount of confidence that his money would produce more positive effects than negative ones.
I have to say I’m a little wary of Arthur Brooks’s triumphalism. THe message is always the same: Conservatives are morally superior to liberals, the religious to the secular, and Americans to Europeans. But I may just be defensive.
Does a joke have a point? I bet more than a few people found it funny, though.
But I suppose I could be wrong.
“Agreed; but when the subject is altruism vs. individual Liberty, these are distinctions without a difference, which most could not articulate.”
Ah, but that presupposes, does it not, that altruism and individual liberty are mutual exclusive? If what you have set out is a false binary, then those distinctions do become meaningful. (Of course, if what you are talking about is “compulsory altruism” [if such a thing can actually exist], then perhaps your point is well stated…)
@Heather Mac Donald
Agreed. Those who haven’t tried this, probably have no idea how many charity schemes exist, and why business people get an unjust reputation as being greedy and/or hardhearted. There are all manner of quasi-fraudulent organizations with elaborate schemes for organizing local charity events to raise money for one obscure cause or another, which consume 90% or more of what they collect in their own overhead, and they are constantly pestering small businesses to sponsor them.
Then, there are all the well-meaning, but just as irritating, locally concocted charity drives that expect every business to jump at the chance to donate something to their oh-so-worthy cause. Besides the churches and traditional benevolent societies, it seems that every social club in town feels a need to put on at least one charity event every year, to “give back to the community.” You might be amazed at the excuses people use to form such a club, for they are legion. My own Corvette club comes to mind; but egad, some will even form among owners of Mustangs! 🙂
The guys just want to play with their toys; but the wives always include a few civic minded ladies who insist that even a car show should have a charity raffle to justify the event. Then they hit up every business in town to be a sponsor or at least donate a prize for the raffle.
Most small businesses get from several to many calls every week from these people, and simply could not donate to all of them and still make payroll. Choices have to be made, and it is usually a no-win proposition. Trying to say, “no” often elicits the guilt card, implying one is selfish or not civic minded enough. Saying, “yes” is not considered virtuous, only expected. Then, those turned down out of necessity, are likely to tell their friends about the Scrooge. Talk about the world being unfair…
As a Christmas gift to the entrepreneurs hereabouts, allow me to share a surefire, yet polite, method for cutting these calls short, before the guilt card is ever played. I stop them mid-spiel with, “I’m sorry, our charity budget is already allocated for this year, perhaps you might apply earlier for consideration in next years budget.” This always works, and in hundreds of uses, I have only ever been asked once when the window for application is. The pros from out of town hang up immediately, to move on to greener pastures with their telemarketing time. The local amateurs lose the leverage of guilt, because I have acknowledged my “civic duty” to be charitable, and implied that I am even organized about it. Stymied, they usually just politely thank me for my time and hang up too. Try it; you will love the effect. ◄Dave►
@Ivan Karamazov
Sorry, I was caught in a serious mood on a subject I have some passion for. Yes it was funny, now that I know it was meant to be. FWIW, emoticons do work here. 🙂 ◄Dave►
For Heather MacDonald,
As per United Way, many school boards in Florida try to steamroll teachers into contributing, but when the president was exposed as a major criminal using funds for his personal use, including a Florida house for his nearly teen concubine, United Way looked far too crooked for contributors with half a brain.Charity by secular conservatives, who are after all a small minority, may well be constrained by their perfectly justified skepticism.
Remember that altruism is a human instinct that may well be the biological foundation of our moral instinct.Under dire conditions few are altruistic except as regards close kin.Additionally, liberal intellectuals spouting magnamimously about helping Africa or Haiti rarely spend much time in God-forsaken places.They live in often opulent surroundings while endlessly advocating Obamaesque redistribution schemes.Albert Schweitzer, Time’s Man of the Half Century, was indeed a symbol of Christian goodness in the fullest sense. People like him who walk the walk are very different from the long distance givers to charity or the pontificating liberals in golden luxery who want to save the poor and downtrodden.Goodness comes in a variety of forms and may well contain a self-serving dimension most of the time.Lavish givers who demand that buildings carry their name are such types.
Creating jobs is far superior to long distance, blind giving.Those with the greatest riches are often, however, high flyers who prefer meritocracy where their bucks are concerned. Carnegie was a good model because he correctly valued projects that would enrich the whole society.Today there are far more narcissists.
Excellent point Ted. I would be interested to see the stats on recycling for the same crowd. As unpopular a decision as it is, I’ll choose saving the planet over saving the children. It really is one or the other.
@◄Dave►: I’m a little shocked to hear you are a fan of the Salvation Army. Go to their home page. Click on about us, then on mission: “The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination.”
I would go out of my way to prevent them from getting my money.
Does anyone have any stats on the effectiveness of charity? I realize it is hard to measure, but I’m guessing a little infrastructure goes a whole lot farther than a bunch of bibles and rice.
@Steel Phoenix
Yeah, I know; but I forgive them their sins. 🙂
When I was a young man and still in the corporate world, I was coerced into agreeing to a payroll deduction for the United Way. (My boss wanted his department to have 100% participation, and I wanted to get a raise). Many years ago when they had a scandal over the salaries of top executives, I felt doubly ripped off and then watched a TV documentary comparing the overheads of major charities. I don’t remember the numbers; but the Salvation Army came out on top as far as donations actually reaching needy people. At the same time, they had a surprising disregard for the religious status of the recipients, and a commendable attitude toward not proselytizing while administering aid in a crisis.
I may be mistaken, and I understand cash is fungible; but I seem to recall that they claim not to use any of the kettle money for overhead or religious paraphernalia. I decided then and there, that dropping my change in their kettle was the least I could do, to assist some pretty decent folks who volunteer to help others in natural disasters and such, regardless of their own selfish motives for doing so. I am godless and irreligious, but not a fanatic, or in any way intimidated by the godly. ◄Dave►
To each their own. I find Dawkins to be a bit too prone to religious belief. I am a fanatic, although intimidated isn’t the word that comes to mind.
I’ve heard enough good about The Salvation Army over the years to limit my usual rant to a disgruntled mumble, but I would still feel dirty promoting a mission statement like that. I’m sure I could find a better use for my change.
All it show is that extortion can be very effective.