A week or so ago, this story came out which shows that conservatives, we of the icicles where our hearts should be, are more generous than bleeding heart (but not bleeding their money) liberals:
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.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- 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.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
Now comes word from the New York Post's Page Six that the general is also the specific as it turns out that the Big Man of Conservatism, Rush Limbaugh is considerably more generous than the Liberal Queen of the House, Nancy Pelosi:
RUSH Limbaugh is much more charitable than Nancy Pelosi. According to Peter Schweizer in "Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . And Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals" (Doubleday), the most recent tax records show Limbaugh gave money to "various individuals in need of assistance mainly due to family illnesses" ($109,716), "children's case management organizations" ($52,898) and "Alzheimer's community care" ($35,100). And Pelosi's contributions? The list includes the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art ($36,500) and San Francisco Symphony ($5,600). "But with the exception of an occasional $1,000 contribution to a Boys & Girls Club, little went to the less fortunate," Schweizer, a Stanford professor, writes. To be fair to Pelosi, Limbaugh makes about $33 million a year, while Pelosi's salary as Speaker of the House earns her just $217,400.
As to poor Nancy making a piddling $217,400 per annum and thus making her lack of giving an amount comparable to Rush's more understandable, it isn't exactly the whole story. This is:
One of the most prominent is Nancy Pelosi, leader of the Democratic minority, who lists assets of up to $92 million held jointly with her businessman husband Paul. They include two vineyards, one valued between $5 million and $25 million and the other valued between $1 million and $5 million, and a stake in a restaurant chain worth as much as $25 million. They also own three pieces of prime San Francisco real estate—one being their personal dwelling in the posh Pacific Heights neighborhood—each valued at up to $5 million. Rounding out their real estate holdings are two mountain townhouses and a share in a resort, worth up to $11 million combined.
Conservatives don't just have better policies; they're better people, too.
Cross Posted at Liberty Pundit