Posted on 12/02/2006 11:45:01 AM PST by DeweyCA
ALEXANDRIA, La. (BP)--A couple of years ago I was being interviewed by a newspaper reporter on the subject of “gay marriage.” Somewhere in the midst of our conversation the discussion turned and the reporter said, “You have to admit that there are places in the Bible where Jesus comes across more like a tax and spend liberal who really wants to help the poor rather than a conservative who wants the disadvantaged to help themselves.”
“I don’t know any conservatives that are opposed to helping the poor,” I replied. “We just disagree with liberals on what is the best way to provide assistance to those in need.”
Over the next several minutes I explained that of all of the conservatives that I know, while they want to help those less fortunate than themselves, they do not believe government was the best vehicle to get the job done.
When it comes to government-run programs, I said, there seems to be a tremendous amount of waste. Not only that, but there is virtually no accountability. At best, most government programs are only placing a Band-Aid on the problem and, at worst, are only perpetuating the plight of the poor.
“An old adage states, ‘Give a man a fish and you have fed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you have fed him for life,'" I told the reporter. “The conservatives that I know want to teach people how to fish.”
The reporter’s perception of conservatives, specifically religious conservatives, as callous and uncaring toward the poor has been perpetuated by liberal politicians and their willing accomplices in the left-leaning media.
Conservatives have long been characterized as the Ebenezer Scrooges of society. When the phrase “compassionate conservatism” was first coined it was derided as oxymoronic. It was the liberal who was the champion of the poor and who really felt their pain.
A new book by Arthur C. Brooks not only challenges the stereotype that liberals are more compassionate and charitable, it obliterates it.
“For too long liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society,” writes the Syracuse University professor. “Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice.”
In the book, “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism,” Brooks uses comprehensive data to show that the values espoused by conservatives such as church involvement, traditional families, the Protestant work ethic and antipathy of government-funded social services, make conservatives more generous than liberals.
In fact, Brooks concludes 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.”
And though conservative-headed households make slightly less money than liberals, Brooks found that “when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more.”
“Conversely,” writes Brooks, “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."
In a recent special edition of the ABC news program “20/20,” titled “Cheap in America,” John Stossel discovered anecdotal evidence that supports Brooks’ findings. As an experiment, Stossel set up Salvation Army buckets outside retail outlets in two communities with contrasting demographics. The cities chosen were Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif.
San Francisco is one of the most, if not the most, liberal city in America. Sioux Falls is very conservative. Stossel reported that San Franciscans, on average, make more money than their counterparts in Sioux Falls. He also noted that while half of the population in the South Dakota city attends church every week, only 14 percent of the residents in the City by the Bay do so.
Buckets were set up outside a Macy’s department store in San Francisco and a Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. When the results were tallied, the South Dakotans had outgiven their left-coast counterparts two to one.
Stossel also pointed out that of the top 25 states where people give an above average amount of their income to charities or churches, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.
“If we look at party affiliation instead of ideology,” writes Brooks, “the story remains largely the same.” He continues, “If anything, it makes the political left look less charitable, not more so.
The Bible teaches that it is more blessed to give than to receive. It seems that compassionate conservatives actually practice what the Good Book preaches. Liberals, on the other hand, only preach. And their left-leaning message is “do as I say, not as I do.”
What always struck me as amusing is that very difference. Conservatives and liberals both want to help the poor, but we just have different ways of going about it (and, IMO, the liberal is more exploitative than anything).
But because we have different approaches, liberals make it sound like we don't want to help the poor AT ALL.
But here's the amusing part. What do libs think? That if the poor aren't helped by the government, they aren't helped at all, period? Does that mean that they haven't been OFFICIALLY helped?
I know three very Liberal people. They give nothing. They share the same attitude. It is the governments job to take care of the poor, and would like to see the rich taxed more to take care of the problem.
No He doesn't, because although He healed the sick and fed the poor on occasion, He didn't give handouts or expect Rome or the Pharisees to do it, so's people could mooch off the hard work of others and sit on their butts all day whining and complaining about how hard they have it.
I see this a lot. It's a pretty interesting (and disturbing) way of seeing the world. "Your opinion is not my opinion, therefore, you hate everybody and want them to die."
Liberals simply represent Aristocracy, hierarchy and intellectual elitism. The promotion of class and intellectualism over the human heart, soul and intelligence.
The best way to help the poor is to get filthy rich in business. It is virtually impossible for an honest, successful businessman to become successful without enriching the entire spectrum of the economy.
That statement pretty much sums up liberalism.
Interesting. In fact most liberals I know are happy to give. Can't speak for everyone though. This article looks like another empty sounding off from some so-called Christian. Has anyone turned on TBN lately. Many mega churches are at least as iunterested in buying things for their church (weight rooms, cruises) as they are giving it to the poor or handicapped.
Yes I am a devout Christian myself.
Government-financed programs for the poor and needy often also provide highly-paid cushy jobs for many of these lefties. About 10% of government money intended for the poor actually reaches the poor. The other 90% creates salaries and benefits for those employed in those programs. Again, mostly lefties. It's purely self-serving on their part. They don't want to "help the poor" - they want to get money for themselves. The "poor" are just a marketing tool for them.
ncottraux wrote: "What always struck me as amusing is that very difference. Conservatives and liberals both want to help the poor, but we just have different ways of going about it (and, IMO, the liberal is more exploitative than anything)."
I agree. Some people claim liberals have bad motives, but I think liberals generally mean well. The problem isn't about who cares the most for the poor. It's about which side has the most efficient methods. Without a doubt, some people are helped out of poverty by welfare (cash payouts, education assistance, etc).
Reincarnation in a realistic way! I don’t think any human truly knows about life after death but this philosophy does make sense at many levels.
However, I’ve known many Americans who were total idiots with no values, heart or soul and decided to “talk the talk and have the look” of being conservative. Sadly, in most cases, it worked to “get them what they wanted” from “people who believed”. Maybe a little “a Democracy if you can keep it” is in order………
I view liberalism as a well-meaning but misguided attempt at saving the world. However, in the past 20-or-so years, as a thought process, it has deteriorated rapidly, mainly out of desperation. Liberals like Truman used to be proud, hopeful, and optimistic. Liberals today, more and more, are becoming angry, hostile, and vicious (because time and time again, their viewpoint of the world is being discredited).
They don't want to "help the poor" - they want to get money for themselves. The "poor" are just a marketing tool for them.
Never thought of it that way. Thought they really wanted to help the poor but come it think of it their approach of practically worshipping the poor should have given it away for me.
The most encouraging thing about Brooks' book is that it shows that those people who support smaller government are in fact willing to help people through charity and personal involvement. I always wondered whether the majority of people who say they favor the private sector over government were really just country-clubbers who were mainly interested in spending money on themselves, but Brooks' research shows that is far from the case.
And it turns out that "compassionate" liberals are just as self-absorbed and small-hearted as many of their detractors on the right suspected. Liberalism is not about solving problems in the real world. It is just a feel good movement. Rich liberals can think they can just hate Bush and Republicans and that's enough to make them morally superior. And no matter how rich liberals are, they invent some cartoonish "rich Republican" who is even richer than they are. And they tell themselves that the rich person needs to be taxed more to help the poor. Meanwhile the liberal spends his time and money buying BMWs and big-screen TVs.
If liberalism really was a better way to run our government and help people, then cities such as Detroit, San Francisco, Chicago, Washington, DC, New York, which have had liberals in charge in recent decades, would be "shining cities on a hill". They would have such a great quality of life, quality of jobs, quality of free healthcare, quality of schools, quality of affordable housing, etc. that EVERYONE would be on a waiting list to live there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.