Those Cold, Greedy Conservatives Part 2
Conservatives seem to be more generous than liberals:
Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America — and it’s making him nervous.The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives — from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services — make conservatives more generous than liberals.
[...]
When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: “For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice.”For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, “I have no comfortable political home.”
The political left accuses Dutch conservatives of the exact same thing. They simply refuse to understand that conservatives are not greedy, but that conservatives simply believe that the government should not take care of certain things: private charities should. As a result, conservatives are glad to charities. We simply believe that we should not be forced to give. We want to decide who we want to help, instead of the government deciding it for us.
The government is not your father, not your mother, or your wife. It should not take care of you.
42 Responses to “Those Cold, Greedy Conservatives Part 2”
After all those thoughtful posts you decide to start a, “we’re better than you are” pissing contest? What are you thinking?
I’d also like to point out that there was a time when there were no government services to help the poor, sick, elderly and disabled. The private charities alone proved insufficient to handle the problems which is why the government took some of that role. There is certainly debate as to what percentage of the problem should be handled by the private or public sector, however I think there is little debate among those with some perspective on history that a purely private system is the total solution.
“values advocated by conservatives — from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services — make conservatives more generous than liberals.”
Church attendance and two-parentedness are quantifiable measurements of generosity? I call bulls**t on this one.
Oh c’mon Michael, you’re smarter than this post. Sure some partisans will say that conservatives are mean and liberals nice, and others the contrary. You just buy into that rhetoric by posting a “see! see! WE’RE the nice ones!” piece.
From what I can glean from the post, it’s not that conservatives are nicer than liberals, it’s that they have a different way of going about it. A convervative will say that charity is best because it gives you something to fall back on when things get tough, others would say it’s a mere patch that does nothing to address root causes. You will say that government social services create dependancy and others would say that government is there precisly to make sure your basic needs are met. What is “basic” could be debated till the end of time. You probably don’t question public education, though it’s no more nor no less questionable than public healthcare. I believe in both, a libertarian probably believes in neither.
Fact is, nice people are nice and mean people are mean, be they conservative or liberal. If you want to help people you will, be it through charity or by trying to promote policies to help people. I talk of actual regular people, not politicians, who only very loosly fall into the “people” category, in my opinion.
Could it be that conservatives also have greater cash flow and liquidity?
funny how strongly people respond to it. It was not meant as an attack, it was meant as a defense of conservatives.
There is a difference between them.
It would be interesting to see his methodology; I assume that he includes contributions to churches in his calculations. While I think that contributions to churches are good things, some of it amounts to (admittedly voluntary) wealth transfers to preachers.
I remember being at a convention working to encourage volunteerism among college students in the late ’80s and they had some promotional materials (part of Independent Sector’s “Give Five” campaign) which had Reagan exhorting people to contribute their time and money to charitable efforts. Some of the other students were surprised to see him included. I was not. I said if you don’t want the government to have to feed the hungry then you need to get somebody else to. It’s not like the hungry are going away (yes hunger is still an issue in this country, if not please refer me to the nearest major city that does not have either a soup kitchen nor a food bank).
I would argue that conservatives have an obligation to be more philanthropic for just that reason. Or to own up to a complete social darwinian view of the world
It also would be interesting to see a study done on how this conservative philanthropic advantage would be effected by flat tax proposals which would eliminate the tax advantages of giving.
Could it be that conservatives also have greater cash flow and liquidity?
In this country many religious conservatives still tithe to their churches. That is, there is a mandatory 10% (in some cases 5%) donation to the church they choose to be affiliated with. I wonder if that study takes that into account. Certainly it is voluntary when looked at as you choose which church you go to, but since membership would require such donations, is that not forced as well?
And I’ll take a wild guess and say that things like environmental causes aren’t considered charity?
MvdG, you wouldn’t get called out on posts being divisive if you posted something with any evidence or substantive factual discussion on such a topic, either pro-conservative or anti-liberal, versus a press release for a book.
M, you should have quoted further down too though. Just to give you an idea of the presumptuous tone of this guy’s research we have these meme filled ramblings, “The book’s basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure. Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone’s tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don’t provide them with enough money.”
I’m sure this isn’t a hit piece on non-conservatives. Perhaps its the writeup in your link, but so far it seems to me to ooze with contempt for the “secular liberal” boogeyman that the right always throws up. After you finish that book, maybe you’ll find “The Bell Curve” interesting.
Let me give you a pertinent example.
A very large church just down the street from my home, with very affluent members.
They decide one day to hold a fund raiser to build a new gymnasium and rec center at the church. They contact the top 300 members giving wise first, and from those first three hundred they raise just over 13.5 million dollars. Then they ask the rest of the church to give.
So, as would seem obvious, the church was building a gym for those poor members who don’t already have a gym at their homes.
And yet all of this money is considered charitable giving. But who is the charity going to?
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this of course. But lets be serious, is this what most would consider charity?
“… The government is not your father, not your mother, or your wife. It should not take care of you.”
How true. Here in Orlando we give hundreds of millions in subsidies to the rich and powerful; but damn if a homeless man can even lay his head down on public property. You should move here, you would be very comfortable.
Heh, I had to chuckle at that line. Michael, surely you didn’t mean to imply that wives have a duty to take care of husbands? LOL
I think the book looks interesting, but it’s too bad that the article didn’t include any references to stats that he used. I think that some of the points made by commenters are valid, if for example he didn’t exclude charitable giving to churches which in some cases is for church building funds or administrative costs. If that was factored out though, then the author’s conclusions have more validity.
And I have to say, regardless of whether conservatives give more than liberals, I think by definition that there is a difference in the way each group views social problems. Honestly I do find that some liberals (not all, of course, and some wealthy liberals are notably generous), but some perplex me because when they are concerned about a particular problem they seem to have no inclination at all to look toward helping that problem as an individual by contributing time or money to a charity that addresses the problem. Concerned about homelessness? Habitat for Humanity is a fantastic nonprofit to help that cause. Give financially or go to one of their workdays and encourage everyone you know to do the same. If everyone that could help did so, the problem of homelessness might be solved (and with people owning their own homes to boot, not just sleeping in shelters or government housing projects. Concerned about hunger? There are any number of US charities as well as worldwide ones (my favorite is the Heifer project, but there are also great direct aid programs like Oxfam, Feed the Children, as well as local “soup kitchens”). Concerned about the elderly? Participate in Meals on Wheels, or go visit or volunteer at a local nursing home. There are so, so many ways to help but it really seems that some people would rather gripe about how the government should be doing more, that there should be more taxes on the rich to take care of poor people, etc.
Again I want to emphasize, I do not accuse all liberals of having this attitude, and I also realize that some liberals DO give of their time and money but they are still frustrated that more needs to be done. I don’t fault them for this frustration, but personally feel that time would be better spent by rolling up our own sleeves and doing something to solve problems ourselves instead of complaining about the government’s lack of caring.
Michael, I enjoy your posts. I realize you bend more to the right side than many, but do you really want to wrap yourself in the “Conservative” blanket ?
Views are views, facts are facts, history is history. Labels are labels. From what you’ve written I thought you were not a Conservitive, not a Liberal… but… Thoughtful.
Anonymous Jim,
The people who ran the numbers for Linder’s Fair Tax proposal say that historical trends in giving have not been affected by changes in the tax code, and that the majority of money donated by individuals is by those who don’t itemize or are above the caps on itemized deductions, so they don’t even benefit from deductions. The trends seem to indicate that the biggest factor in annual contributions is the health of the economy.
Here is the link to the Fair Tax white paper, and here’s one to an article that they referenced on this topic. Interestingly, it also contained this quote which seems to back up the conclusions of Brooks (though it doesn’t give a reference either):
It’s amusing to watch so many jumping the gun to assault the study and author (and post author) on the basis of a “news” article without bothering to wait for the data. The book doesn’t come out for another two weeks. Nope, no patellar-reflexive biases there!
I’ve been heavy into community work for many years, and all I’ll say is that the people who actually volunteer and donate and show up should be treasured, and if you’re not one of them, that’s your bad. There’s no political litmus test involved in putting your money or time and effort where your mouth is, and I’ve never noted any major political unbalance in those who show up and do the oft-thankless heavy lifting. Then again, I’ve not been counting.
If you think the stats are lopsided but they prove to be honest, it’s completely within your power to help change them in your desired direction. If the stats are bad, you’ve still got no excuse.
Well said, Tully!
This is misleading because American Christians have been shown to be wrapped up in materialism as is everyone else in the country. Though people do give a tithe of 10%, the number is not as high as you would expect. That is why the Evangelicals were going after the Faith Based giving, until the administration turned on Kuo, DiIulio, and the rest of them.
According to studies by Ronsvalle and Barna, the following are what percentage the average Christian gives:
1. Average Christians in 1990 gave a tithe of 2.66%.
2. Mainline denominationalist in 2001 gave 3.17%.
3. Evangelicals in 2001 gave 4.27%.
4. Barna showed in 2002 that only 6% of born-again adults tithed.
5. Barna also showed in 2002 that only 9% of evangelicals tithed.
According to the Ronsvalle’s, if Christians tithed, there would be another $143 billion dollars per year to empower the poor and spread the Gospel. The UN estimates $80 billion dollars a year to give everyone in the world a basic health care services and education.
There is some chagrin in Evangelical circles at the creeping in of materialism in the Church itself.
I’d be far more interested in something that measured giving in non-financial terms like time. I live in a fairly wealthy area and both times the church expanded the loans we paid off years in advance.
I didn’t even catch it at first, that Mr. Moderate said that churches have mandatory tithes. I could be wrong, but I am not aware of any church that makes this mandatory for membership. It’s encouraged, but I didn’t think it was required.
In the Catholic Church, the meaning of tithing isn’t to give to the Church per se, it is the total of one’s charitable giving. We are encouraged to give a total of 10% of income, with suggested percentages of 4% to the local parish and 1% to the archdiocese and the remainder going to charities of our choice. My husband and I choose to do a larger percentage in the latter category and smaller percentages to the Church itself (although we also give for particular projects in our parish when we feel they are worthy causes). There is nothing mandatory about any of it and no one knows if people are complying (although I wouldn’t doubt that the priests and church administrators are fully aware that some parishioners don’t give at all or that those who put a couple of dollars per week in the basket are not likely to be giving their fair share).
Mr. Moderate nailed it and not one conservative I am aware of has ever honestly answered the question. If private charities are so capable of dealing with the issues of poverty in our society why didn’t they ever do it before the government got involved? Are conservatives so conspiracy theory minded that they think that government just decided that even though private charity was doing just fine they ought to step in and interfere? Somehow I don’t think it happened that way though you’d swear that was it if you listened to the conservative BS machine.
Have you ever read Dickens, Michael? Did you think he made up the situations that the poor people in his novels lived in? Nope. Sorry. It was real. But it’s so much easier for conservatives to forget the past as it was and wear rose tinted glasses when they look at it. It’s not hard to find some information. Even if you had a job it wasn’t sweetness and light. That was hardly the only example. Do some basic research instead of spouting ideology. It doesn’t take long, honest.
Speak it brotha!
Having a roof over your head and three square meals shouldn’t be something you get because rich people are feeling generous.
This just in, typecasting of iberals as cowardly dolts has just been challenged by fifty years of history…
Hey, you know what a strawman is? Great, then don’t play to it. This was one of the worst examples of political masturbation I’ve seen in a good little while.
He’s also the fellow that wrote about the fertility gap and about how liberalism would be wiped out genetically or whatnot…
How’s that youth vote turn out this election, by the way?
And that link is to a religious news service. Have a look at the book itself, have a look at the man, and have a look at what it actually manages to prove, what it intends to prove, and why it intends to prove that.
“Far too long, liberals have been claiming”-which liberals? Where are the claims? Why aren’t they cited? Doesn’t it read just like the way any of the frightening newscast authors would write it?
So, ultimately, before you jump to this validating your thoughts on life, the universe, and everything, you have to take a bit more than what you have into consideration, and understand the context in which this is being written, understand the fellow that writes it, and what it actually serves to do.
I have one more question, things like public works projects develop jobs and can serve to develop tourist attractions or services which will create a higher demand for housing, which will raise the income level of those involved and benefit folks immediately…those are gotten through the government, through tax payer dollars.
Tully mentions attacks on the author and on the stats two weeks before it is due out, but you have to remember the context of it. No one has read it. Not even Michael. Yet, he’s using it to validate his entire idealogy. He hasn’t seen it and he’s linking to a site that’s clearly going to give a sort of skewed view on it.
So, naturally, attacks will come at the credibility of the matter, because it was put up in a very offense-minded way. Why not wait two weeks to make the post, when we can actually read the book? Why put it down as though it were gospel? You talk about folks being reactionary, but folks tend to be reactionary when you give them enough measure toward which to react.
Also, I’m very anti-Habitats for Humanity, I’ll have you know. I think they’re undercutting [doing for free], jobs that could just as easily go as part of a public works project to American workers.
*Shakes fist* Damn you, habitats!
Uh, OK, and why would we be better off if it were a government program?
BTW, to your question about strawmen: you, Mr. Moderate and Jim S are constructing one yourselves. No one has argued that there isn’t a place for government social services. The difference is in where we would draw the line. For example, you and I obviously differ on that in the case of Habitat because I see no reason why the govt should assume the role of building homes when private citizens are perfectly willing to step up to do this.
Well, conservatives may be more generous with their money, but liberals have a lot more fun in bed, especially those uninhibited hedonistic secular progressives, who don’t fear that their behavior will land them in he**!:)
C Stanley claims “No one has argued that there isn’t a place for government social services.” but Michael writes “The political left accuses Dutch conservatives of the exact same thing. They simply refuse to understand that conservatives are not greedy, but that conservatives simply believe that the government should not take care of certain things: private charities should. As a result, conservatives are glad to charities. We simply believe that we should not be forced to give. We want to decide who we want to help, instead of the government deciding it for us.
The government is not your father, not your mother, or your wife. It should not take care of you.“.
Some conservatives always claim that conservatives don’t really want to eliminate all government programs and then some other conservative has to go and forget to hide their real opinion and let slip that it really is what they want to do.
C Stanley,
Thanks for the links to the materials. I may ultimately find those arguments persuasive but those specific materials lack rigor and data. For example, the white paper states: “The majority of charitable contributions today come from non-itemizers.” Yet it offers no documentation for that claim. They do note that only a third of taxpayers itemize, but even that only makes the statement true if we have evidence that more than half the non-itemizers contribute (assuming that all itemizers contribute). Even assuming that the statement is true with regard to the number of charitable contributions, it is misleading because it disregards the amount of the contributions.
This or this is the kind of analysis that would be of some interest to me.
No, you see, a strawman is when you respond to an argument that someone hasn’t actually made…
As I had pointed out, fellow, this idea of greed is a straw man, and by sort of going “ha! look at that you mangy bastards” with this bit of posting, it’s playing up another strawman.
What I asked with regard to Public Works projects was essentially whether that might be considered just as effective a means as what are conisdered charitable donations… that is to say, they present an example wherein it would be difficult for private citizens to muster up the situation in the way that government could, in order to aptly provide for workers, whilst building a tourist place, and keeping that money flowing among the government [as opposed to private or corporate] funds whilst putting growth into a community?
To counter Michael’s final word. The government is not your father, not your mother, or your wife. It’s your government. It does not have responsibilities carved out in the same fashion as those of your mother, your father, or your wife, but it has a set of its own responsibilities to you, and you have a set of your own responsibilities to it. To the extent that you feel such a thing would be invalid, what you support, sir, is not conservatism, but anarchy.
A government that collects funds of all its people must provide for the benefit and greater good of the plausible majority of those people, regardless of the level of monetary contribution. If you believe that taxing is forcing you to give, then you’re absolutely correct. Being mandatory, however, does not make it errant. The removal of a choice does not neccessarily make the lack of a choice immoral. Just ask anyone who considers themselves anti-abortion.
As citizens in a representative democracy, you pay what is essentially an annual fee to exist in this country, as a citizen of this country, entitled to the services of this country. It’s like memebership to a gym. You pay a ridiculous amount of money, and a lot of it goes to the pool, but even though you don’t go to the pool, you still pay that money for access to the gym, and realize others are using the pool.
Sure, it’d be swell if you could say “well, I’m only going to use this, this, and that, and that’s all I ought to be paying for, and I only want people using this, this and that, so that’s all I’ll give toward”, but you know what? Some fellows are going to use that pool. It’s fine if you want to donate some of your own money to the gym, but the gym couldn’t stay open just on donations, and if that’s all it had to go on, it would close, and there’d be nothing of it for anyone. So, yes, it’s mandatory in so much as it is a mandate of your citizenship. If you don’t want to use the pool, that’s fine. If you don’t need the handicap ramp out front, or that handicap stall inside, that’s fine too. But you’ll pay for them, monthly, yearly, however long you’re a member.
Kilroy: well I am a thoughtful conservative. I do adhere to liberal conservative ideology. I realize that that does not make me an American conservative, but for European standards, yes I am.
That being said, I realize that some might have interpreted this post as an attack on the ‘the left’. I understand that I should have chosen my words more carefully.
Yes, Jim, MvdG said “certain things”. Not that the government shouldn’t take care of ANY things, but that it shouldn’t take care of “certain things”. Get the difference? As I said to surgejack, defining oneself as liberal or conservative depends on where you draw that line, and how likely you are to look to the government for solutions. IMO the govt should provide the baseline safety net and private charities and individuals should deal with the rest. And, even more importantly, government policies should empower individuals and help promote a healthy economy to provide opportunity for all individuals to work, obtain housing, food, and other basic needs.
And surgejack, first off, I still don’t see your justification of why the govt is a better provider of housing than the private sector, and your paragraph here sounds rather socialistic (keeping money flowing in the govt sphere? Yet later when you discuss taxation you admit that the govt is taking the people’s money when it taxes, not that the wealth is in the govt’s hands by default, so I really don’t understand you at all):
And besides, programs like Habitat do end up increasing a tax base, so I just cannot see your criticism of it, at all. It takes able bodied people and gives them the means to contribute toward building their own home, which makes them part of the solution instead of being a burden on society.
Dang C.S. good comment.
And I notice that some people have difficulty understanding nuances. When I use “certain”, “in specific circumstances”, “if”, etc. some people seem to think that I mean always. If I would mean always or any I would use ‘always’ any or every not ‘certain’
And some liberal twist the words of conservatives to make it look as if they are saying something, they’re not.
In the same thread you see me reasoning that perhaps it would be a good idea to provide help for people with 80% disability and who have to work for the other 20% instead of only for people who are 100% disabled.
Waht does that tell you Jim. Or did you choose to simply ignore that inconvenient detail?
This thread reminds me of the country song that goes, “If ten percent is good enough for Jesus, it ought to be enough for Uncle Sam.”
You know what’s funny? Folks that accuse me of using the strawman, and then point to me as saying the government would do a better job than charity, which isn’t what I’d said at all…
Also, I love how you talk about an attack on the left, and an attack on liberals, when if anything, it criticized secular liberals, something that I have ne’er been. What bothered me about the post was the leaps it made to solidify your entire scope of idealogy through one bit of news at a religious site with regard to a book that’s not even out yet.
I love, though, that you put out the card of you defending conservatism. Very easy to play the victim, yeah? Any time someone gets upset by the arrogance and ferver behind your politically minded statements, it’s very easy to say what you said was in defense, asserting that it needed defense….
Well, clearly, it did, because all I see down this page is people saying conservatives are greedy runts, yeah? Oh, wait, no, as a matter of fact, the only person that brought up the issue in such a light was Mr. van der Gailen himself…
What you did is you found a story, and got giddy about it, and then put it forward as though it validated your idealogy, and then tried to send this heartfelt message at the end.
“We simply believe that we should not be forced to give. We want to decide who we want to help, instead of the government deciding it for us.
The government is not your father, not your mother, or your wife. It should not take care of you”
Yeah, Michael…I see ‘certain’ at least a dozen times in those lines, right? It’s not just an absolute statement you made… It’s clearly something you presented with a bit of leniency….
Also, I’ve been picking on Habitats for Humanity for no other reason than I find it hilarious to do so, and also, I think they’re a bunch of uppity kids with too much free time essentially building a house through the sheer will of their self-felation.
I didn’t say government is a better provider. I gave an example of one way in which it would work. You see, it’s sort of like the situation Michael was ascribing to Tim S, but now I’m in Michael’s place and your in Tim’s. It’d be a very nice post that you’re making, if it wasn’t that afformentioned strawman.
As for keeping the money circulated through the government in the instance of public works, it means there’s a base of money to be had that they don’t have to drive from the taxpayers, that can be put back into different programs and whatnot, which a corporation would not be inclined to do. Public works projects keeps the money as something applicable towards public programs thereafter.
As for the socialistic bit…I’m not. So, there.
But what I will say about the last passage is this:
What folks seem to forget is that they don’t own a deed to the United States of America. You’re renting land until you die, and until your children and their children die or get wiped out. You’re under the assumption that you’re entitled to your acres and your mule the second you’re born. You think that what you have and what you’ve made is yours, or that you own it. You don’t. It can be taken from you at any time and underlying that premise is that you were born or a citizen or resident of a specific country.
The country was there before you, and will be there after you. The money you make in the country was available to you by the routes of that country. The only genuine thing you have is the hope that they won’t rape you of all you have. And look, that’s the truth of the structure, and if you don’t particularly enjoy that, then that’s all right, but the alternative is anarchy or no country at all. As it stands, however, this land was bought and paid for and is property of the United States of America.
To the extent that you’ve a complaint about your rent, that’s the extent to which you don’t understand the structure of a country itself, nor your place in it. You don’t own any blot of this country. You own the hope that no one takes the blot that’s yours away. That’s it. That’s all you really got. Communists want to take that whole chunk away from you and say you got nothing. I don’t like communists. Socialists are that, but British. However, democracies, republics, and the such, they want to take a part of that massive chunk. It comes most usually in the form of your income. They tax that income. They don’t do things to the extent of socialism or communism, but it is still within that structure.
I mean, we have an entitlement to property in the constitution, but they can still tax you, and if you don’t pay those taxes, they can take your property from you. This is the general structure of a country and how it works and operates. You may not particularly like that, or approve of it, but you are one citizen in a large nation of citizens. You are a member of that country, and just as you must abide by the rules of that country, you must abide by the membership fees as well. Sure, these fellows are charging you an arm and a leg, but some other fellows, well, they’re charge you your body and soul. I guess it is, in part, going back, but really stretching-wise, to the gym membership bit, which I’ll assume you all understood since none of you have as of yet managed to reftue it.
However, I do have a question. You talk about empowering them, and helping people help themselves…but, if folks get money or shelter from private charities, then how is that any different in terms of empowerment or helping them help themselves than if they got help from the government? Moreover, don’t things like public works projects serve to do the same thing? So, going back to my earlier point, isn’t there really a place and time for everything, for different methods, particularly in tackling larger issues such as poverty? Isn’t that why the Faithed Based Initiatives wing of the White House was set up in the first place?
Although, to be fair, in a gym analogy, everyone pays the same monthly fee to keep the poor folks out…
I have to say, though, I like that Michael pointed out that he understands better wording could’ve suited this matter. The design of the post can only really serve to start up a fervent reactionary discussion, particularly as it frames the us vs. them bit, the need for defense or offense, the outlining of the idealogy, wordplay within that idealogy, and then the idea that the story validates the underlying foundations of that idealogy.
It also has to do with the content of the article itself, in that it’s fervently politically minded and aggressive. Not your post, but the article, and likely the book.
What would interest me to know is whether that charity comes from middle and lower class families or from upper class families. I believe the distinction of greed and its connotations don’t run as fluently in the perceptions of folks with regard to idealogy, but rather, with a deft regard towards social status. Also, the focus of this help is social conservatives, evangelicals, religious folks and the like. There’s a distinction to be had there.
The idea of the article is the difference between secular liberals and religious conservatives, but I wonder what the difference would be between those two and fiscal conservatives, Democratic conservatives, moderates… I think we ought to see the book when it comes out, and see if there’s any conclusions to actually reach from it, whether it genuinely knocks down any perceptions, or whether it reinforces a few. There’s quite a few layers of it that aren’t addressed in that article, all of which have their own connotations and arguments to be had about.
Most insightful post yet…
It’s interesting to say that words are twisted when the words are so plain. Besides what Michael and CS selectively pulled from my post it also contained “We simply believe that we should not be forced to give. We want to decide who we want to help, instead of the government deciding it for us.”. There is no honest way to interpret that sentence except to believe that Michael is saying that no tax money should go for social programs. If that isn’t what you meant then say so. Don’t try to attack me with claims that I’m twisting your words.
And at least CS knows that there are in fact conservatives who take the small government bit far enough to where they don’t think there should be any government safety net at all. I call BS on you if you’re really trying to say they don’t exist. Heard of the Cato Institute? the AEI?
For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society.
Is that a serious comment? All I’ve heard for the last few years is about moral values and family values, always in reference to conservative Christian Republicans, as in “how can godless Democrats hope to speak to the moral values of the rural voters?”. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson accuse gays and feminists of causing the attacks on “911″, Falwell goes on to cheerily call for bombing Muslims “in Jesus’ name”. These men are considered morally virtuous because they’re conservative Christian leaders, regardless of the hate they spew.
Mikef,
I think you have a point, but some would argue that these attacks on liberals are somewhat in response to the reverse characterizations that Michael is referring to. For example, Reagan was portrayed as starving schoolchildren and not caring a whit about homeless people when he worked toward putting more responsibility on states to actually stop wasting federal taxpayer money. Conservatives who oppose affirmative action (because it is reverse discrimination, and it demeans the very people it sought to help) are painted as racists. The types of verbal attacks you describe are wrong, but both sides have ratcheted up this type of rhetoric over the past couple of decades. Both sides of the political spectrum have sought to define themselves by impuning the motives of the other side, instead of focusing on how they believe their own policies will add to the greater good of society.
C.S.,
I agree with most of your points, but the quote explicitly states that liberals claim that “they are the most virtuous members of American society”. I’ve never seen any statement like that from the left.
In contrast, I constantly see comments, from the Religious Right and conservative commentators talking about the culture war or about GW being elected by God himself to defend us in this time of peril or from Republican candidates claiming to be part of God’s own Party and suggesting their own race is one for the soul of the country.
Mikef- I agree- isn’t that what O’Reilly’s “Culture Warrior” is about? Or what about “Godless, the Church of Liberalism”? Or “The Party of Death”? Our politicians s on the right have replaced reason with faith, and tolerance with authoritarianism. Politics and religion don’t mix, and the party of limited government power suddenly seems to want to morph into a moralistic “Big Brother.” Let morality be decided in church or by one’s concience, not in Congress.