Who Really Cares? Why, Those "Evil" Conservatives, Of Course!
Surprise, surprise! Well, no, not really to all of us who consider ourselves America-loving, God-fearing, traditional conservatives. We've known for years that true, heart-felt charity is the domain of folks who take their religious faith seriously by obeying Jesus' command to "love thy neighbor as thyself" or, to give alms, as in the orthodox Jewish tradition. We "religious nuts" believe it is the responsibility of individuals to help those in need, not the United States Government. And while the mainstream media, Hollywood, left-wing politicians and other bastions of liberalism have been disingenuously playing the "conservative are evil, liberals are do-gooders" class warfare game for as long as I can remember, real conservatives of all economic stripes were quietly performing acts of genuine charity by donating their time and money to worthy causes. The motivations for real "do-gooders" are their faith-based values, not a desire for self-glorification.
Still, I believe traditionalists owe a debt of gratitude to Arthur C. Brooks for daring to publicly state the obvious, supported by substantial evidence. And whether the timing of his new book's release -- right at the start of the Season of Giving -- was deliberate or not, it coincides nicely with the celebration of the birth of a baby whom some 80% of Americans revere as the Son of God. It also progresses the conservative/traditionalist cause by forcing liberals to openly admit their misplaced "faith" in Big Government (i.e. the American taxpayer) as the ultimate solution to poverty, illness and other maladies facing the country and the world.
As Bill O'Reilly brilliantly opined on the Factor last night, instant gratification is the driving consideration of Secular-Progressives, may of whom are fabulously wealthy (i.e. Ted "I can't get by on $2 Billion" Turner or George "Bush is a terrorist" Soros). The pursuit of instant gratification often requires wads of cash. Therefore, S-P's don't want to part with their own money to aid the cause of the downtrodden, but rather, prefer Uncle Sam to redistribute the income of hard-working Americans who are already giving alms to the poor. In essence, S-P's get the best of both worlds: They assuage their "guilt" (particularly true of celebrities who make ridiculous amounts of money for doing nothing) by voting for Big-Government Democrats who will vote to raise taxes on the "wealthy" to create and distribute entitlements, while simultaneously retaining their lavish limosine- and- learjet lifestyles. And if middle-America doesn't like it, why, it's because they are selfish, hypocritical and intolerant "Jesus freaks." This is how liberals have played the game to this point. But thanks in part to Brooks' extensive research, it looks like it may soon be "game over," and not a moment to soon (I think the electorate is already suffering from buyers remorse over this last election, but that's a theme for another post).
In Bill O's talking points, he also cites Brooks' discovery that Americans in general are much more generous than their European counterparts. The average American family gives 14 times more to charity than the average Italian family, and 7 times more than the average German family. Are you listening Bono and Angelina Jolie? That's right -- the United States of America is the most generous country on the planet, and there are hard stats to prove it. But when you're talking private citizens versus government spending, stats like these don't much matter to internationalist, mega-rich superstars who would prefer the American Government to act as the world's premier automated teller machine (as if we're not already giving substantial amounts of foreign aid, even to countries that hate us).
Ironically, as John Stossel's research reveals, the private sector is a much-more efficient vehicle for charity than bureaucratic government programs. Chatting with O'Reilly, Stossel, a self-described libertarian, also announced the interesting results of his own investigation of charitable giving in America. Stossel's crew recruited the Salvation Army for this experiment, utilizing two very different locales: San Francisco, California and Sioux Falls, South Dakota. In each city, the Salvation Army set up camp in the most heavily-trafficked areas. In spite of earning twice as much money, and boasting twice the population as Sioux Falls, the ever-tolerant citizens of San Francisco lagged behind their midwestern counterparts in charitable monetary donations by two times. And as Stossel was quick to explain, religious Americans give to non-profit organizations across the board, not just to their churches and temples.
My educated guess is that Church attendance in San Francisco vs. Sioux Falls is also quite lopsided. Ahhh, those dangerous religious fanatics who insist on living out their faith by sharing their hard-earned money! Don't they know the enlightened Secular-Progressives among us are the only ones who really know what's best for the country?
I suppose if these religious types bothered to watch the liberal (except for Elisabeth, of course) gabfest, The View, they would be aware of these crucial facts. As Stossel noted, before Danny DeVito's inebriated rant, he -- John Stossel-- was interviewed by Rosie O' Doughnuts and her band of merry liberals (Elisabeth excluded, of course -- by the way, how does that girl do it? If I had to walk into that snakepit everyday, I doubt I'd retain my sanity). Behar and Walters made no bones about the fact that charity is the government's responsibility. They'll keep their exorbitant salaries, thank you, and vote for Secular-Progressives who will spend other people's money to help those in need. Make sense? If it doesn't you must be a deplorably patriotic, sickeningly religious, and insensitive capitalist pig!
Now go buy a copy of Who Really Cares and give it to your favorite liberal. Enlightenment is a terrible thing to waste.
posted by Daria at 3:14 PM
|
0 comments
