Some thoughts about us stingy liberals

Rick Moore, of HolyCoast.com, has taken a soul-searching article by liberal New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof, titled Bleeding Heart Tightwads, and through selective quotation attempts to use it as a cudgel to beat liberalism about the head.

Rather than attempting to show that political liberalism is a completely hypocritical enterprise, Kristof's purpose, as he put it, was

to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.

Speaking as a liberal who is not prone to donate great quantities of my income to non-profit organizations or to attend and support a church or religious movement (most of my charitable contributions are aimed at one-on-one exchanges, where I know for a fact that 100% of my time and/or money is being used for the purpose intended), I say to Mr. Kristof: Thanks for your opinion, but I prefer my way.

Perhaps other liberals do as well. Although I have absolutely no quarrel with those who prefer to give and volunteer their time to the well-known causes (I do a little of that, too), I believe this is a matter of personal choice. The important thing is that we all do something and try to make a difference. I also am of the opinion that working to bring about social justice is capable of doing at least as much good, and probably more, than charitable giving alone.

Be that as it may, Rick Moore has some interesting thoughts on Kristof's column. He writes:

We know that liberals are in fact generous - with other people's money. They're just not generous with their own unless they're pouring it into a campaign for a liberal candidate. They're more than willing to buy TV ads or mailers for a candidate. They're just not inspired by the thought of buying food or shelter for the truly needy.

Frankly, I get a little tired of that "generous with other people's money" cliche. Do conservatives really believe they are the only ones who pay taxes?

That point aside, the Pew Research Center has published data which show that the majority of Americans believe government should "do more to help the needy" and that 69% actually believe government should "guarantee food and shelter to all Americans." Seems to me that whether this be liberalism or not, the majority of us believe the government should be very active in the welfare of its citizenry; and of course we know that means being generous with tax revenues. Toward that end, it makes sense that giving financial support to political candidates who share this concern is a wise investment.

On the other hand, modern conservatism favors the idea that private charity is preferable to government assistance, and the thing that makes them appear more generous than liberals is their ardent religious support. While Moore quotes Kristof to the effect that

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

It is notable that he fails to quote this portion of Kristof's column:

When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn't helping the poor but simply constructing lavish spires.

Personally, I am very leary of sending charitable donations to religious organizations. We would do well to remember what Republican Senator Charles Grassley said when opening an investigation into the finances of six well-known televangelists: “Rolls Royces, Bentleys ... a marble commode in an expensive home: that’s a lot of money down the toilet.”

Now I'm not saying that all churches and religious organizations are frauds, but the Religious Right is made up, to a very large extent, of the supporters of wealthy ministers and religious leaders.

So if that is the definition of charity, I much prefer contributing to politicians who seek to bring about social justice, and I much prefer paying higher taxes to help the needy because - contrary to conservative thinking - government can be highly effective in these efforts.

One more quotation Mr. Moore left out. Kristof noted that

Looking away from politics, there's evidence that one of the most generous groups in the United States is gays.

Yet this is one of the groups that conservatives are perhaps most intent on opposing.

Using Moore's logic, it seems to me, we should be encouraging more people to become gay or at least to embrace wholeheartedly the "gay agenda" in the interest of charitable giving.

Also note at the same time that practically all of the right-wing religious ministries oppose gay citizens and their attempts to obtain equality.

So who really is the hypocrite here?