Product Description

Surprising proof that conservatives really are more compassionate--and more generous--than liberals.

We all know we should give to charity, but who really does? Approximately three-quarters of Americans give their time and money to various charities, churches, and causes; the other quarter of the population does not. Why has America split into two nations: givers and non-givers?

Arthur Brooks, a top scholar of economics and public policy, has spent years researching this trend, and even he was surprised by what he found. In Who Really Cares, he demonstrates conclusively that conservatives really are compassionate-far more compassionate than their liberal foes. Strong families, church attendance, earned income (as opposed to state-subsidized income), and the belief that individuals, not government, offer the best solution to social ills-all of these factors determine how likely one is to give.

Charity matters--not just to the givers and to the recipients, but to the nation as a whole. It is crucial to our prosperity, happiness, health, and our ability to govern ourselves as a free people. In Who Really Cares, Brooks outlines strategies for expanding the ranks of givers, for the good of all Americans.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #394513 in Books
• Published on: 2006-11-27
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 272 pages

Review
"Lucidly written, carefully distilled and persuasively cogent." Wall Street Journal"

From the Publisher
"There will of course be many readers (and many more nonreaders) of Mr. Brooks's book who will dismiss it on its face, and there will be fierce efforts mounted to discredit his analysis and data. Let them come. Who Really Cares should serve to change the public discussion dramatically. With any luck, it will be for our decade what Charles Murray's "Losing Ground" was for the 1980s (challenging the disincentive logic of welfare) or what Michael Harrington's "The Other America" was for the 1960s (highlighting the persistence of poverty amid affluence) ─ the text at the center of a constructive national debate." ─Wall Street Journal

"The next time you find yourself in a conversation about how liberals are caring and compassionate while conservatives are selfish and hard-hearted, you might want to refer your interlocutors to Who Really Cares."--First Things (December 06)

"Provocative... It's not just that charity helps those on the receiving end, says Brooks, an economist at Syracuse University in New York. It also strengthens the cohesion of society at large. Moreover, it appears to make the givers themselves more successful, possibly because the activity transforms them somewhat into better or happier people. Whatever the reasons, he finds that higher income tends to push up charity - and that greater charity tends to push up income."--Christian Science Monitor (11/27/06)

"[B]reaks new ground... In WHO REALLY CARES, Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others."--Chronicle of Philanthropy (11/23/06)

About the Author
Arthur C. Brooks is professor of public administration at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He is the author of numerous articles and books on topics relating to charity and civic life, and his work appears frequently in the Wall Street Journal and other publications.

Customer Reviews

Solid Research but Still Political
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.

surprisingly good, better researched than expected
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).

The Evidence More Tocquevillian than Brooks States
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