Conservatives and Charity

Democrats are making an effort to peel off evangelical Christians from the Republican base by stressing their commitment to "social justice." Conservatives are not very good at talking about the poor and are often assumed to be greedy and uncaring.

To start, social justice, as promoted by the left, is based on the false premise that inequality is evidence of injustice. Inequality is portrayed as a societal problem to be remedied by government. However, I think most people would agree that people choose different paths in life and some acquire skills that are more useful to society than others. The fact that a brain surgeon, who after years of training makes more money than a fast food worker should surprise and upset no one. The chance to make more money than the fast food worker probably played a part in the surgeon's desire to complete the necessary training. People have a right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and equal protection under the law. People do not have a right to economic equality.

Although the poor are not, as a rule, being denied justice, that does not mean we are free of responsibility to help them. Liberals have labeled conservatives as greedy and uncaring because we oppose income redistribution, however, Arthur C. Brooks' research in his book Who Really Cares shows that label to be the furthest thing from the truth. Brooks found that in the U.S., conservatives actually give more of their money to charity than liberals.

Brooks defined "liberals" as the 30% of the population calling themselves "liberal" or "very liberal" and conservatives as the 40% of the population calling themselves "conservative" or "very conservative." He was surprised to find that in 2000, conservative households gave 30% more than liberal households, even though liberal households earned 6% more on average. 24 out of 25 of the most giving states (charitable gifts/adjusted gross income) went for Bush in the 2000 election.

Brooks saw an even bigger difference when people were asked whether "the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality." This is the crux of the argument between fiscal conservatism and liberalism. The 43% who disagreed with the statement gave 12 times as much as those who agreed strongly. The difference also carried over into volunteer hours and blood donation.

Many (certainly not all) liberals substitute political opinions for private giving while conservatives are more likely to actually give and volunteer. Favoring tax policies that "donate" other people's money is not charity and opposing them is not greed.

So conservatives do care about the poor. Why do we oppose income redistribution? It takes away economic freedom and stifles opportunity. Punitive tax policies reduce incentives to be productive. Less production means less opportunity. As Ronald Reagan once said: "I believe the best social program is a job." Private charities are much more efficient than government. Thoughtful givers can focus their gifts on efforts that help lift people out of poverty while government programs tend to keep poor people dependent and, well, poor. What's more, Brooks' research shows that these programs depress charitable giving.

I fear that President-elect Obama's policies will not help the poor. Instead his policies are likely to make them more dependent on government and reduce their opportunities to help themselves. I believe conservative policies are better for everyone, we just need to get better at explaining them.

AIDS in Africa

I picked up a Vanity Fair in a doctors office and read an interesting story on AIDS in Africa. The scope of the problem is overwhelming, but it appears that there is some good news. The author, Alex Shoumatoff, explores the efforts to raise money and the impact of anti-retroviral drugs (ARVs) on the AIDs epidemic. In 2002, only 1% of the 5 million in Africa with AIDS were being treated with life saving ARVs. Only five years later, 28% are getting ARV treatment and the number is rapidly increasing. Shoumatoff gives little credit to the pharmaceutical companies supplying the medicine for a fraction of their average cost ($125 for a year's supply that would cost $10,000 here) or the companies selling "Red" products (4o% of the profits from "Red" Apple, GAP, Nike, etc. products go to fighting AIDs) and the extra $15 billion President Bush has authorized barely gets a mention. Instead, most of the praise is reserved for Bono. Certainly we can do better at helping the poor around the world, not just those with AIDs, but the greater numbers who are starving to death , but what is often missing from the discussion is how to help Africa become self-sufficient. Jennifer Brea argues in The American that aid often has the unfortunate effect of stifling entrepreneurship and incentivizes laziness in African government. Maybe some of the aid money would be better spent on investment or infrastructure. Given the opportunity, who can doubt the potential of Africans? Check out the homemade windmill. I think World Vision strikes a good balance between meeting basic needs and promoting self-sufficiency by addressing the causes and results of poverty (in the interests of full disclosure, my uncle works for World Vision). Give here, if you're interested.

Handouts for the Homeless

Last night in downtown Kalamazoo, a young man accused me of being "un-heartless" for not giving him money. Was he right? Is refusing to give a handout to a (presumably) homeless person "un-heartless?" I think reasonable people can disagree on this, but while I want to help out the homeless, I think it's probably better to give to shelters. In my limited understanding of the homeless experience, I think that some people don't want to go to shelters because they can't do drugs or drink there. If they are sustained by handouts, they stay out on the street. But if they went to a shelter they would be warm and well fed. They could also get cleaned up, learn that crack is wack and maybe find a job. But when I see them, I feel a little guilty all the same. The Onion offers this point/counterpoint on the issue. Any thoughts?

Microloans

Does helping the poor become self-sufficient sound preferable to giving handouts? Microloans are a pretty cool way to give. The basic concept is that an organization loans small amounts of money to entrepeneurs in developing countries. Without these microloans, the poor of these countries would have no access to credit. A microloan may help them out of a difficult situation that could take away their livelihood, or it may help them expand their business, taking on new employees, and improving the quality of life of their family and community. Slate has a good article here. However, being Slate, they excluded WorldVision, where I give, for being a Christian organization. WorldVision's website provides a lot of information about their microloan program. Most loans are $100-$2000 and 96% are repaid on time. Your donation will be used again and again to help families and communities gain self-sufficiency.