Tuesday, January 30, 2007

They're Not Just Racist ...

We know already that Democrat voters are more racist than Republicans.

It seems they're less charitable, too.

A Syracuse University professor who studied economics at the famously demanding Rand Graduate School, Brooks has exhaustively reviewed a wide range of nonpartisan survey research, much of it university-based, to demonstrate the existence of a charitable divide between liberals and conservatives. He has determined, for instance, that the average conservative-headed household gives 30 percent more money to charity than the average liberal-headed one ($1,600 compared with $1,227), despite earning 6 percent less annually. Moreover, Brooks has found that of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average, George W. Bush won 24 in the 2004 presidential race. Perhaps there really are, to borrow John Edwards’s glib phrase, two Americas: one charitable, the other miserly.

Interesting to see that, as in the UK, the rich are more likely to be left-wing. Pretty much shows you where the People's Party gets its support from.

Brooks adeptly correlates charitable giving with four characteristics, all of which favor conservatives. They are religiousness, by far the most potent predictor of charity; employment (those on public assistance do not give to charity, in contrast to the working poor, who are especially supportive of churches); “strong families,” especially traditional two-parent families; and skepticism about government’s role in redistributing income. Those who favor governmental redistributive programs give less to charity and have, moreover, effectively used public discourse to equate their view with compassion.

Those are impressive figures though - Democrat or Republican. The average Dem's still giving £600 a year. I wonder what the UK figures would look like ?


Anonymous said...

They are religiousness

"religiosity"...please...where did this fetish for making english leaden with "-ness" on everything come from ?

Anonymous said...

English even

Anonymous said...

All those repubs also tend to come from homogenously white heartland states, or the similarly racially constituted rural areas in coast states. Salter predicts that the level of altruism increases with the likelihood of any random beneficiary of your giving being closely related to you.

Is that, perhaps, why we are so much less trusting and so much more cynical these days, as is bemoaned, but not explained, by a veritable falange of kosher conservatives?

dearieme said...

I give less than £600 pa, I admit. I used to give more than I do now, but got pissed off at the politicisation of charities, which I oppose on two grounds. (1) They shouldn't be political at all. (2) The politics they adopt is always dim leftism.
The kibosh, though, was sitting in a cafe in Oxford and overhearing Oxfam administrators, at the tops of their voices, disparaging the volunteers who keep Oxfam going and provide them with their livelihoods. Cunts.

Anonymous said...

Only the rich can afford to be socialists.

Anonymous said...


Before comparing charitable giving as between the US and the UK, ask how much tax UK citizens have to pay. Remember to include council tax, fuel duty (which includes a tax on a tax), etc etc etc.

Then bear in mind that in the US charitable giving is tax-deductible.

After thinking all that through, you might be able to compare like with like. Maybe.

Serf said...

The rich are generally socialists because...
1) Real riches are usually the result of luck (whereas merely being well off, is usually more deserved)
2) They feel guilty
3) They can afford to be