Compassionate Conservative

It's not an oxymoron!

Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks, the child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

...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.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

I'm sure there are exceptions on both ends of the spectrum.

My experience with Fiberalism that begin in the '60s is it's self centered, it is all about them.

They also have a need to feel superior to everyone else, because of their inferiorities and insecurities.

The causes they support are merely to make them feel better about themselves so they can boast about what wonderful human beings they are.