We Should all be as Heartless as Dick Cheney

One of the things that irks me about perceptions of conservatives is that we are somehow considered less compassionate and less generous than liberals. Of course, these things are not true. In fact, the opposite is true. We give more to charity. We are more likely to offer our lives on the battlefield. We support churches with more generosity.

Here’s some information from Charity Navigator, which is not a political organization:

Who gives the most in America: conservatives or liberals?

A. There is a persistent stereotype about charitable giving in politically progressive regions of America: while people on the political right may be hardworking and family-oriented, they tend not to be very charitable toward the less fortunate. In contrast, those on the political left care about vulnerable members of society, and are thus the charitable ones. Understanding “charity” in terms of voluntary gifts of money (instead of government income redistribution), this stereotype is wrong.

The fact is that self-described “conservatives” in America are more likely to give—and give more money—than self-described “liberals.” In the year 2000, households headed by a conservative gave, on average, 30 percent more dollars to charity than households headed by a liberal. And this discrepancy in monetary donations is not simply an artifact of income differences. On the contrary, liberal families in these data earned an average of 6 percent more per year than conservative families.

These differences go beyond money. Take blood donations, for example. In 2002, conservative Americans were more likely to donate blood each year, and did so more often, than liberals. People who said they were “conservative” or “extremely conservative” made up less than one-fifth of the population, but donated more than a quarter of the blood. To put this in perspective, if political liberals and moderates gave blood like conservatives do, the blood supply in the United States would surge by nearly half.

One major explanation for the giving discrepancy between conservatives and liberals is religion. In 2004, conservatives were more than twice as likely as liberals to attend a house of worship weekly, whereas liberals were twice as likely as conservatives to attend seldom or never. There are indeed religious liberals in America, but they are currently outnumbered by religious conservatives by about four to one.

It’s bizarre. We are taken to task repeatedly, simply because we don’t support mindless, incompetent, counterproductive giving that is the result of governmental coercion. The fact that we give freely, on our own initiative, receives no press. And journalists don’t like to point out that a big percentage of the “generous” liberals who vote for government handouts are likely recipients of the money in question. How is it generous to vote for the government to take someone else’s money and give it to you?

Still, I wonder if we do enough. My impression is that Satan steps in wherever he can find a moral fault with believers. Marxism, which is unquestionably Satanic, got a foothold because the lives of the lower classes were so wretched. They weren’t getting an even break. Had the upper classes treated workers better, it would have been harder to motivate them to generate social turmoil by fomenting revolution. Like Fred Smith (founder of Fedex) once said, no company gets a union unless it deserves one. Perhaps that’s an exaggeration, but maybe the principle is correct.

I wonder if private giving is everything it should be. I tend to doubt it. For example, I’m fairly sure tithing is uncommon. If it were the rule and not the exception, a substantial percentage of American incomes–maybe five percent–would be going to churches. And they wouldn’t know what to do with the money; they’d spend much more of it on social organizations. Charities would be swollen with capital.

I wonder about this because we have a political crisis on our hands. People who have no idea how economics works are blindly electing leftists who will eventually ruin us with their false generosity. And maybe we could reverse this trend if the needy were being served better by private organizations.

On the other hand, much of what is characterized as “need” is actually greed. It may be that perceived need always increases with the availability of handouts. Maybe increasing our giving will increase demand. But there’s a difference between private and governmental handouts: private handouts can be distributed with competence. The government doesn’t care if you deserve money. They only care if you vote. Private charities consider themselves stewards. Like Hebrew National, they answer to a higher authority.

Interesting question.

Whatever the answer is, I think we should all hope to be as lucky as the much-maligned Dick Cheney, who has given millions to charity. Not only did he and his wife make huge donations; they made donations that were huge in proportion to their total income. I would love to approach the Pearly Gates with something like that on my resume. It must be wonderful to find yourself in a position where you’re able to do that much good.

The odd thing about all this is that conservatives are doing a pretty good job of giving, and liberals are not, yet the political fortunes of liberals are waxing while ours wane. And one diabolical result of the move from private to governmental charity is that the givers are losing their blessings. The Bible makes it clear that we are not to give out of coercion. It apparently pleases God very, very little when a government forces people to do charity. So we are still losing the money, but we are not getting the full benefit of giving.

Another problem is that people feel entitled to government money. It therefore corrupts them. They become spoiled and ungrateful. When you have to go to a private entity or an individual for help, you know you’re getting a favor. You realize help is not certain. That has to be less corrupting.

I am not generous by nature. I had to be taught. Here (again) is a helpful passage from the Psalms; I had it printed on a Cafepress mug so I would have it in front of me:

1 Blessed is he that considereth the poor: the LORD will deliver him in time of trouble.

2 The LORD will preserve him, and keep him alive; and he shall be blessed upon the earth: and thou wilt not deliver him unto the will of his enemies.

I consider that a set of promises, and I cling to it. I don’t believe God would put things like that in scripture, yet would not be willing to back it up. God does not give lip service. The Bible also says that when you give to the poor, you lend to God. And God always pays interest. You get something in return, and it appears that the best way to characterize it is to call it God’s favor. It’s not just a monetary transaction. You may be blessed with money, but the only thing you can be sure of is that he will take notice of you and watch out for you, as he did in the case of Cornelius the generous centurion. That’s how I see it at this time.

I don’t know if generosity can save conservatives from political failure, but I am sure it can save individual Christians from the curses that hit us as a nation. I suppose we are reaching the point where that will have to suffice.