Customer Reviews

Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters

5 star:		(26)
4 star:		(17)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

The book uses data from many sources to prove that the one overwhelming predictor of generosity is religion. Political affiliation is almost irrelevent - the statistics for religious liberals and religious conservaties are identical. Religious people are statistically more likely to give than secularists (91% to 66%), and give more of their money (3.5 times more than secularists), are more likely to volunteer their time (67% to 44%), and volunteer more of their time (almost twice as much). The fact that the conservative population is more charitable than the liberal population is due to the fact that religious people tend to be politically conservative.

Brooks defines religious people as those who attend a place of worship at least once a week (roughly 30% of the population), and secularists as those who do not believe in a diety or attend a place of worship one time a year or less (20% of the population). That clearly leaves a large "middle class" where I suspect the statistics are hazy.

Contrary to comments in a previous review (by Richard Bennet), Brooks does address the issue of who the aid is given to. The statistics hold independent of the recipient of the donation or how the donation is solicited. Compared to secularists, religious people are more likely to donate to secular organizations or when the recipient is not local or is unknown. Religious people are more likely to make a donation when asked (by any organization, religious or not) than secularists.

Brooks also addresses the issue (in an entire chapter) of comparing US generosity with the generosity of other countries. Foreign aid as a percentage of GDP by the US federal government may be smaller than some nations, but private donations more than make up for the difference. For example, even accounting for the cost of living, Americans give twice as high a percentage of their incomes as the Dutch (and since there are many more Americans than Dutch, the total dollar amount is overwhelming). Brooks does have some data on other countries that shows the religious versus secularist statistics are not limited to the US population.

There is a lot of discussion in the book about the definition of charity which in some ways is more interesting than the statistical conclusions. How do you compare "compassion" versus "charity"? What is more important, motives or actions? Can charity be measured simply by donations or should the results of the donations be considered? The one area that Brooks is clear on is that charity must be consensual and beneficial. Charity is a personal, voluntary sacrifice for the good of another person. That means government aid as a result of taxation is not charity since the giver is forced to give (pay taxes).

Overall, this is a very good book with a lot of references and data contained in a long appendix. Data is from multiple sources including religious and secular charities and government organizations. Its well written and the numbers and statistics don't overwhelm the reader. Its obvious that the conclusions will be controversial and some are very surprising (such as the working poor are the most charitable of any group, but the nonworking poor are the worst even though they both have the same income).

Brooks research shows that 1) Americans are charitable, 2) Conservitives/religious individuals care, 3) government negatively impacts charity, and 4) charity will make your life better. The appendix and notes section of the book is large and thorough. Furthermore, Brooks takes the time to explain complex analysis of charity and simplify it for everyone.

The main point that stood out to me was religious people are the real givers; it doesn't matter what their voting preference is. If you have faith in the Almighty you're more likely to love ("charity" according to 1 Corinthians ch 13) your neighbor.

The one negative is that the book has a political slant. No, it doesn't say we need to vote conservative and Brooks goes as far as even challenging liberals to change their philanthropic ways. But, it seems as if everything in our society revolves around politics.

Brooks is a clever writer that uses common language. The chapters are well thought out and the book is short enough to digest in one reading. I recommend this book to all non-profit organizations, economics students, and anyone looking to affirm their faith in charity.

I bought this book because I teach a course in which we read Tocqueville's Democracy in America and I was looking for current information to supplement our discussion of Tocqueville. The book is on the whole a wonderful book but it has one flaw that leads me to give it 4, not 5, stars. The flaw is conveyed in the book's subtitle: "The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism." Now, as Brooks demonstrates, it is indeed the case that conservatives are more charitable and more likely to volunteer than liberals. Nonetheless, as Brooks also points out, this is the case because conservatives are more likely to be religious than liberals and the religious are more charitable and more likely to volunteer than the non-religious. By far the most important variable accounting for charity and voluntarism is religious participation, as Tocqueville asserted over a century and a half ago. It could be that Brooks (or his publisher) wants to obscure the relative importance of political ideology and religion in order to target an audience that will purchase the book, and one can hardly fault him for that. After all, his CSPAN discussion of the book was held at the Heritage Foundation. Still, as he states on pages 47 and 50, religious conservatives and religious liberals give to charity at the same rate--91%-- although religious conservatives give 10% more than religious liberals. Religious liberals are slightly more likely to volunteer, however, and although among all liberal and conservative households, liberal households earn 6% more than conservative households (p.22), I suspect very strongly that religious conservative households earn at least 10% more than religious liberal households. I say this because religious liberal households are almost twice as likely to be African-American (23%) than the population at large (about 13%) and altogether African-American households earn only about 62% of white households. In other words, the only significant difference between religious liberal and conservative households, that the latter give 10% more than the former, is probably exclusively a function of differences in average household income.

Now, in case someone is inclined to dismiss my comments as ideologically driven, I will point out that I am a former Heritage Foundation fellow. My comments are not meant to disparage conservatives or laud liberals. Far from it. My point is the same as Tocqueville's --it is religion, not political ideology, that is essential to the civic health of America.

Brad Lowell Stone

Keep this quote from John Adams in mind as you read this book: "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

The author is a professor at Syracuse. He was raised a liberal, was liberal most his life, but in grad school he studied public policy and then became an independent.

The author did not conduct these surveys. He used data from reputable sources (government agencies, non-partisan research groups, etc.). Here are some key findings of his research:

Nearly the same percentage of liberals and conservatives do volunteer work (1% difference), but conservatives donate much more time

The same percentage of liberals and conservatives donate money, but conservatives donate 30% more and earn 6% less

Conservatives give more money than liberals in every income class

Poor people who don't accept welfare give much more than poor people who do accept welfare

religious people give more than non-religious people

religious people give more to secular causes than non-religious people

The average family in San Francisco and South Dakota both give $1300 away each year, even though families in San Francisco make 78% more!

The percent of people that give to charity is higher among poor people who don't believe in income redistribution than rich people who favor income redistribution (welfare, closing the income gap, etc.) !!! [It is easy to want to give other people's money away and pat yourself on the back for advocating it, all the time calling people uncompassionate for not agreeing with you.]

People whose parents were charitable are more likely to be charitable

If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the U.S. would increase 45%

Of the twenty-five states in 2004 that donated a portion of household income above the national average, twenty-four gave a majority of their popular votes to George W. Bush for president

The title of this book refers to the surprising find that the author came across in his research: conservatives are much more generous than liberals. This flies in the face of the conventional wisdom where even president Bush had to brandish his 2000 campaign as "compassionate conservatism". It turns out "compassionate" is redundant: conservatives of all stripes outflank liberalism when it comes to charitable giving and generosity. This is a very stable and robust find, and it turns out that it does not depend on the kind of charity: money, time, treasure, blood donations, secular or religious causes, in all those categories conservatives, especially the religious kind, are by far more giving and generous than anyone else. One of the great strengths of this book is the reliance on empirical, quantifiable, data and not case studies or the word of mouth. Even though the book is data driven, it is eminently readable and should be read by anyone who has even the slightest interest in public policy debate.

The book's subtitle ("the surprising truth about compassionate conservatism") overstates the book's own points about giving patterns. The main point of Brook's book, based on a huge colllection of research, is that society benefits at all levels from private charity and that some mindsets produce charitable behavior (at a statistical level!) more readily than others.

Religion (however you choose to measure it, and interestingly, regardless of flavor) increases the likelihood of giving to all forms of charity.

Believing that caring for others is the government's job decreases generosity *regardless* of whether the government is performing that function or not.

Being married and having children both increase the tendency to give even when you control for differences in income.

Despite what at least one reviewer has stated, Brooks makes it clear that there are exceptions to all of these patterns. He states that so often that I have to wonder if people ever bother to actually READ the books they're reviewing.

I do have some petty quibbles with the book. Brooks tries to compare U.S. and Europen taxes by just comparing income tax rates, which doesn't take goodies like the VAT into consideration. His concluding chapter, about how to increase charitable behavior, looks far too readily to the government for solutions when the whole tenor of the book is critical of its effectiveness.

Still, a fascinating book, and well worth reading.

"Who Really Cares"
Apparently I do...

Who really cares is a look at the dynamics of the charitable nature in some Americans and what those "givers" have in common. The book begins with defining charity and what the author means when he says "Giving". The book looks not just at the financial donations given to secular and religious organizations, but the time donated as volunteers and donations like giving to the Salvation Army.

The book includes statistics on who gives, who takes, and the relationship between the two. The quote from president Carter's term of "Two Americas" outlines that there are those who exemplify the best in nature charity and community and the other segment of society which is seen as "takers" that make Americans look shallow and selfish. Arthur C. Brooks gives a great deal of attention to defining what he means and how he categorizes different styles of political thinking. At first glance I was skeptical of the book fearing it would simply be a rant of political jargon and propaganda, much like an Ann Coulter book, but it was factual with several indexes and reference pages in the back of the book so you could see what Mr. Brooks used as his sources and perhaps draw your own conclusions.

There is no doubt that the author has a "conservative" background with a preference favoring religious organizations. As a conservative Christian who does give, I found this book to be reassuring that I am not atypical for a Republican or conservative. In fact this book helps break the stereotype of the heartless conservative that is perpetuated in modern politics. There have been several times where my "liberal" friends have been surprised of my political beliefs because of my socially caring and light hearted nature towards people. I have been surprised that they were surprised and this book would be a good tool for any conservative trying to clarify this for his friends.

The "Right" leaning nature of "Who Really Cares" should not dissuade any "Left" leaning reader. Fundamentally some of same values that make conservative givers give are the same reasons so many social liberals want the government to provide social services.

There are some areas that could use some improvement, and predominantly that would be the redundant nature of his material. He repeatedly outlines the meaning of the terms and how he is using them. While this is necessary to some degree, there are times where it slows the pace of the book. Also, I may have comparable beliefs to the author but I know several religious, "middle-class", people who are very left leaning in their political beliefs who "give" as much if not more than I do. So I believe much of his generalization is good but it should be remembered that it is just that; generalization.

If I were grading this book it would be an A-. I find that it has something to offer for anyone who is interested in who and why people give. I would recommend this book to anyone looking for the thought processes behind giving and find out the reason why America can be the most charitable and caring nation in the world.

Professor Brooks shows that America has a clear split between those who contribute to charity and those who do not. This split is not between rich and poor (at least when computed as a percentage of income) but between religious and non-religious folk and between conservatives and liberals. This book provides a clear summary of the important findings he has extracted from a wealth of data about charitable giving.

He has organized the book into 8 topical chapters of conclusions followed by an appendix devoted to the data sets and notes about the sources. I only wish more authors would organize their books in this highly readable form.

Most dictionaries explain "liberal" using the terms: free to give, generous, giving largely and abundant. Dr. Brooks' book shows generosity does not apply to those in America we call "liberals" as much as it does to "conservatives." Clarifying this issue alone makes this a valuable book. Too often conservatives accept the liberal slur that they do not care about the poor. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The data on personal charity shows that conservatives give more than liberals to help the poor in spite of the liberals greater wealth.

Actually the greatest divide is not political; it is religious. Dr. Brooks shows that religious folk give more to secular as well as religious causes than secular folk do.

I was one of those who took offense when G. W. Bush used the term "Compassionate Conservatism." My disgust with the term came from the implication that linking compassion and conservatism was something new. As one who has studied various policy prescriptions for the poor, I knew that the conservative prescriptions were often the more compassionate and less cynically political than the liberal prescriptions. Dr. Brooks shows that the word "Compassionate" in "Compassionate Conservative" is probably redundant.

In addition to correlating charity with religion and politics, Dr. Brooks also correlates charity with attitudes toward government welfare, the giver's income, his family, health, and happiness. He also discusses variations in charity across international borders, and even discusses the effect charity seems to have in increasing the giver's wealth.

Only someone dedicated to a government solution for every ill could downgrade a book that has so many positive lessons for Americans.

Because this book corrects some pernicious political slurs regarding charity it is very valuable. It also destroys the arguments many on the secular left have used to excuse their non-participation in individual giving. If they would only donate blood at the same rate as conservatives our nation would have a more than ample supply.

Real benefits to the beneficiary, giver, and society accrue from voluntary individual charity whether in the form of money, volunteer time, or blood donations. We need to recognize who provides these benefits and not give credit to some for mere words.

Given a fair reading, this book will be an eye-opener for some, and an encouragement to others. I hope there's no cause for cynicism or gloating. Keep in mind that this is a broad brush, "big picture" kind of book. Brooks is careful to point out that his study is not predictive of individual behavior, but measures influential factors on a large scale. Subtitled America's Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters, this is fascinating and well documented study of correlations between charitable giving and things like religion, sociopolitical and economic views, family structure and work ethic. Brooks finds a very strong correlation between religion and giving; not just giving to religious charities but to secular ones as well, giving time and money to help others. Conservatives were much more charitable as a group than Liberals owing largely to a difference in philosophy on who is responsible for caring for those in need. Those who place less responsibility on government are more generous with their own time and money. The working poor tend to give a much larger percentage of their time and money for helping others than any other group. Charitable values are largely passed on by example from parents to children in intact healthy families. Brooks also draws some interesting comparisons of charitable activity in the USA and Europe. He finds that where government becomes more of a caretaker, people become less charitable and less prosperous. Brooks finds a strong correlation between charitable activity and the economic prosperity of a country, seeing trends that discourage personal giving as worrisome. Many commonly held stereotypes are contradicted in this book. Brooks was very surprised to see his own findings contradict the assumptions he had going into the study. I came away from the book feeling encouraged that there are a lot of good people in this country who ought to get to know one another better. I highly recommend it.

In this book, sociologist Arthur Brooks surveys a wide variety of studies of charitable giving patterns in America. To his stated "surprise", he finds that the behaviors that foster charitable giving (as well as the transmission of values encouraging such behaviors in future generations) are more in line with modern conservatism than with modern liberalism. Note: I did NOT say that Brooks found that "conservatives are more charitable than liberals". He takes pains to indicate that factors OTHER than political affiliation -- religious belief above all -- are of primary importance in predicting how much and how often one gives, and that, at the present time, such factors are present in conservatives to a larger degree than liberals. Far from inducing conservatives to a sense of smug, Pharisaical superiority, Brooks' main goal is to help liberals (to which tribe he once belonged) to confront the often huge gap between their professed values of "compassion and caring" and the practical outcomes the mere avowal of such values does, or doesn't, yield. Since facing up to a flawed image of oneself is not easy for most people to do, it's no surprise that most of the self-proclaimed liberals who have reviewed the book have resorted to attacks on Brooks' hidden motives. They should keep in mind that Brooks has THEIR best interests at heart.

In a sense, Brooks' most controversial point is contained in the chapter "Charity Makes You Healthy, Happy, and Rich." Here, he argues that encouraging charitable giving sets up a "virtuous circle" whereby all of society is enriched and made more prosperous, and that such activities are more effective than government intervention. He notes that the residents of secularist, socialist Western Europe consistently report lower levels of happiness and fulfillment than those in the United States. This reminds me of Dennis Prager's argument that one of the primary faults of socialism is that "socialism makes people worse." At the least, it does appear to suck some of the higher meaning out of life. The subjective argument is strong, but I'm sure that many who advocate a "social safety net" (perhaps interlaced with such new strands as a universal health care system) will see in this argument the advocacy of a return to soup kitchens and bread lines.

Brooks repeats himself in several places (e.g., in the use of matched-pairs descriptions), and the surfeit of statistical results makes for some fairly dry reading. (This despite the fact that the REALLY heavy statistical data is consigned to the appendix. I can see statistics professors using such data as the basis for some thought-provoking classroom discussions.) Even so, this is a hard book to put down, and Brooks deserves credit for making this subject palatable for a general audience. He also merits no small amount of admiration for his professional courage. The discipline of social science is not known for a high level of charitable behavior when it comes to those who question accepted notions.