Arthur Brooks has it. Political junkies will find this part of his findings of special interest.
In May of last year, the Gallup polling organization asked 1,200 American adults about their giving patterns. People who called themselves "conservative" or "very conservative" made up 42% of the population surveyed, but gave 56% of the total charitable donations. In contrast, "liberal" or "very liberal" respondents were 29% of those polled but gave just 7% of donations.
These disparities were not due to differences in income. People who said they were "very conservative" gave 4.5% of their income to charity, on average; "conservatives" gave 3.6%; "moderates" gave 3%; "liberals" gave 1.5%; and "very liberal" folks gave 1.2%.
A common explanation for this pattern is that conservatives are more religious than liberals, and are simply giving to their churches. My own research in the past showed that religion was a major reason conservatives donated so much, and that secular conservatives gave even less than secular liberals.
It appears this is no longer the case, however: The 2008 data tell us that secular conservatives are now outperforming their secular liberal counterparts.
I do not have a complete explanation for these patterns. But I do think that conservatives' greater generosity shows that they have different values than leftists. And I do have one little bit of data to add that may help us think about this question: The United States is consistently the most generous of the large industrial countries; France is consistently one of the stingiest.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at January 23, 2009 09:24 AM | Email ThisThey gave at work so there's no need to be charitable from home, it's the government's job.
Posted by: Cecil on January 23, 2009 10:47 AMI wonder if (and the article hints a bit at this) conservatives fund liberal actions.
Self identifying polls are of course always so accurate.
Posted by: BA on January 23, 2009 11:32 AM"Ironically, few environments are less tolerant of conservatives and their ideas than the nonprofit world. The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported in October of 2008 that employees of major charities favored Democrats over Republicans in their private political contributions by a margin of 82% to 18%. Among the employees of major foundations, the difference was an astounding 98% to 2%.
This is, of course, a common misunderstanding of conservative philosophy in general, but also a lack of conservatives getting their message out there. However I will certainly remember those statistic the next time I'm in a giving mood and willing to part with a portion of my hard earned money. I may just divert more of my well intentioned funds into a deserving charity more closely aligned with my values (say the wounded warriors project or the VA which I already contribute to).
I also agree with Cecil @ 2 as to the reasons for the disconnect with the Liberal philosophy on giving.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 23, 2009 11:35 AMFrom a deep psychiatrist viewpoint, I suppose that is why the liberals and Democrats want the government to give out all those freebies. It absolves themselves of guilt.
Posted by: swatter on January 23, 2009 12:31 PMYes, as you can find out with a little help from Google. Brooks has studied that as well, so you can find some of his results with a search on "volunteer + conservative + Brooks", or something similar. You'll find, for instance, this Kristof column.
If you want a volunteer, ask a religious conservative.
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 23, 2009 12:35 PMAs i read some of his findings years ago I pondered at his astonishment to find out how parsimonious people who identify themselves as "progressive" actually are. I have never had any reason to doubt that leftists brought up the rear when it comes to charitable giving. Leftwing politics is a hate filled religion and that also goes a long way towards explaining the "common cause connections" between those on the left and radical islamists.
Both of their credos are fueled by a hate for humanity disguised as something 180 degrees removed from what all evidence in the public record points to.
To expect that studies such as the one Brooks did would yield results other than what they did would, to me, be..... rather naive.
Posted by: JDH on January 23, 2009 02:37 PMI would also want to see age accounted for. Older people, with more ties to organizations, no kids to support, a less selfish attitude that comes with age and experience, ect might be more inclined to give regardless of party, but since older people tend to be more conservative this might skew the data.
Posted by: Giffy on January 23, 2009 02:53 PMOf course, this is true only because those greedy fat cat conservatives have already stolen all of the poor people's money, leaving them with nothing to give, all of whom are liberals.
:dripping sarcasm:
Posted by: cliff on January 24, 2009 11:43 AMWhy did they ask for conservative or liberal instead of democrat and republican and why are their initial numbers so skewed? Any conclusions from data that start off so skewed from reality are very suspect and the entire methodology needs to be questioned.
Posted by: correctnotright on January 24, 2009 12:41 PMWhy did they ask for conservative or liberal instead of democrat and republican and why are their initial numbers so skewed? Any conclusions from data that start off so skewed from reality are very suspect and the entire methodoilogy needs to be questioned.
Posted by: correctnotright on January 24, 2009 12:41 PMWhy did they ask for conservative or liberal instead of democrat and republican and why are their initial numbers so skewed? Any conclusions from data that start off so skewed from reality are very suspect and the entire methodology needs to be questioned.
Posted by: correctnotright on January 24, 2009 12:41 PM