jump to navigation

Classic Illustration of the Hypocrisy of the Left March 28, 2008

Posted by Administrator in atheism, Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy.

via George Will.

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.  (This is a surprise?  -ed.)

• Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

• Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

• 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.

The comment surely designed to make the Pharyngulites haul out their straw-man army is this one: ” The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism, Willett says, is religion.

Wow.  What a bombshell.  (/irony)

Will continues:

Brooks’s data about disparities between liberals’ and conservatives’ charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America’s richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon — a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.” Brooks, however, warns: “If support for a policy that does not exist . . . substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others.”

“You cannot give what you do not have.”  But liberals believe exactly that.  Take from others so that this may then be given to others.

Pony up, Kos, Myers and The Goracle.  Charity, as they say, starts at home.  Show is what it means to give of one’s needs, and perhaps the rest of us will listen to your clarion-call of Bigger Government Will Solve Everything.

Furthermore, Messers. Myers/Dennett/Dawkins: Put your money where your mouth is.  Show us how being committed, humanist atheists results in a more charitable, giving and loving culture.

A cold day in hell, and so on.



No comments yet — be the first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: