The inaugural selection for the Mans Inc. book of the month is entitled “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” by Arthur C. Brooks.

It is statistically proven that the single biggest indicator of one’s charitable givings is religion. I found it really interesting to read the various statistical breakdowns of altruism in the United States. Before being exposed to this book, I wasn’t sure what the findings would be to such a question, although it would seem that liberalism/socialism would naturally lead people to greater giving. It is simply not the case. Here are a few of the more telling statistics to be garnered from the book:

 

  • Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
  • Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
  • People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

 

One of the things that I found really interesting that is so often religious conservatives tend to oppose liberal social justice advocates, and it is quite eye-opening to see who really “practices what they preach.” It is also interesting given that WordPress, the host which is lucky enough to have Mans Inc. on it, is replete with militant atheist blogs, and the statistical reality highlighted by Brooks is a stark reminder to these contributors to tone back their rhetoric and acknowledge the truths regarding how social justice and charitable organizations are supported. 

I would recommend this book to any conservative who wishes to gain a more accurate platform to understand the disconnect between liberal philosophy and practice.

I’ll finish with a quote:

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon — a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.” Brooks, however, warns: “If support for a policy that does not exist … substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others.”

Advertisement