Eduardo is unimpressed by the evidence, to which I linked here, suggesting that religious conservatives are more generous than secular liberals. The evidence is provided in a forthcoming book by Arthur Brooks, "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservativism," referenced in the linked-to post. Brooks finds that "conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure." Eduardo writes, though:
I'm not sure what the comparison between religious conservatives and secular liberals proves, but it certainly doesn't prove, to quote Instapundit (quoting Beliefnet), that conservatives are more generous "by any measure." At most, it shows that religious conservatives are more generous donors to private charities. But, if I define "generous" to encompass, say, support against one's financial interest for social programs funded through redistributive taxation, then wealthy liberals (secular or religious), who generally support such taxes and such programs, do well and conservatives (religious or not) don't look so hot.
I have not read the Brooks book, but again, his claim is that the evidence does, in fact, make it claer that "conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure."
As for Eduardo's proposed expansion of the definition of "generosity" (to include, in my words, "supporting the government taking money from others and directing it toward uses of which I approve"), I'm not sure the proposed expansion does much to blunt the force of (what I gather is) Brooks's case. After all, whether they support redistributive policies or not, religious conservatives pay their taxes, just like "wealthy liberals"; they just give away more on top of that. Their opposition to the policies that reduce the size of the pot from which they can donate to charity hardly diminishes -- indeed, I would think it exhances -- their "generosity."
Eduardo also writes:
I would be interested to know whether the "private charities" canvassed for the study include the religious conservatives own churches. [RG: My understanding is that it does.] I'd also like to see the magnitude of the differences, especially on some of the non-monetary measures noted in the beleifnet article, such as blood donation. [Apparently, Brooks finds that the differences hold up for volunteering time; I do not know about blood donation.] Finally, I'd want to see the numbers for secular conservatives and religious liberals, since the presence of religious involvement is a potentially conflating variable in this analysis that cuts across political orientation. [I would, too.]
Eduardo writes:
Given egalitarian liberal views about the role of the state in solving certain widespread social problems, one would expect them (egalitarian liberals) to support state over private solutions and to view at least some sorts of private charitable contributions as wasted money.
Maybe. But, Brooks's point (I gather) is that religious conservatives, who believe that redistributive taxation to fund government efforts to "solv[e] widespread social problems" is often also "wasted money" (that the conservatives are nonetheless legally required to provide), also give money to private charity. And, I would be surprised to learn that "wealthy liberals" think that *all* private charities are a waste of money. Surely, there are *some* that they think do good work? And yet, they do not give as much, or so Brooks claims.
Finally, Eduardo is too quick, in my view, when he says that "religious conservatives" are those "who will give money to private charities but oppose state intervention in the service of social justice." I am confident that the "religious conservatives" studied by Brooks support all kinds of "state intervention in the service of social justice," even if they do not support the same package of policies, or the same level of spending, as Eduardo does.
UPDATE: Here's more on the Brooks book, and the evidence, and the issue generally, from Jim Lindgren (Northwestern). He writes, among other things:
[S]ome commenters speculate that the pattern of greater donations to charity by anti-redistributionists is trivial in size or simply a function of religion. But anti-redistributionists give more to secular (non-religious) charities as well. Brooks reports (p. 56) that strong anti-redistributionists gave 12 times more money to charity than strong redistributionists, and 9 times more to secular (non-religious) causes.
It's not quite "Catholic," but there's some "legal theory", so . . .
Here is a debate, on the web site -- "PENNumbra" -- of the Penn Law Review, between Prof. Kermit Roosevelt (Penn) and me about his new book, "The Myth of Judicial Activism." Here is the teaser:
“Judicial activism,” writes Professor Kermit Roosevelt, of Penn, has been employed as an “excessive and unhelpful” charge—one “essentially empty of content.” As a substitute, Roosevelt reviews here the framework for analysis of Supreme Court opinions that receives fuller treatment in his recent book, The Myth of Judicial Activism. Professor Richard W. Garnett, of Notre Dame, is willing to go along with “much, though not all, of Roosevelt’s position. Ultimately, Garnett suggests “that ‘judicial activism’ might be salvaged, and used as a way of identfying and criticizing decisions . . . that fail to demonstrate th[e] virtue” of constitutional “humility.”
