Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Michael White | December 21st 2008 07:58 PM | 16 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Adaptive Complexity articles

All

About Michael White

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist


... Full Bio

To be honest, I don't really care about the answer to this question. But read this Kristof NY Times column, and see if you're convinced of the answer. It's time to practice your critical thinking skills - questions you should ask about the claims presented in this column are exactly the sorts of questions you should ask when you read a press report about any statistics-based study, especially medical research.

Here is the basic result Kristof is talking about:

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.

Rather than taking that at face value, several questions should immediately pop into your mind:

1. Is this because more conservatives go to church, and give moeny to their church? For example, Mormons (who tend to be conservative), give 10% of their income to one of the wealthiest churches on the face of the planet, and one which does considerably less humanitarian work around than many churches (liberal and conservative) with much less wealth. Most of us wouldn't count everything you give to your church as "giving to charity," so you should ask yourself if the studies Kristof talks about take church giving into account.

And in fact, Kristof notes that "According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."

But maybe that's because conservatives are already giving a big chunk of change to their church (which may really go to substantial charitable work, and not just to the general operating expenses of the church), so there is less money left over to give to non-religious charities. Thus excluding "donations to all religious organizations" may not be a fair comparison either.

2. Are conservatives richer, and thus able to give more to charity? Kristof notes that "measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes," but we're given no information on how giving relates to wealth. When I'm spending 80% of my income on basics like food, housing, and transportation, I have less money to give as a percentage of my income. If I only spend 30% on the basics, I'm free to give a larger chunk to charity.

3. How much is related to say, issues of urban vs. rural environments, instead of liberal/conservative? One claim is "People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often." Is that because there are more volunteer opportunities in smaller towns than in big cities? I grew up outside of the fairly small city of Ithaca, NY. I volunteered for the local fire department there, something I could never do now in St. Louis because the fire department is all professional.

There are obviously more questions to ask, and it's not clear at all, at least from the newspaper story, what we should really believe. It may very well be that, once you control for all of the confounding factors, liberals really are stingier. At least as Americans we're giving 11 times more of our GNP to charity than the French, as Kristof notes.

But wait - the French pay a lot more in taxes to provide many services which are provided by charities in the US. So who really is more generous?

I'm not taking a stand on what the right answer is to any of these comparisons.  The lesson here is, don't just believe the headline for any study. Learn to ask the right questions.

Comments

Hank's picture

I see these kinds of studies all the time and they all say the same thing; conservatives give more but they don't say why.   

I have no issue with that until people try to frame it for their mode of thought - something like 'conservatives give more to charity because liberals think government is doing things or should do them.'    There's no statistical basis for motivation, after all, but we can understand demographics.

It probably isn't a money issue since there are just as many poor conservatives as poor liberals, given voting stats.   At the top end there are just as many rich liberals as conservatives.  Obviously anyone who has more money will be more  able to give money than poor people - and charitable donations are tax write off.

If liberals go to church less, and they do, then that donation may be a knock on their numbers.   But that's a data point.  Charity is charity.  A church isn't less charitable than Greenpeace. 

In addition to your 3, I might add ...

4.  I am not sure I can back this up with a study but my perception is that liberal people tend to donate more time.   There is no accounting in these studies for hours spent doing charitable work.  




adaptivecomplexity's picture
There's no statistical basis for motivation, after all, but we can understand demographics.

Bingo.

A church isn't less charitable than Greenpeace.

It really, really depends on the church. I don't think the 10% of their income that Mormons donate to their church is as charitable as a 10% income donation to say, Catholic Charities USA. (I say that not as a Catholic, but as an ex-Mormon!)

The Mormon church spends a lot of money on proselytizing and paying for temples where they do proxy baptisms for dead people. Back when I was Mormon, my family members contributed hundreds of dollars a month so that I could go knock on doors and convert people to Mormonism. I did almost no other charitable work, so unless you count converting people to Mormonism as charitable work, the money that paid for my time as a missionary was not charity.

I'm not saying Mormons are wrong for paying for that, nor am I saying the Mormon church does no charitable work (it does). And I'm not just trying to single out Mormons (I'm just more familiar with them).  But the amount of humanitarian work vs. proselytizing/perpetuating the organization varies greatly from church to church. There is no way I would count all church donations as generous charity giving - simply counting conservatives' tithing as charity makes for a very lame comparison.

It probably isn't a money issue since there are just as many poor conservatives as poor liberals, given voting stats.

That very well may be true.  I was just tossing the money issue out as an example of a potential confounder - measuring charitable donations as a percentage of income, without considering how much disposable income people have, is flawed.

And time is certainly something that should be taken into account.

So my feeling is, unless you can account for these issues, you can't simply conclude (under a simplistic headline or study title) conservatives are more charitable than liberals, or visa versa.

This is so ridiculous, it is almost funny. Do we consider that Bill Gates is a liberal or a conservative? The average of what he gives every year gets a lot of weight...And if we answer that it is not him as a person but the money he gives away comes from an organization that he created with his wife, then we get into another series of problems and definitions: the study is therefore not serious at all. Books like that are written to please oneself and a few friends.
I got a question to replace this one: who cares more about the million children that were abused and neglected in 2008 in this country, the liberals or the conservatives? Answer: nobody cares except a few harassed professionals. Children do not vote. Do you think that the pro life care more than the pro choice? Answer: nobody cares, the issue of children is of no interest to either clan.
Any scientist around here can explain to me why ?

adaptivecomplexity's picture
You bring up a great point - who is defined as what? A big chunk of US citizens do not self-identify in surveys as either conservative or liberal. Plus, some of the passages Kristof quoted from the study referred to differences between Red States and Blue States, which makes it even worse, because you're not  looking directly at the demographic groups the study is supposed to be about.


The difference - liberals talk and want others (with tax dollars) to do the good while conservatives actually get off their backsides and do it.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
That may be true, but the whole point of this post is that your claim is exactly what you cannot conclude just from the results cited in the NY Times piece.

Gerhard Adam's picture
When you say that conservatives get off their backsides .... I assume you mean that they borrow the money to engage in their "good works"? 

What is amazing to me is that someone is naive enough to believe that simple labels like "liberal" and "conservative" can actually convey meaningful information about people and their actions.

Steve Davis's picture
Great article Michael, and good points from garance and Gerhard. There's a saying in politics to the effect that you never have a commission of inquiry unless you know what the outcome will be. I suspect many surveys are designed with that in mind.

adaptivecomplexity's picture
And even if the survey itself happens to be good, it's almost inevitable that the results will be garbled in the press.

A point to ponder - Conservitives are usually against government handouts and liberals are usually for them. Why? A liberal would usuually say because conservitives are greedy and libs are not. The truth is Conservitives simply don't believe it is the job of the government to give charitably, its the job of the people to do that. So apparently they proctice what they preach.
What's even more interesting is if you look at those facts as a whole it paints the picture I have always thought to be true; A conservative wants to help people directly and feels it is wrong to vote to take otheres money for that purpose while libs want to vote the burden onto the government ie everyone else and somehow they feel good about that? Or do they? when you don't answer your guilt directly it does not go away, so libs are forever giving more and more away (of everyone elses money of course). What's sad is a government check does not impact the recipient the way receiving help from another directly does... Too great quotes -

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away mans initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
Abraham Lincoln

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.”

Author unknown but usually attributed to ALEXANDER FRASER TYTLER

Gerhard Adam's picture
Now ... if conservatives only practiced what they preach when it comes to hand-outs to corporations, and their own pet projects, then it might actually mean something.

Steve Davis's picture
Nicely put Gerhard. And was it JS Mill who said that not all conservatives are stupid, but generally stupid people are conservative. That's just a little to sweeping for my liking, but it has an element of truth. As I see it conservatives have one redeeming feature. For all their faults they see society as an organic whole. That's a huge plus because it means they are not beyond saving.  

Liberals always like to pat each other on the backs and say atta boy for affirmation since the facts are rarely in their favor. So I find it amazing that scientists who are supposed to live and breathe the facts have to do the same...
Sure there are conservatives who cross the line and its absolutely wrong. What’s interesting is if a conservative in congress crosses the line the rest of the conservatives are pretty good about forcing him out but if it’s a lib they all circle the wagons and make excuses for them and keep them there...

All that to say what is ironic about Gerhard’s "nicely put" comment is it too should be a little too sweeping for your liking. Truth is more Libs are up to no good than conservatives but are just less likely to expose their comrade.
Since you live and breathe facts here are a few that make both of my points...
http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=3305 Gotta love Bankers and congressmen....

Hank's picture
Steve, as a fellow conservative I can lay out why it doesn't work any better in real life than Marxism does - I'm ignoring your jibe at people you disagree with politically because it's irrelevant to the research- as a kid growing up in the country, a lot of things had to be done in groups because there weren't enough people for capitalism to invest and there was no large enough tax basis for the government to do it locally.  

Say your road is dirt and you would like it paved or even, back then (1980s), if you wanted cable television - all your neighbors had to pitch in for the cost.   Invariably it would be a conservative who would balk at paying anything, either derailing the project or boosting the cost for everyone else.   Yet they get the benefit anyway unless you hire a lawyer to write up a contract.    Without some semblance of liberalism, no community projects would ever get done, including highways and schools.     This site is another example - we are the only science site in the top 25 that does not have a corporate big brother like a magazine or the government paying the bills.    It is primarily academics and liberals who write here because in 100% of the instances I have asked conservatives to contribute a policy or science paper, they have wanted to know how much we pay and had no interest otherwise; the community aspect they have not cared about, just like that paved road.
 
Like I say above, studies that say conservatives are more 'charitable' are only using dollars and not time; conservatives have more money whereas liberals (and let's face it, you wouldn't work for peanuts in academia if you care about money) spend time instead.    There are exceptions, like church volunteer workers who donate time and rich liberals who give money to charity but they are exceptions.


jtwitten's picture
It is primarily academics and liberals who write here because in 100%
of the instances I have asked conservatives to contribute a policy or
science paper, they have wanted to know how much we pay and had no
interest otherwise

It is a poor economic mind (i.e., one that does not understand the true meaning of opportunity cost) that only thinks of return on investment in terms of money.  One does not have to be altrustic to find potential return on investment for "supporting the community".

Gerhard Adam's picture

Good points Hank.  I would not consider myself a liberal (in the general sense), although I suppose I have ideas that might be considered so by others.
 
My main problem with conservatism as it exists today is that (1) it seems too inflexible and wants to cling to ideologies rather than being pragmatic and (2) it seems to go out of it's way to be antagonistic to any different perspective.  While I realize that these statements are too sweeping, in general, this seems to be the tone that conservatism is setting.

Part of the problem is that too many of the loudest voices among conservatives have elected to "declare war" on liberals (and increasingly it seems like it doesn't even matter what the consequences are) rather than simply disagreeing with them. 


Regarding the issue of spending money, the only truth I've observed is that the government will ALWAYS take your money, so it seems disingenous to suggest that somehow less money is taken when conservatives are in power (using spending deficits in lieu of taxing is not saving anybody any money).  So quite often, the liberal perspective on spending is that, if you're going to take our money anyway, then it should be spent on people, rather than spending it on other projects.  A classic example taken from the mortgage crisis, is why give money to the lending institutions, when if it had been used to help people in their mortgages, then both sides would have won.  The lenders would've gotten their payments, and the people could've stayed in their homes. 

I don't have a problem with the idea that there can be far-ranging disagreements about ways to run the country, but I will not accept the idea that somehow I'm "evil", or "stupid", or some "dupe" simply because we disagree.  Conservatives and liberals deserve a better dialogue that name-calling.



Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.