Note: I’ve recently been asked to provide a weekly article to the Concord Standard. So, for Standard readers: This is not deja vu. Welcome to the Cheap Seats.
Recently, an on-line campaign called the “Matthew 25 Network” came to my attention. The purpose of the organization is to promote the candidacy of Barak Obama on the basis that he stands for the admonition that Jesus gave in the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25 that whatever each one of us did to the “least of these” we did to Him. With glossy on-line graphics we’re told that Barak Obama stands for the principles of charity and compassion in the Parable. The implicit message is that John McCain doesn’t.
This campaign illustrates a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals: the belief in the personal responsibility of individual citizens for each other as opposed to collectivism. I’ll avoid an extended theological discussion followed by a sanctimonious diatribe and just reference an observation on human nature succinctly illustrated by humorist P.J. O’Rourke: “Everyone wants to save the world, but nobody wants to help mom with the dishes”
Community service and charity is often mundane and thankless. Many recruiting posters for charity efforts show a volunteer having a touching moment with a recipient - often missing from the picture is the behind-the-scenes grunt work and check writing that made that moment possible. It’s the occasional rewarding moment or the idea that we’re storing up treasures in the Hereafter that help reinforce the habit for many. However, for years, political campaigns have been offering a counterfeit: charity at the ballot box. The “Vote for me and I’ll be your charity” line is sung often.
While there are plenty of issues that we should leave to the government like national defense, roads, and safety regulations – we cannot outsource our humanity. Each of the major faiths includes some personal requirement for service and charity – something that secular liberalism would do away with. By some measures, Progressives have been making progress on that front. In a recent study done by Arthur C. Brooks, director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, found that – regardless of income – conservatives gave more than liberals. The basic finding was that conservatives were more generous with their money, volunteer time, and even blood donations than liberals in every income category. In other words, the more someone preaches to you about the poor, the less likely he is to be doing something about it himself.
This is not a statistical anomaly, but a by-product of the liberal philosophy. Ralph Nader in a 2000 speech to the NAACP: “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.” What’s “social injustice”? Social injustice is when you have something that someone else doesn’t. In other words: Liberals don’t want to give, but they’d love to make you do it for them.
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe via E-mail
36 responses so far ↓
1 Brad Spry // Jul 3, 2008 at 10:50 am
Saying liberals don’t want to give is just silly and divisive.
Some of us know exactly what Matthew 6:1-4 means.
It’s time to put your Dymo label maker away.
2 Justin Thibault // Jul 3, 2008 at 11:37 am
Brad - Don’t blame me. I didn’t crunch the data; but I get a kick how you still hang onto the moral superiority of collectivists.
3 Brad Spry // Jul 3, 2008 at 12:40 pm
What are you talking about? Moral superiority of collectivists? Maybe you shouldn’t be swimming without a lifeguard.
4 Justin Thibault // Jul 3, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Brad - OK…I’ll use a longer explanation with smaller words - though I prefer the reverse.
There are 4 basic ways You can spend money:
Option 1: You Spend Your Money on Yourself - This is the most common method of commerce and studied at length in Undergraduate Economics Courses that usually begin with a “1″. People spend money based on the availability of what they have against their own needs and wants.
Option 2: You Spend Your Money on Others - In this case, the giver sets the level of spending based on a perception of need which is often more thrifty than that of the recipient.
Option 3: You Spend Other People’s Money On Yourself - At this point, you still spend based on your own wants and needs - without regard to availability. This leads to more lavish spending, for example: See Governor Easley’s Cheeseburger Budget
Option 4: You Spend Other People’s Money on Other People - This is where most government programs live. The logic that springs from this gives us both Bridges to Nowhere and Generations of Wards of the State on Welfare.
Most conservatives want to limit Option 4 and encourage Option 2; because of a mistrust of people who make their living off of Option 3 (bureaucrats, paid “community organizers”, etc.). Most liberals identify with people in Option 3 and justify their existence by perpetuating and growing programs that are funded by Option 4. Liberals achieve this by convincing people that it’s unfair that some (the “Rich”) get to practice Option 1 more than others (the “People”) and only if we would practice Option 4 more than we would need Option 2 at all (see the Nader quote).
As an added bonus, those who existence depends on Option 3 often use the rhetoric that it’s the “Rich” practicing Option 1 that make it less possible for the rest of us to practice Option 1 as much as we’d like (see Barak “We can’t eat all we want, drive our SUVs, and set our thermostats at 70″ Obama) and plan on rectifying the situation by bring even MORE people into a life dependent on Option 3.
But the money has to come from somewhere: so those who create the businesses that provide the jobs for the rest of us and pay most of the taxes are not encouraged to give more to those in need; but instead are FORCED to fork over more to programs practicing Option 4 that are run by a small army of people who make a living off of Option 3. While only a fraction of the money makes it to those most in need - who often could have gotten from a generous people practicing Option 2.
With reality threatening them with having to get a real job, liberals then misquote Matthew 25 to guilt people into voting for someone who will greatly expand Option 4-type programs without practicing Option 2 as much as others. When confronted with this, liberals merely resort to more sanctimony (see your quoting Matthew 6)
Now, that I’ve made that as painfully clear as possible - I can extract two examples from my own life. Couple #1 is older with grown kids and are spending their retirement (and savings) shuttling back and forth from Tanzania providing for schools, malaria-reduction, and clean-water equipment. Couple #2 is our age with no kids and two incomes that fund a mortgage on a house 2 1/2 times the size of mine and car payments on late-model German luxury cars that exceed what I pay for mortgage and utilities.
Here’s the “shocker”: Couple #1 is conservative. Couple #2 is liberal.
Now, Brad, does it surprise you that Couple #1 can get a check out of me pretty easily given their work and I grind my teeth while I listen to Couple #2 tell me how heartless conservatives are for not doing more to assuage their yuppie guilt?
Or am I just being “silly and decisive”?
5 Aaron // Jul 3, 2008 at 10:14 pm
The force is strong with you Justin…
6 Brad Spry // Jul 4, 2008 at 10:32 am
You are being divisive and offensive. Worst of all you’re being judgmental.
If couple #2 is your definition of liberal, then I don’t fit your definition by a long shot. At the same time I’m not going to get on here and broadcast what I give. I genuinely believe in Matthew 6.
You are very offensive at times, hiding behind the one way transmit that is this blog, because you’d never dare question my beliefs to my face in conversation. If you were looking me in the eye, you would have no doubt as to what I believe.
I think you have a very primitive way of thinking, because in your world it’s an “either or” thing. In reality, a person can be conservative on one topic and liberal on another, and that’s perfectly okay and normal.
It’s as if you apply the “one drop” rule to politics; one drop of liberal equals liberal in your mind.
At least we live in a country where we can openly have discussion. Happy July 4th!
7 Aaron // Jul 4, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Brad-
I’d say that Justin’s philosophies don’t fall neatly into any one category. He’s not a staunch, straight ticket conservative by any means.
That being said, I’d say it’s your knee jerk reaction to the post that presented him with a wide open gut shot, with which he connected solidly. The sad truth is that his example is a prime one that plays out daily in political discussions.
Have you been down South Union Street lately? Have you seen all the Obama ‘08 signs in the yards of the 400k houses with said German luxury cars parked in the driveway of said 400k houses? Does it surprise you somehow that its folks of this caliber that have stood in the way of a new jail for almost 4 years now? It’s elitism with a side order of white guilt. “I’m too good to consort with the likes of you but my heart bleeds for those like you…”
It’s the reason they’ll all vote for the fellow who’ll promise to do something via the fourth party contributions while the regular folks will donate 1/20th their annual salary to charities that help said “concerns.”
8 Justin Thibault // Jul 5, 2008 at 2:20 am
Brad -
Brad, take a long, hard look at the article and previous thread. You were the only one to make this personal. I’m not judging you. As matter of fact, I’m challenging the liberal sanctimony by pointing out that conservatives don’t care less than liberals - even though the common liberal line is that those of us right-of-center are unsympathetic to their needs when the data suggests otherwise.
The point wasn’t to “define liberals” it was to contrast a lengthy comment that had a lot of statics and theory with salient real-world examples of what I’m talking about.
And nobody asked you to. I didn’t broadcast what I give - I pointed out a study that concluded conservatives give more than liberals.
Wow.
I write an article about how liberals drop Matthew 25 and implicate the “other side” as not believing it, and you do with with a whole other chapter.
Again, where did I point out what I give?
Let’s start at the end. I don’t believe that I can look into someone’s soul through their eyes - I’ll leave that to the President.
As for standing up to people in “real life”…well, I’ll just point you to this example.
As for this blog being a one-way method of communication: isn’t your comment proof that dialog is cultivated here? If you go to the authors list - there are more than 15 other individuals there.
Finally, for your being offended: normally, I’d apologize; but this in this case I would suggest growing some thicker skin. I haven’t attacked you nor has anyone else here. I work hard and go out of my way to have a lively and open discussion on this blog from all points of view.
Oh, sorry, I was just pulling the spear out of the Sabertoothed Tiger at the entrance to my cave. I’m waiting for my wife to come to, because I clubbed her again for grunting at me the wrong way. She gets testy when I use the boys as bait for dinner.
I’ll grant you the point that I used “liberal” and “conservative” rather loosely in the article because of length constraints and in my lengthy reply to you in an effort to be simple and clear.
Everyone’s political beliefs exist on many different planes with varying vectors. That’s why in my past “Who I Am” articles - I identified myself as a Republican who has a liking to a Libertarian writer (well, socially liberal); but I’m someone that wrote an article that took a position to the “Left” of everyone running for Governor.
Brad, I never tried to paint you into a corner. I don’t think you can find a comment where I said - “Brad, you’re an x” or “Brad, I know that you believe y”
I’m not trying - in this article - to claim one “side” is superior to the other. I’m pointing out that if you bifurcate the electorate into conservative and liberal than you’ll find that conservatives practice personal charity more than liberals. Brooks’ study is much more nuanced and telling than the previous sentence.
The point is that if you give different people the same facts - they’ll come to differing conclusions based on their own convictions, past experiences, and current perspective. This leads to approaching problems differently - like poverty in this case.
9 Brad Spry // Jul 5, 2008 at 6:43 am
Perception is everything. You’re not self aware, and until you are, I’m just wasting my breath.
10 Justin Thibault // Jul 5, 2008 at 9:10 am
Brad - LOL
“Not self aware” - would you prefer to get in a political discussion with HAL 9000?
Admittedly, I find it a bit disappointing that you took an article that wasn’t about you in particular and conflated into something you could be offended about and then called me offensive for making very general observations; but I guess that everyone is not capable of considering the point-of-view of people that they disagree with.
11 Brad Spry // Jul 5, 2008 at 11:20 am
It’s you who isn’t capable of considering how a liberal could live by Matthew 6:1-4, which in itself is a direct response to this pathetic article. God is the judge in Matthew 25, not people. Matthew 6 however is something you can control. Get busy.
12 Justin Thibault // Jul 5, 2008 at 11:26 am
Brad - OK, let me be clear here, you’re saying that liberals’ actual charitable contributions were discounted in Brooks’ study because they would refuse to participate because of Jesus’ admonition to not make a spectacle out of giving?
13 Brad Spry // Jul 5, 2008 at 12:13 pm
I can only speak for myself.
14 Justin Thibault // Jul 5, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Brad -
With that thought, let me help you out: the article and the study weren’t about you in particular. I really hope that doesn’t screw with your view of the Universe.
Now, are you trying to assert that liberals wouldn’t participate in the study because of their scruples and/or a devotion to Jesus’ command to give discreetly? Let me take care of that: the study would then have been impossible.
Statistics works through sampling and controls, so even if fewer people of one ilk or another participated - the math would have gotten to the real story. Given that Brooks had results at all tells me that both liberals and conservatives participated, because he didn’t point out any individual contributor; but allowed those who participate to have anonymity through aggregation.
The point behind the article is that liberals have consistently used guilt to admonish a public to spend more on social programs with a dubious record. The “Matthew 25 network” in particular is now using the Sermon on the Mount to confound true charity with a vote for Obama when liberals, as a group, are generally less generous with their own personal resources than conservatives.
Given that you’ve taking “wasting your breath” on a “primitive” have I managed to be less offensive?
15 Brad Spry // Jul 5, 2008 at 1:45 pm
I didn’t take the study personally; if you believe that, you’re truly off in the deep end. You failed to provide a citation to the actual study, so I can’t tell if it’s peer reviewed or not, but it really doesn’t matter.
The big picture is you’re coming to terms with an Obama presidency, and it’s quite entertaining to watch you flounder.
16 Justin Thibault // Jul 5, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Brad -
Brooks’ work is here:
Synopsis: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
Book: http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/B000WCTRPA
17 Brad Spry // Jul 6, 2008 at 12:11 am
With a little bit of research, look what one can find:
“Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found.”
Article: The Chronicle, 11/23/2006: Charity’s Political Divide
18 Justin Thibault // Jul 6, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Brad - Yes, I saw that article in my research for the “pathetic” article whose facts you’ve not been able to refute beyond calling me a “meanie”
What I find interesting is the one that concluded that religious liberals almost gave as much as conservatives. Kinda weak…don’t ya think?
Let me show you how it’s done.
George Will on the Brooks study: “People who reject the idea that ‘government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality’ give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. ” (more here)
Of course, this isn’t about one group that gave marginally more than another - it’s about a major push to convince the public that people like me are greedy and cruel because we don’t want to throw other people’s money at every social ill. What’s interesting is that in the article that you linked to that Brooks started by believing what most people believe: that liberals would be more generous than conservatives; but the data proved otherwise…with a vengeance.
This brings us back to our original point…using the Sermon on the Mount to score votes for Obama. Since we’re linking - what was the coming-out party for the “Matthew 25 Network” - a swanky $1,000/person get-together.
What a way to follow Jesus’ example…then again, if He had His choice: would He have really chosen bread and fish over brie and caviar?
19 Brad Spry // Jul 6, 2008 at 4:45 pm
No, it’s not weak that religious liberals almost gave as much as conservatives. You intentionally left this fact out, because undermines your entire argument. You eliminated the facts until you had something to say, and that’s a fact.
Mr. Brooks found the disparity in giving between liberals and conservatives when comparing religious and secular.
In addition, Mr. Brooks says “secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.” Read it and weep.
Mr. Brooks goes on to say:
“If you look at the liberal environmental and antipoverty groups, you don’t see counterparts on the right wing”
With these facts, I could say conservatives don’t take care of the environment or the poor, but I won’t.
I’ll settle for proving with your same data set that secular liberals do care. Add in the environment and helping the poor, and I’m confident liberals care more than conservatives.
Thanks Mr. Brooks!
20 Justin Thibault // Jul 6, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Brad -
That wasn’t Brooks - that was Ralph Nader.
From the numbers - that makes sense…we don’t need as much prodding.
The thesis from my article still holds - liberals don’t care more than conservatives unless it involves OTHER people’s money.
21 Brad Spry // Jul 7, 2008 at 12:15 am
Conservatives care alright, the cost of the war in Iraq is up to $534,547,198,855.
22 Justin Thibault // Jul 7, 2008 at 8:27 am
Brad - Iraq: Providing liberals with a go-to point when they are flat wrong about something totally unrelated since 2003.
23 Brad Spry // Jul 7, 2008 at 8:41 am
Please. I used your data source to shine the spotlight on your fallacy. Instead of admitting defeat, you went anecdotal.
Iraq is the ultimate example of conservatives using other people’s money and it’s fair game.
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
24 Justin Thibault // Jul 7, 2008 at 9:20 am
Brad - Defeat? Since when was this a battle?
Anecdotal? Hardly. If you were a fundraiser, given Brooks’ data, would you expect a donation from someone who believes in economic equality (a major pillar of liberalism) or someone who doesn’t? According to the data, you’re FOUR TIMES more likely to get it from someone who doesn’t believe in wealth distribution (the method by which they enforce “economic equality”).
I think you need to stand back and a look at the assertion that Brooks’ study makes…conservatives give more. People who believe that the government should “level the playing field” are more stingy with their own money…even when they have higher incomes.
For someone who’s a conservative who had to endure ridicule from other liberals for being “cruel” and “heartless” because I don’t get upset when someone becomes rich from doing something besides making music or PowerPoint slides about dying polar bears (by the way, the guy making the PowerPoint - Al Gore - gave less than the average American he preaches to) - this study proves what I’ve felt in my gut a along: these people aren’t any better than I am.
So, the next time looks at me with disdain for not drinking the Obama KoolAid, I can maintain the silent serenity of knowing that I (and most of those not voting for Obama) are probably more personally generous than they are.
25 Brad Spry // Jul 7, 2008 at 9:52 am
Using Brooks’ data, I would expect donations from religious people from both sides. I would not expect many donations from non-religious people, especially non-religious conservatives.
If my cause was the environment or poor people, I would expect less donations from conservatives based upon Brooks’ findings.
You’re right about nobody being better than anybody else, even though the whole premise of your post is conservatives are better people.
26 Justin Thibault // Jul 7, 2008 at 9:54 am
Brad -
Not better…just more generous and less hypocritical.
27 Brad Spry // Jul 7, 2008 at 10:32 am
Pride comes before the fall.
28 Justin Thibault // Jul 7, 2008 at 10:43 am
Brad -
Yeah, like the loud *thud* I heard after this study came out refuting the sanctimony we conservatives had to endure from preachy liberals for decades.
29 Justin Thibault // Jul 7, 2008 at 10:48 am
Aaron I’ve been meaning to get back to you; but it’s been too much fun deflating liberal piousness.
It’s not just with the well-heeled. You’ll remember some time back that a few people in my neighborhood got all up in arms about the Goodwill store that’s planned for the area across Poplar Tent. It was funny to hear people go “I don’t have a problem with poor folks…until they get too close”.
I’m glad the majority of the neighborhood (myself included) helped put an end to that.
30 Aaron // Jul 7, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Justin-Amen to that!
That type of sanctimony gives suburbanites a bad name(myself included). It would be interesting to do a political survey of those who were involved in that debacle. One might be as surprised about the jersey all those “poor people are cool, as long as they stay on the other side of town” folks were wearing. In fact, I’d say we’d be just as surprised as Brad was when he found out that not every Obama lover practices what Obama preaches.
Until recently I used zero public programs. My kids started school and if I had the money, they’d be in private schools but since that’s not the case, at least I’m paying my share through my property taxes, sales taxes and the like.
I’d say that most conservatives can say that. I’m just glad someone actually came out with some verifiable proof that those of us in said situation do more than all the rest of these neophytes walking around in Obama T-Shirts.
The ideology of loving thy neighbor by proxy is a losing strategy. We’ve got 50+ years of history to back up that statement. Funny how folks like Brad point to Iraq as some long term failure in policy but willingly turn a blind eye to New Deal and Great Society era programs with the notion that “if it helps just one person, it’s worth it!”
31 Brad Spry // Jul 7, 2008 at 2:33 pm
If you guys think for a minute I believe Obama lovers, or anyone else for that matter, are perfect practitioners of what they preach, you have another thing coming.
Humanity is not synonymous with perfection, but Jesus did show us the way. Until we live like that, we’re all falling short.
Don’t put words in my mouth Aaron. I don’t mix topics like Iraq, New Deal and Great Society together into a nasty gumbo. It’s best to stay focused, if you can. You sir don’t even begin to understand what long term means. Problems in the middle east, specifically family problems, have been happening at least 3,768 years longer than this country has existed. One hundred years of occupation, which McCain is criticized for saying, is a drop in the bucket if we stay the current course. Our minds cannot even comprehend the hornet’s nest we have stepped into.
32 Aaron // Jul 7, 2008 at 3:27 pm
BRAD:
“You sir don’t even begin to understand what long term means. Problems in the middle east, specifically family problems, have been happening at least 3,768 years longer than this country has existed.”
You seem to think yourself enlightened for some reason. While this may help you at wooing future Obama voters, It just disappoints me to no end that you feel this superior to folks. While attempting to debate the study with Justin, you’ve only succeeded in painting yourself with the same, elitist brush that Justin acknowledged so many comments ago.
Perhaps it would behoove you to get a job which allows you to access my library book list. Perhaps some government intermediary position in DHS would suffice. Then it would be easier for you to see that I’ve read almost the entire content of the Cabarrus County library on the Muslim Faith. I’ve done this to attempt to describe to my “Dubya is a genius” friends how we cannot overcome the longstanding feudal nature of the middle east through force and “democratization”.
Perhaps if you’d read my multi part post on our relationship with Israel and how it does directly influence how some Muslims feel towards the US then you’d have a better understanding of just how farce your comments are.
If I’m not mistaken, Iraq is your trump card of choice. I’ve watched you toss it out in all it’s glory for many a comment here on the Cheap Seats and it gets more and more whimsical with each display.
I’d venture a guess that you may have lost the fact that you were the one to bring up the subject in your banter with Justin over who loves poor people the most. If we are limited to only 1 degree of separation then you have failed to meet that metric. By taking your comments on Iraq to their ultimate conclusion, you find yourself drinking the same koolaid all the other elitist, white guilt loving, Obamaniacs who just assume that we can pull out of Iraq on a Monday and give all that money to all those poor folks your heart bleeds for by end of business on Tuesday.
Humanity is not synonymous with perfection, but Jesus did show us the way. Until we live like that, we’re all falling short.
So by that statement do you mean it’s up to the “gub-ment” to get us all on the right track? They’ve done a bang up job so far. Just see my previous comment about all those nifty “gub-ment” programs.
It would suffice to say that Justin and I have beat the seperation of church and state to death. It’s odd how you could see fit to intertwine them at this point.
The study is a valid one. Forgive a fellow like Justin for using it as a trump card and reveling in the fact that for once, he’s got proof that he’s not a heartless bastard who beats puppies with kittens. Forgive me for reveling just a little bit too as I’ve been told the same things all my life.
You can only be told how little you care about the poor, tired, weary and huddled masses for so long before you snap. Now, we don’t have to snap because we’ve got the proof. Just a shame it doesn’t work to suit your needs. But fret none my child, I’m sure ACORN will publish a study soon that will be more to your liking.
A good title would be “Why Anyone but us, hates EVERYBODY”
33 Brad Spry // Jul 7, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Of course you guys aren’t heartless, but I don’t think you needed this study to prove it. I’m often accused of taking things personally in this forum, told to get thicker skin; I think you guys need to take your own advice.
34 Justin Thibault // Jul 7, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Brad -
Just primitive, judgmental, divisive writers of silly, pathetic articles who’ve yet to reach self awareness who care less and need to “get busy” following the teachings of Christ who you grace with your “wasted breaths”
35 Brad Spry // Jul 7, 2008 at 6:02 pm
This isn’t magnetic poetry or a remix.
36 Brad Spry // Jul 7, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Add grudge holding to the list
Leave a Comment