Another Liberal Myth Is Dispelled
While it won’t come as a surprise to those who have been paying attention, liberals will inevitably try to spin the facts when confronted with the most recent evidence that conservatives are considerably more charitable than liberals. Still, they will not find it easy to refute the numbers and the fact that conservatives are as a group indeed more compassionate than they are.
For decades, liberals have lectured that they are the most compassionate among us. Their political bag of talking points is stuffed with “We-take-care-of-the-underdogs.” and “Conservatives-are-uncaring-selfish-rich people.” rhetoric. But now, their persistent self-righteous sermonizing is shown to be nothing more than the class warfare propaganda of dishonorable demagogues it has always been. Someone has opened their bag of rhetorical lies and found it filled with nauseating hot air—so much it is finally drifting into the crowded upper atmosphere of liberal political myth.
Conservatives give a lot more
Not only do conservatives give more to charity than do liberals, they give much more: a whopping 30% more—and this while conservative’s income is less as a whole than liberal’s, which dispels yet another myth so revered by all liberals—that Republicans are wealthier than Democrats. So is it then fair to say that “Liberals are uncaring, selfish rich people?” and that “Conservatives take care of the underdogs?” Using “Liberal Logic” of course it is. And unlike liberal political myth, it is fact-based on hard evidence.
Arthur C. BrooksWho Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, by Arthur C. Brooks
Mr. Brooks is a professor at Syracuse University. He studied economics at the prestigious Rand Graduate School. After exhaustive nonpartisan research into the charitable behavior of liberals and conservatives he found that the average conservative-headed household gives 30% more to charity than the average liberal-headed household. He also learned that among the same households conservatives earn 6% less annually than do liberals. Simply put: Conservatives earn less but give much more money to charity than do liberals. His study also revealed that of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average, George W. Bush won 24 of them in the 2004 presidential election. Yes, 24 of the 25 most charitable states are red states.
But the deception runs much deeper
John Edwards, who was the vice-presidential nominee for the Democrats in 2004 and is now running for president in 2008, is constantly telling us that there are two Americas: The haves and the have-nots. In doing so, he continues to reinforce standard liberal class-warfare propaganda. What he and virtually all Democrats would have us believe is that the Democrats can and will fix the economic inequities inherent in our system.
Notice he does not produce evidence that Democrats have a history of actually having helped the less-fortunate sector of our society. Rather, he tells you only that they will and that Republicans will not. Why? Because he also knows that his party has been telling us these things for decades and they have yet to deliver on their promises. In fact, most of their policies have not only failed, they have often been utterly disastrous to large portions of the American underclass. For example, until a Republican congress led by Speaker of The House, Newt Gingrich, reformed our welfare system it had all but destroyed the economic potential of millions of our citizens who had become “slaves” to the very system that was supposed to lift them up out of poverty. He also knows that Republican welfare reform has been quite successful and that it has literally changed the economic dynamic in our society from one of dire hopelessness for an entire class of people to one that has enabled new generations to educate themselves to become productive members of our society and to realize a sense of personal self-worth and dignity unattainable by their parents who were dependant on handouts from their government.
So when John Edwards and other Democrats talk about haves and have-nots, be careful to know exactly what they are doing. They are appealing to your sense of social duty—to your social conscience—in order to get your vote, but not because they intend to actually fix anything.
It is an old Democratic strategy
They are appealing to your simplistic, emotional self in the hope you will not take it upon yourself to learn what the root causes of poverty really are and how to deal with them. They are demagogues. They are trying to convince you that they are the compassionate party—that if you don’t vote for them, there is no hope for our society. Yet in a very real sense, their welfare system was far more successful in getting people to vote for Democrats than it ever was in lifting welfare recipients up and out of poverty. As long as the welfare recipients received their monthly checks, it was virtually guaranteed they would vote Democratic. It was an insidiously deplorable bargain between the Democratic Party and the welfare recipients: The Democrats got votes and gained power, which is always their primary goal, while the welfare recipients remained stuck in a state of virtual economic slavery. It stank.
There are two Americas
There are still have-nots among us. Yet, thanks to Republican welfare reform and other effective policies, there are far fewer as a percentage of population than during the decades of “Welfare Dependence”, which was so near and dear to the hearts of Democratic vote getters. But now we know for certain that there is another significant social divide in our nation: The charitable ones and the less charitable ones.
So let’s dispel this devilish, insidious liberal myth once and for all: The Democratic Party and its loud liberal component, is not, nor has it ever been, the compassionate, charitable party they would have us believe it is. Moreover, if they protest and argue differently; if they still insist they are the most charitable and compassionate among us; ask them, “Compared to whom, the Republicans?”
Of course there are many more myths in their red-hot bag of rhetorical lies. In fact, they have built their entire political house on a bed of deceit.
For decades, liberals have lectured that they are the most compassionate among us. Their political bag of talking points is stuffed with “We-take-care-of-the-underdogs.” and “Conservatives-are-uncaring-selfish-rich people.” rhetoric. But now, their persistent self-righteous sermonizing is shown to be nothing more than the class warfare propaganda of dishonorable demagogues it has always been. Someone has opened their bag of rhetorical lies and found it filled with nauseating hot air—so much it is finally drifting into the crowded upper atmosphere of liberal political myth.
Conservatives give a lot more
Not only do conservatives give more to charity than do liberals, they give much more: a whopping 30% more—and this while conservative’s income is less as a whole than liberal’s, which dispels yet another myth so revered by all liberals—that Republicans are wealthier than Democrats. So is it then fair to say that “Liberals are uncaring, selfish rich people?” and that “Conservatives take care of the underdogs?” Using “Liberal Logic” of course it is. And unlike liberal political myth, it is fact-based on hard evidence.
Arthur C. BrooksWho Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, by Arthur C. Brooks
Mr. Brooks is a professor at Syracuse University. He studied economics at the prestigious Rand Graduate School. After exhaustive nonpartisan research into the charitable behavior of liberals and conservatives he found that the average conservative-headed household gives 30% more to charity than the average liberal-headed household. He also learned that among the same households conservatives earn 6% less annually than do liberals. Simply put: Conservatives earn less but give much more money to charity than do liberals. His study also revealed that of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average, George W. Bush won 24 of them in the 2004 presidential election. Yes, 24 of the 25 most charitable states are red states.
But the deception runs much deeper
John Edwards, who was the vice-presidential nominee for the Democrats in 2004 and is now running for president in 2008, is constantly telling us that there are two Americas: The haves and the have-nots. In doing so, he continues to reinforce standard liberal class-warfare propaganda. What he and virtually all Democrats would have us believe is that the Democrats can and will fix the economic inequities inherent in our system.
Notice he does not produce evidence that Democrats have a history of actually having helped the less-fortunate sector of our society. Rather, he tells you only that they will and that Republicans will not. Why? Because he also knows that his party has been telling us these things for decades and they have yet to deliver on their promises. In fact, most of their policies have not only failed, they have often been utterly disastrous to large portions of the American underclass. For example, until a Republican congress led by Speaker of The House, Newt Gingrich, reformed our welfare system it had all but destroyed the economic potential of millions of our citizens who had become “slaves” to the very system that was supposed to lift them up out of poverty. He also knows that Republican welfare reform has been quite successful and that it has literally changed the economic dynamic in our society from one of dire hopelessness for an entire class of people to one that has enabled new generations to educate themselves to become productive members of our society and to realize a sense of personal self-worth and dignity unattainable by their parents who were dependant on handouts from their government.
So when John Edwards and other Democrats talk about haves and have-nots, be careful to know exactly what they are doing. They are appealing to your sense of social duty—to your social conscience—in order to get your vote, but not because they intend to actually fix anything.
It is an old Democratic strategy
They are appealing to your simplistic, emotional self in the hope you will not take it upon yourself to learn what the root causes of poverty really are and how to deal with them. They are demagogues. They are trying to convince you that they are the compassionate party—that if you don’t vote for them, there is no hope for our society. Yet in a very real sense, their welfare system was far more successful in getting people to vote for Democrats than it ever was in lifting welfare recipients up and out of poverty. As long as the welfare recipients received their monthly checks, it was virtually guaranteed they would vote Democratic. It was an insidiously deplorable bargain between the Democratic Party and the welfare recipients: The Democrats got votes and gained power, which is always their primary goal, while the welfare recipients remained stuck in a state of virtual economic slavery. It stank.
There are two Americas
There are still have-nots among us. Yet, thanks to Republican welfare reform and other effective policies, there are far fewer as a percentage of population than during the decades of “Welfare Dependence”, which was so near and dear to the hearts of Democratic vote getters. But now we know for certain that there is another significant social divide in our nation: The charitable ones and the less charitable ones.
So let’s dispel this devilish, insidious liberal myth once and for all: The Democratic Party and its loud liberal component, is not, nor has it ever been, the compassionate, charitable party they would have us believe it is. Moreover, if they protest and argue differently; if they still insist they are the most charitable and compassionate among us; ask them, “Compared to whom, the Republicans?”
Of course there are many more myths in their red-hot bag of rhetorical lies. In fact, they have built their entire political house on a bed of deceit.
More later.
