What is the difference between conservatives and liberals on their attitudes toward the poor?

Compassion is not the issue, entitlement is. The difference between conservatives and liberals is not level of compassion. Although, according to the research of Arthur Brooks in his book Who Really Cares, conservatives donate considerably more money, time, and blood to charity than self-described liberals. People often mistakenly believe that liberals want to help the poor and conservatives don’t. Just as Senator Howard Dean (Democrat) said of liberals and conservatives, “the difference between us and them is that we don’t think children should go to bed hungry at night.”

In actuality, as any responsible, thinking American knows to be true, an overwhelming majority of Americans, conservative and liberal, do think that we should all be involved in helping the poor. The difference is this. Liberals think that we should help the poor through government and through private charity; conservatives think that we should help the poor through private charity and not through government. So, we conclude both are compassionate. But who’s right?

Well here are some reasons why government should not be heavily involved in helping the poor:

1.       Government is highly ineffective at helping the poor.

a.      Government is too far removed from the individual to keep the individual accountable and on track for getting out of poverty.

b.      Government wastes great deals of money in bureaucracies and has little incentive to manage tax payer money more efficiently.

c.       Increased government aid to the unemployed has historically increased the number of unemployed because individuals have no incentive to work.

d.      Social security is a perfect example. It is a disaster and a fraud.

2.      Entitlements are a destructive force in an individual’s life.

a.       Entitlements encourage spoiled-childlike lack of maturity and the victim mentality. They discourage responsibility by taking away the consequences of bad decisions.

b.      Entitlements enable individuals to continue self-destructive lifestyles; much like giving money to an alcoholic enables alcoholism.

c.       Entitlement encourage unemployment which leaves the individual without an important sense of dignity. Individuals who receive welfare rarely (almost never) give any of that money to charity. They thereby miss out on the personal rewards for the giver contributing to charities.

3.      Government involvement takes power away from private organizations and takes free speech from individuals.

a.      Before government took care of the poor, the poor had to go to family members, friends, or private local organizations that would encourage the individual in need to get their life on track and make responsible decisions while supplying necessary charity to the individual.

b.      All Christians, Muslims, and Jews should be opposed to government entitlements because it takes social influence away from their churches, temples, and synagogues.

c.       All who distrust the government or who feel unrepresented by the government should oppose entitlement because the government spends your money where officials see fit rather than where you see fit. Since when does government know better than you how to spend and be charitable with your money?

d.      Government takes away our right to freedom of speech when government takes our money and spends it on the issues important to government. We can speak with our money and taking our money is taking our power to speak. American culture would be better served by leaving money in the hands of individuals and families to support the organizations and the issues that matter to them.

e.       Public funds come with strings attached. There are limitations the government places on organizations that receive government money and those restrictions are not always good. For example, a Christian food ministry for the poor may not be able to preach the gospel if they receive government funding, although they may have received the same amount of money from individuals who support that message if government hadn’t taxed those individuals and redirected their money. If you’re not a Christian, just insert the message that you care about. Would you want any positive message restricted?

4.      The belief that it is the government’s responsibility to redistribute income has been historically and presently destructive.

a.      Communists have murdered millions of people (which is just a statistic right?) in order to advance their agenda of income redistribution.

b.      Americans and Europeans who hold this belief are personally much less charitable whether or not the government does redistribute income. Apparently, this belief functions as an excuse not to be personally charitable just like Scrooge who, when asked to donate alms for the poor, replied, “I’ve already paid my taxes.” It’s the government’s job.

5.      Higher taxes discourage personal giving.

a.      See 4b.

b.      When government decreases the tax burden on American families, charitable giving rises. It is a simple fact and it makes sense.

c.       Individuals may actually contribute a higher percentage of the money they keep from lower taxes to private charity than the government would have. Figures on this are available. I have to look up the specific numbers.

6.      Giving to charity makes people happier.

a.      Being involved in charity makes people happier. Paying taxes does not.

b.      Making the world a better place by giving to charity is good for the soul. It also correlates with a feeling of gratitude and a sense of importance and meaning in life. Everyone wins.

You still believe that the government should tax working Americans in order to fund programs for the poor? What say you?

If you think that private charity is bad because it reinforces negative social hierarchies, then first, I doubt it and secondly, even if it does, personal giving to actually help the poor should hardly come at the expense.

At the very least, take home two lessons: One that it is good to give personally to private charities. And two is that one should not assume that their political opponents have ignoble motives in mind or that they lack compassion. That assumption is damaging to political discourse and does not do justice to the citizens of this great nation.