Red counties, which are overwhelmingly Republican, tend to report higher charitable contributions than Democratic-dominated blue counties, according to a new study on giving, although giving in blue counties is often bolstered by a combination of charitable donations and higher taxes.
Maybe they come out more or less even, I don’t know. But to say conservatives are “me me me” and liberals are “we we we” is just ignorant and doesn’t jive with the facts.
I a little bit of hope that you’ll read this and change the conservative strawman you have in your head just a little bit. You can’t engage in honest conversation when you do that.
The problem is that you don’t understand conservative viewpoints. Not that you disagree, that you don’t understand.
Here’s a short reading list, with liberal authors, about it:
“The Moral Roots of Ideology” by Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham (2007):
This study explores the moral foundations theory and suggests that liberals and conservatives tend to prioritize different moral values, leading to divergent political ideologies. Understanding these underlying moral foundations can contribute to a better understanding of political differences.
“The Ideological Animal” by John T. Jost, Christopher M. Federico, and Jaime L. Napier (2009)
This article discusses the psychological underpinnings of political ideology and explores factors that influence individuals’ understanding of opposing viewpoints, such as openness to experience, cognitive flexibility, and exposure to diverse perspectives.
“Beyond Ideology: Predicting Political Bias and Attitude Extremity from Personal Need for Structure” by John T. Jost, Jack Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Frank J. Sulloway (2003):
This study examines the role of psychological factors, such as the need for structure and certainty, in shaping political bias and the ability to understand opposing views.
Not to mention that it’s questionable whether the average Republican gives more than the average Democrat, or if it is just a case of a small population of extremely wealthy individuals donating large amounts for reasons of tax benefits (in addition to the political motivations you mentioned).
Then there’s also this from one of the authors of the study:
‘It also wasn’t obvious “whether donors were being purely generous or whether they would also benefit from their donation. This relationship is called consumption philanthropy, in which people give to a religious organization or a school from which they will derive a benefit in the form of, say, a better religious education program or a new gymnasium.” Giving to a food bank or a homeless shelter has a very different outcome than does giving to a private school.’ (https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-charity-than-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/)
“Without context” is one of the favorite argument methods of conservatives. It’s not that they disagree about the context. They don’t understand the concept of context nor its relevance.
The highest taking nonprofit in my county is the extraordinarily conservative mormon cult. They don’t have a lot of folk out here. They take in over five hundred grand a week in my town alone. Not a cent of those donations stay in my town. It all goes to this fund. The liberal folk in my town donate to stuff like the homeless shelter, the hospital, the fire department, stuff like that. Context IS important!
Democrats aren’t left either. Only an american would confuse liberals with the left, because there hasn’t been a relevant left party in decades. They are just not right-wing extremists like the average republican.
You are living in a two-party system. What you call a democracy doesn’t have a lot to do with an actually democratic system. A binary choice every few years does not mean democracy in the slightest.
I have at least a nodding acquaintance with that work and while I think it’s worth considering and talking about, I don’t find it to be at all the most convincing explanation for conservatism and am far more persuaded by conservatism as being motivated by a desire for the preservation of hierarchy that manifests itself through said psychological traits, but that is the ultimate prior that informs them. Otherwise we would expect to see liberalism and conservatism more evenly distributed throughout our population, as with other psychological traits, but we don’t, to the contrary, they are very geographically dependent.
So while I don’t think that psychology has nothing to say about the issue, I definitely don’t think that its the most important factor.
Per the New York Times, 2018
Their tor doesn’t seem to be paywalled.
Maybe they come out more or less even, I don’t know. But to say conservatives are “me me me” and liberals are “we we we” is just ignorant and doesn’t jive with the facts.
I a little bit of hope that you’ll read this and change the conservative strawman you have in your head just a little bit. You can’t engage in honest conversation when you do that.
The problem is that you don’t understand conservative viewpoints. Not that you disagree, that you don’t understand.
Here’s a short reading list, with liberal authors, about it:
Or just continue to spew hate. Your call, buddy.
What counts as a ‘charitable contribution?’ Is giving to your evangelical megachurch counted? Is giving to Donald Trump’s campaign counted?
That’s not a very good metric without context.
Not to mention that it’s questionable whether the average Republican gives more than the average Democrat, or if it is just a case of a small population of extremely wealthy individuals donating large amounts for reasons of tax benefits (in addition to the political motivations you mentioned).
Then there’s also this from one of the authors of the study: ‘It also wasn’t obvious “whether donors were being purely generous or whether they would also benefit from their donation. This relationship is called consumption philanthropy, in which people give to a religious organization or a school from which they will derive a benefit in the form of, say, a better religious education program or a new gymnasium.” Giving to a food bank or a homeless shelter has a very different outcome than does giving to a private school.’ (https://nonprofitquarterly.org/republicans-give-more-to-charity-than-democrats-but-theres-a-bigger-story-here/)
“Without context” is one of the favorite argument methods of conservatives. It’s not that they disagree about the context. They don’t understand the concept of context nor its relevance.
The highest taking nonprofit in my county is the extraordinarily conservative mormon cult. They don’t have a lot of folk out here. They take in over five hundred grand a week in my town alone. Not a cent of those donations stay in my town. It all goes to this fund. The liberal folk in my town donate to stuff like the homeless shelter, the hospital, the fire department, stuff like that. Context IS important!
Democrats aren’t left either. Only an american would confuse liberals with the left, because there hasn’t been a relevant left party in decades. They are just not right-wing extremists like the average republican.
You are living in a two-party system. What you call a democracy doesn’t have a lot to do with an actually democratic system. A binary choice every few years does not mean democracy in the slightest.
I have at least a nodding acquaintance with that work and while I think it’s worth considering and talking about, I don’t find it to be at all the most convincing explanation for conservatism and am far more persuaded by conservatism as being motivated by a desire for the preservation of hierarchy that manifests itself through said psychological traits, but that is the ultimate prior that informs them. Otherwise we would expect to see liberalism and conservatism more evenly distributed throughout our population, as with other psychological traits, but we don’t, to the contrary, they are very geographically dependent.
So while I don’t think that psychology has nothing to say about the issue, I definitely don’t think that its the most important factor.
The fact that this is downvoted speaks volumes about this place. Might as well be /r/politics.
It was a link to the NYT and a list of three article by Liberal writers. And it gets downvoted for not being liberal enough.
Have fun with your strawmen, assholes.