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 on 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.”
________
Kelly Boggs is editor of the Louisiana Baptist Message.
