I really do get the democrat mindset. I really do believe that Democrats honestly want to help people, and I really think that they are exhausted watching people not "get" or share their values. While I come from a family that was predominantly conservative, but poor (couldn't put me through college... I had to pay for it myself), I've definitely had friends who were worse and better off than me. But you might be surprised to find out that you share the same values, more than you think, but you just don't share the same road to those shared goals. Let me explain.
Conservatives do care and want to help. Check out the following link and read the article to understand why the author wrote the book a couple short years ago:
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Mind you, this site is not politically alffiliated (that is a good thing!) It is all about people being philanthropic (mostly financially philanthropic) and the article says that conservatives are statistically more generous with their money than democrats. So why all the fighting!? Why do Republicans/ conservatives always get a bad rep in this area?
Ideology means everything in this situation. I am going to leave behind the ridiculous fighting comments and just write what I hear people say in this discussion.)
The Democrat mindset:
- We care about people.
- We value good social programs with an agenda that cares for people.
- We need people to give and I don’t think they will unless something bigger than us, like the government, facilitates it.
- God tells us to help our neighbors, and since conservatives talk about God a lot they should be cool with good programs that care for their neighbors.
Let’s take it from the top!
We care about people. I totally believe that. I believe that it is easy to get behind any conversation where we are talking about helping people. The funny thing is that the average person doesn’t want take a phone call from people asking them to give, doesn’t stop to help out someone on the street, doesn’t want to answer a similar solicitation from someone walking up to their house door, or doesn’t want to give at the office (even when the United Way shows up!) but they might use that as an excuse to why they aren’t giving (i.e. “Hey I gave at the office.”)
So how do we all tend to give? Well, we help out our friends or our friend’s friends. If it is personal, then we tend to “show up” and “help out.”
We value good social programs. I can see that and believe this to be true. Surely nobody wants to get behind the opposite: a bad social program. Right? Here is where Republicans and Democrats start to take different roads.
Everyone has to admit that “philanthropy through taxation” makes giving a little easier. (At least) once a year everyone “gives” to those “good social (government-driven) programs” so being philanthropic is dead simple. That is the upside. What is the downside?
The government requires that all non-governmental groups that receive public funds disclose how they spend the money. If they are raising money for a specific purpose, they have to spend it on that specific purpose (no illegal conversion-of-funds please.) They regularly report as to their effectiveness. If they receive money from the government (grant or otherwise) the rules get even more strict! This is a good thing. Let’s compare giving to a non-governmental group to giving to the government through taxation.
The downside: government social programs don’t report effectiveness. Since they run on tax money, they don’t have the same conversion-of-funds issues.
So while the government has these programs, we have no way of knowing (1) if they help, (2) how they help other than providing services (do they help people in such a way as to help people up from needing the services going forward, to being more self sufficient – which many struggling family, if not all of them, would love to be able to do), and (3) if they are effective enough to keep investing in. An government program can tell you, “We gave away (X) services in the last 12 months,” but we don’t know if that is a little or a lot, if it is solving a problem or a stop-gap. As tax-payers, we have to give anyway… it is taxation.
So what about private charities? Private groups still have some of the same problems. Go visit a non-government-driven food reserve / pantry in your town and they will tell you how many families they help each week / month / year. They can tell you if that number is going up or down. They can’t tell you if they are helping people out from needing their services or if they are simply a stop-gap service with a larger problem that isn’t being addressed (unemployment in a town with a poor economy, such that it isn’t the fault of the family needing food.) But here is the difference. Maybe you want to care for people who need a stop-gap service, but you REALLY want to give into a situation that is helping people out of a bad situation and into a better one! In a non-taxation philanthropic situation, then YOU DECIDE! You aren’t being taxed! It’s your money and your desire to help.
The book referenced in the article above challenges Democrats (from someone who looks to Democrats as kindred spirits) to put their money where their mouth is. It is one thing to “give” to tax-based social programming without the kind of accountability demanded of non-government-driven charities, and another thing to give into situations that care and where you can ensure your giving makes a difference.
How many people (Democrats or Republicans) volunteer their time in government-driven social programs? How many volunteer in non-governmental helps services? In government programs, most people are relegated to giving fanancially (through taxation) and not more personally. With non-government-driven charities, you can give financially and of yourself, personally. I hope that you can see why Republicans consider themselves caring and philanthropic. I am willing to extend the same attitude toward Democrats that feel they are caring by investing through taxation for government-driven programs. I hope you can see that it comes down to mostly a philosophy on giving and specifically ideas about how to achieve those goals.
We need people to give and I don’t think they will unless something bigger than us, like the government, facilitates it. Again Republicans tend to like the idea that as individuals… we decide. And statistics bare that out. Republicans do decide how to give, and give big (or bigger than their Democrat counterparts.) It is worth remembering that Republicans are still paying taxes along side their Democrat friends. But they are giving beyond that as well. I can only imagine that as a demographic group, Democrats are waiting for the government to ask for more money in order for them to give more. The upside is that they don’t have to wait for the government to tax them more, for them to be more generous. There are plenty of good social non-government-driven groups that are accountable to report their effectiveness and are waiting for Democrats and Republicans to give more in a spirit of caring.
God tells us to help our neighbors, and since conservatives talk about God a lot they should be cool with good programs that care for their neighbors. As you can see, if what you give is any measure of how well you are hearing the call to care for your neighbor, then conservatives are heeding the call. Again these are only statistics and you might well know Republicans as well as Democrats that are quick to say, “Bah, humbug!” to the philanthropic call. But it is about averages, and the average conservative seems to hear and heed a call to care. What you won’t necessarily see from the Bible is a New Testament call for the God-fearing to give to the government, so it can give to people FOR you. In the New Testament, it is a lot more personal than that. But here is where I would side with Democrats as well as Republicans and say, “Hey, it was meant to be personal!” I don’t think it was God’s plan to have us give all of our philanthropic funds to a large government or a large non-government-driven Charity. I think the God of the Bible would have us save some back to be ready to give to the people who are around us everyday: the down-and-out, the single mom, the struggling family.
In conclusion, I think that I can see that even though Democrats mostly want to give through government-driven programs (mostly, compared to conservatives), that they do really want to give and care for and help people. As well, I believe that just because Republicans are not in favor of government-sanctioned philanthropy, that because they are proven to give privately, they do in fact give, and care and want to help as well.
A final Test in acknowledging the differences in philosophy:
Last year I was discussing the fact that it seemed potentially good that George W. Bush had made it possible for non-government-driven charitable organizations to receive federal funds. I was told that the program was a bit of a flop due to the fact that it was too complicated for non-government-driven charitable organizations to get access to those funds.
Here is the response to that reality from both sides of the political fence.
Democrat:
Well, that demonstrates that the blurring of the philanthropic line is mostly ineffective. Where is that money today? It didn’t seem to benefit those charities out there? It would have been better if those funds had simply remained available to the good social programs that are government-driven, rather than weaken those programs by spreading out those funds in such a complicated and unsuccessful manner.
Republican:
This is a great example of why the money is better off when it is simply not in the hands of the government. Rather than have that money be taxed away from individuals, if those people could have selected responsible charities and given directly, then we could have done away with any government overhead, as well as the red-tape that seems prevalent in the government (at so many levels.) I like it that the government saw that everyday people running charities were a good social philanthropic investment, enough to take taxed money and turn it over to those charities. I just wish that they would see the people they are taxing in the same light and just trust them to be generous with charities directly rather than tax them and then pay themselves to be generous FOR us (and then mess it up.)
4 comments:
Hi Steve, Dave led me here.
Regarding Brooks' book, I think you might be playing up his conclusions a bit too much. For the purposes of his book, Brooks was comparing religious conservatives with secular liberals to come to his 'surprising' conclusion. Underlying that conclusion wasn't that conservatism leads to more private charitable giving, but rather that being involved in a social community made you more likely to give.
It just so happens that religious organizations are (by far) the largest social communities in the US. Conservatives tend to be more religious... and there's where the math takes you. It's not a real shocker to anyone but the most hardened sociopath (or someone blinded by political rhetoric).
There's a lot more it to this, of course, but before you use the numbers - and this book, specifically - you'll have to dive into things a bit more before drawing your own conclusions.
Regarding your other points, you need to acknowledge a couple of facts:
* The much-maligned government programs that assist those in need dwarf those of private charities. Private giving cannot come even close to the numbers that go into Social Security and Medicare.
* It's not an either/or proposition. Government programs can marshal vast resources and impact millions of people, at the cost of efficiency (not many people will argue that government is more efficient). Private foundations are more agile and provide a 'human touch' element, but simply do not scale. They each have their niche.
These are great talking point Paul. Thanks for really formulating your thought and adding to the discussion. Here are a few additional thoughts.
I think the distinctions you draw specifically about religious conservatives is true (as opposed to simply conservatives.) This would be a subset. But as a subset, they still tip the scale. To what degree, nobody has itemized it specifically. It would be interesting if in the future they analyzed religious liberals to see what that demographic looks like exactly (in terms of charitable giving within the larger liberal demographic.) But again, if there are enough religious conservatives to tip the scale, then while we might be able to point to a religious influence to explain why, it is still clearly pointing to a conservative demographic when examining a Liberal versus Conservative comparison. Who knows? That could change in the next few years. Maybe all of the religious folks will become liberals (maybe not, but who knows?)
The author did raise questions, specifically as a challenge to the greater liberal community, saying that momentum from that demographic tends to make philanthropic religious folks seem unwelcome and so ends up pushing them to the conservative camp. Mind you this is his "expert opinion," but he is basically stating that while their is a religious connection to philanthropy, there seems to be a distinctly positive correlation with regard to being "conservative" versus "liberal" enough to make it a liberal challenge. I think the religious demographic is likely part of the social demographic cause for philanthropy. But the author thinks it also has to do with a problem in the liberal mindset about philanthropy (specifically versus government welfare programs.) I think I have synthesized the content to a degree that I am fine with my conclusion here. If you disagree with my explanation of a religious demographic subset as a statistically significant sampling of the larger conservative demographic grouping, enough to tip the larger demographic scale, let me know.
On your other two talking points:
Point one:
I haven't read any studies that claim that the government programs dwarf all-of-the private charities that are attempting to address the same needs. We might want to start off by defining this very generalized, possibly vague terms like "dwarf." If by dwarf, we simply mean "the amount of dollars in the program," that would be a number worth seeing. If dwarf means "there help dwarfs all private charity help in that area of need combined" then we would need to quantify (or at the least qualify) what "help" means. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am also not saying that you are implying that the idea that they "dwarf" means that they are positively correlated with being "more helpful." In fact, you didn't say that. I am open to you being right, once we define what it is you mean. Neither of us are presenting those numbers at this point. Here is a question: If private charities are more efficient with philanthropic dollars, would those dollars allocated to government programs be worth more in the hands of charities? (Please, read on before you answer this.)
(Here is at least one blog with ideas about comparing the efficiency of one with the other: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/3176.aspx )
Point two:
I think there is plenty of debate about the government being more efficient. I have some friends at the State Department and they state that the government is often years behind the curve on a lot of stuff due to the generally large approval process. For example, even if there are facts that a program is failing, it could take months before the red tape is cut through enough to put the brakes on. I am sure you've heard people talk about this?
I would agree that the network of the government dwarfs the network of small charities. But not all charities are small, or have short arms. Some are incredibly efficient. When I was consulting in information systems for the third largest employer in the state of Virginia (a charity, surprisingly enough) they brought it other consultants to examine if there were ways to make a single aspect of their charity more efficient (worldwide communications) by outsourcing. The conclusion: nope. Nobody was more efficient than them. That group was a medical / humanitarian aid group called "Operation Blessing." I agree that smaller groups can be more agile, even compared to larger charities. So what would my question here be? How big must something scale to be considered efficient? Or maybe... if a lot of independent, non-centralized large charities are able to provide a right level of scale (presumably because more Americans are giving both financially and of their personal time)along with more agility than the government, would that not be better?
final note: I agree with what you said about someone being blinded by political rhetoric. I found both this statement and your thoughts to be refreshingly (mostly) rhetoric free (if by rhetoric, we mean "statements posing as truth, but without supporting facts".) There are a few spots where you mention some generalized statements without supporting facts, but the conversation isn't over, I suppose.
Follow up Facts:
the welfare budget (social security, medicare and medicaid) budget for 2007 was $850 billion. US Charitable giving in 2007 was over $300 billion. So in a dollar for dollar budget comparison, the governments money dwarfs charitable giving in the US. Having said that, it is interesting that charitable giving equals almost half of what is taken from our paycheck for government welfare programs in the same year. For one, I think that says something great about America. let it never be said that we are not a nation that gives. But interestingly enough, I couldn't find a report that explains how much of that budget was going to pay administrative costs. That would really explain things better, I think. If anyone find this, please drop a link here.
More answers:
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080228170134AAiFhs1
Social programs in the US account for 70% of the annual budget. Wow. Even at a budget of $1.6 trillion in such programs, we are still complaining about it, as if it is failing. A wise man once said, the definition of crazy is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result. Talk about a need for change.
Post a Comment