I've worked with charitable organisations. I know organisers, fundraisers and volunteers. Even with explicitly religious organisations like Christian Aid I haven't came across many people who expressed what I would consider 'conservative' opinions or beliefs. Many of the members are infact apolitical in some senses, but when we have spoken or I've simply received correspondence the issues always appear to be the ones that my fellow liberals are concerned with.
Now that I think about it, this is true to me as well. I can't think of a single person that I've worked with in a philanthropic setting that was particularly conservative. In fact they were all quite liberal-minded that I can recall. But except for personal experience, this doesn't really stand as evidence of anything. I have lived in mostly "liberal" areas of the country.
I know conservatives who work in charitable organizations, but only in the service side of things, soup kitchens, shelters, etc. They address the symptoms. But I don't know any who work to actually change systems of oppression, to get at the causes. I think this has to do with how liberals and conservatives approach things.
Which brings me to the question that I always have whenever someone brings up this study in a thread and then the conservatives go to town with their little liberal-bashing hate fest, which is "
How did the studies define charitable contributions?"
As has already been addressed in the article, liberals are far less likely to give money to churches. And if you take that into consideration, the disparity is far less. I, for one, do not consider money to build lavish megachurches to be a "charitable" donation. Money to pay the heating bills for the church and the pastor's wages, yes. But not money to put marble and gold-plated fixtures in the bathrooms like I saw at the Crystal Cathedral.
I give a percentage of my income to organizations that I think make the world a better place. I make sure that the money is distributed between organizations that help people, animal welfare, and the environment. If the studies only consider organizations that help people to be "charitable organizations" then automatically they will count me as donating approximately 2/3 less than I actually do. I suspect something similar is true for other liberals.
Moreover, regardless of whether I am giving money to help people, animals, or the environment, I am less likely to give money to direct service organizations - ie, soup kitchens, homeless shelters - and more likely to give my money to organizations that are striving to make systemic changes. It's not that I think the direct service organizations are bad. They of course make a difference. It's just that I have a limited amount of money and want to maximize the good it can do. Once again, if the studies only count direct service as "charity" then they will count me as donating far less than I actually do. And I suspect something similar is true for other liberals.
So once again I ask, "
How did the studies define charitable contributions?"
A couple of other responses to the article cited. Most of my friends work for non-profits. They work grueling hours for little pay and are burnt out. When the weekend comes, they are not inclined to spend their free time volunteering to do the same thing they do during the week. So no, I'm not surprised that they volunteer less.
As for liberals giving less blood than conservatives, shame on us.
