Conservatives Compassionate With Their Own Money (Not Yours)

Liberals are infinitely more compassionate and concerned with the needy than conservatives, right? Wrong. Flat wrong.

I've written about this a number of times before, but judging by some of the comments left at Dakota Voice today, some folks weren't in school those days.

It so happens that George Will's column today, which can be found at the Boston Herald and many other locations, examines the issue of compassion and charitable giving.

His column points out that while the stereotype is that liberals are more compassionate toward the needy than are conservatives, the opposite is true.

Why would such a stereotype develop? Might it have something to do with the contention that liberals are always more generous than conservatives...when it comes to giving away someone elses money? Might it have something to do with the fact that when conservatives point out that our Constitution does not authorize expenditures of taxpayer funds for the purposes of compassion, the Left and their media accomplices waste no time in branding conservatives as "haters" and "mean spirited" and "cold-hearted" and "uncaring?"

How does it shake out when you look at how liberals and conservatives give of their own money? Then, the stereotype withers like a delicate flower on hot a Texas summer day.

Wills' column reminds readers of a book written a couple of years ago by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University: “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” Brooks' research found that conservatives are more generous.

ABC's 20/20 also did their own experiment a couple of years ago, with part of it right here in South Dakota, and found the same thing.

But back to Will's column, he cites some of the information from Brooks' book:

• 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 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

• 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.

You might also recall that a few days ago, it came to light from Barack Obama's tax returns that for the years 2000-2004, the Obamas gave less than 1% of their income to charity. I'm not into tooting my own horn, but I made a fraction of their $1.2 million income, but I out-gave them not only in percentage, but in hard dollar amounts every one of those years. And that's not even counting what the government "liberated" from my pocket for "forced compassion" for social spending.

Will's article points out that Al Gore is another of these big-spenders-of-other-people's-money-but-not-his-own. In 2000, he gave 0.2% to charity. Wow. What a big heart.

Why are conservatives--many of whom are Christians--so much more generous? Maybe it has to do with their recognition of the proper role of charity and compassion as a private function, not a government function. Both the Bible and the Constitution tell us this.

Consider that nowhere in the Bible does it say government should take money from one person and give it to another in the name of "charity." Consider what else the Bible says about the needy and "compassion":

- If one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells some of his property, his nearest relative is to come and redeem what his countryman has sold. (Leviticus 25:25)

- Do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit (Exodus 23:3)

- Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. (Leviticus 19:15)

- If a man will not work, he shall not eat. (2 Thessalonians 3:10)

- These should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family (1 Timothy 5:4)

- As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list…they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house (1 Timothy 5:13)

- If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. (1 Timothy 5:16)

Our government and the Constitution which defines it is one of enumerated powers; in other words, it's powers are limited and specifically listed, and it cannot (legally) do what it is not expressly authorized to do according to the Constitution.

And you will not find authorization for social spending, compassion or charity in the Constitution.

Consider what some of the Founders (who helped write the Constitution and set up our government) and early statesmen had to say on the subject of government charity:

- A wise and frugal government...shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. – Thomas Jefferson

- Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. - Thomas Jefferson

- With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. – James Madison

- I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. – James Madison

- Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. – James Madison

- We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. — Congressman Davy Crockett

We as individuals can and should help those in need. But Christ's admonitions to do so were to PEOPLE, not GOVERNMENT. When government forces charitable giving on those who have in order to give to those who have not, it robs both of the blessing.

It can also have the tendency, since government is far removed from the capacity to distinguish true need from sloth, of enabling people to be unproductive--at the expense of the productive.

Government also has a poor track record of recognizing when need comes about because of immoral and unwise lifestyle choices (drug abuse, alcoholism, gambling addictions, poor financial skills), and by supplying money with limited accountability and not teaching the recipient a better way, enables the person to continue an unproductive and self-destructive lifestyle.

Before FDR's socialist "New Deal" and other misguided liberal schemes, charity in America was handled by individuals, churches and other private charities.

If we truly care about being fair to those with means and without means, we will abandon this un-Biblical and un-Constitutional scheme and return to the private model of compassion.

It's what all Americans deserve.