Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Jonah Goldberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
Charitable nation
by Jonah Goldberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Americans are better people than Europeans. Hold on, it gets better. Religious Americans are better than non-religious Americans. And religious Americans tend to be politically conservative.

This admittedly tendentious rendering of reality is how some on the right are interpreting "Who Really Cares?" by Arthur Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University. Brooks doesn't really deal with what makes one person "better" or "worse" than any other. But it's fair to say that how much a person gives - of either his money or time - is usually considered an important indicator of character. It turns out that by this yardstick alone, my little talk-radio-ready summary is basically correct.

The further to the left you are - particularly to the secular left - the less likely you are to donate your time or money to charity. Imagine two demographically identical people, except that Joe goes to church regularly and rejects the idea that the government should redistribute wealth to lessen inequality, while Sam never goes to church and favors state-driven income redistribution. Brooks says the data indicate that not only is Joe Churchgoer nearly twice as likely as Sam Secularist to give money to charities in a given year, he will also give 100 times more money per year to charities (and 50 times more to non-religious ones).

Because Brooks is using vast pools of data, and because he's talking about averages rather than individuals, there is no end of exceptions to prove the rule. No doubt there are pious Scrooges and Santa-like atheists. But, basically, if you are religiously observant, a married parent and skeptical toward the role of government, you are much more likely to be generous with your time and money.

You're also more likely to be a political conservative, but it's a mistake to find causation in that correlation. Certain types of people are likely to be conservative and to be charitable. But being a conservative doesn't make you charitable.

Still, the partisan ammo is what has interested the Bill O'Reilly types the most - and it is interesting, since it so directly contradicts the generations-old propaganda of the left, which depicts the rich right as stingy, unfeeling and selfish. "Blue state" America spends a lot of time talking about how much more caring and enlightened it is. But that's with somebody else's money. When it's their own money, that's a different story.

What's vastly more interesting is what Brooks' data says about America. Our charitableness is a distinct cultural artifact. America's simply a lot more generous than most other countries. Not counting government aid, we give, per capita, three and half times more than the French, seven times more than Germans and 14 times more than the Italians.

This is not merely a byproduct of our wealth. In fact, one of the most interesting observations of the book is that the most giving Americans, measured as a share of their income, are the working poor. The rich come second and the middle class last.

The difference lies in European attitudes toward God and state. Europeans have largely turned their backs on the former and consider the latter the answer to everything.

Europeans defend their comparative stinginess by claiming that their outsized welfare states, and the taxes they pay into them, amount to charity. Brooks demolishes these and related assertions. But the most basic response is this: Compelling payment by others through high taxes isn't charity.

What's interesting to me is that Europeans are uncharitable for the same reason liberal secularists tend to be. In America, as in Europe, the more you think the state should provide for everything, the less you think anybody else should provide anything. As Ralph Nader said in 2000, "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." In other words, a "just" society is one where, because the state helps everyone, people aren't obliged to help anyone.

Brooks, a cautious social scientist, doesn't tie all this together as much as he could. Europe's transformation into what he and others call a "post-Christian" civilization has its roots in the turn-of-the-century switch from religion to statism, when "God will provide" was replaced with "the state will." This vision is a European import, and in many respects the history of liberalism in America is the history of Europeanization. Woodrow Wilson's war socialism, FDR's New Deal, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and Bill Clinton's Third Way were all proselytized as attempts to make America more like "enlightened" Europe.

Maybe such a transformation would make America a better place. But the data suggests it wouldn't make Americans better people.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jonah Goldberg's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Better people
Those who give of their time and money do not by and large consider themselves "better people." Matthew 6 says plainly "don't blow a trumpet when you give charity, to announce how wonderful you are." In fact, the people who are vilified the most for their "lack of compassion" are often the most charitable, because they do their charity quietly and in secret. The people I know who give of their time, talent and treasure are optimists -- they not only believe they can help their neighbours to be better, but they believe that their resources are not finite. "I will save on something else" or "I can get more" is what you hear when you say to a contributor "Are you sure you can spare it?" and if you comment on what great people they are, they will say "I'm just doing what anybody else would do." These are the same people who take from their small store to tip the waitress generously -- they've been waitresses or they have waitresses in the family and they understand why it matters.

In the book "Joy in the Morning" the very poor young wife goes out for a haircut and she hands the barber a nickel tip. "Sure you can spare it?" says the sarcastic and unappreciative young man.

"No, I can't," she says honestly. "But it's the right thing to do."

That is true charity and you'll generally find it only in those who know we are all in this together. Socialists can't understand this concept. To them it's a war of all against all, and loot is what they are all about: if I have more, you have less. Americans and capitalists believe that it's safe to give away because there will always be more -- and right to give away even when you don't have much, because, well, because it's right.

More hyposcrisy on parade
Secular Progressives have gradually replaced the historical chariaible system of churches and community groups with a monolithic nanny state government. They don't have to donate to those in need, because to them, that's now the government's job, and it works best when they can take someone else's money and award it to another who may need it but didn't earn it. These beneficiaries can then continue on a path with no personal responsibility, which is usually required of those recipients of aid from the afore mentioned charities. SP's get to feel good about themselves without having to shell out any cash from their own pocket. What a deal!

Taxes = Charity?
I don't think so. Two problems:

1) This argument assumes that the money seized by the government actually goes to alleviate poverty and suffering. As we have seen here and elsewhere, this is not the case.

2) Leftist politicians who advocate and oversee the looting never actually pay themselves. The government taxes income, not assets, so wealthy limousine Libs like Kerry, Kennedy, Warren Buffet and Bill Gates never actually pay the taxes they advocate. Unlike Buffet and Gates, wealthy Lib politicians are also stingy when it comes to private charity. Billionaire-by-marriage John Kerry not only paid less taxes than high income-earner GWB, he aslo donated next to nothing.

About 20 years ago ...
a co-worker told me about one of her sisters experiences. Her sister was a nurse at childrens hospital in Orange County, California. At the time, Reggie Jackson was winding down his career as a California Angel. It turns out the Mr. Jackson, out of the glare of the media and the limelight, spent a lot of time and much of his own treasure on the children at the hospital. As AudiR10 stated above, he did it not for the recognition that he was someone to be admired. He did it because it was the right thing to do.

I believe there are many such "angels" at work in our country. I'm thankful for the one's I know of and the one's I don't.

Charity must be tempered with knowledge.
I once gave a large contribution, (for me.), to the United Crusade assuming the money would go to various good causes.
United Crusade's idea of a good cause was;
Jimmy Carter's Presidential Campaign.

Since then I confine my charity to;
Disabled American Veterans & Boy Scouts of America.
And sometimes;
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200612/NAT20061229b.html

Ask any waitress
The cheapest tippers come from the Northeast. Gee!!

They are also the most demanding customers to deal with.






For most charities
Time is more valuable than money. The English school my church operates is well-funded, what we need is volunteer teachers. This is charity that often is not counted. There's a woman who has been teaching for us since 1963 -- two hours a week, 9 months out of the year, for 44 years. How do you calculate what she's given to those who needed to learn English? Our records indicate she's worked with over 1000 students in that time, but those students have had an impact as well on their families, their children's educations, perhaps their husbands' (usually) military career, and in countless ways we can't track. One student we have tracked is from Germany. She polished her English quite well, got her Alaskan teaching credential, became a literature teacher at a local private high school and taught the joy of literature and the finer points of English grammar for 15 years before she became the principal of the same school. She affected the lives of over 400 students in her years as a teacher and many more during her time as principal. The impact of people helping people rather than just giving money that typically goes to administration is incalculable.

The history of charity
Perhaps we could dig a little deeper here and ask ourselves why government felt compelled to step in to help the elderly, widows, orphans and those less fortunate.

How many dollars given to churches and counted as charity are used for lavish salaries and homes for clergy? How many of those dollars are invested in comfortably appointed church buildings and programs that have nothing to do with charity at all?

If the nearly 90 percent of Americans who say they celebrate Christmas were out there following the teachings of Jesus and taking care of those who need help, if businesses followed through on promises made to retirees, then government could go back to building roads, expanding public infrastructure and cutting taxes. We are forced to give through taxes because, as a nation, we have a long history of being wholly uncharitable.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.