Conservatives Kinder and Sexier

[JerrySeinfeld]

a quote from a recent article by David Frum:

"You'll never know who will turn up in Washington to talk politics. On Wednesday, the city was graced by actress Eva Longoria, the sultry star of ABC's Desperate Housewives. Addressing an audience of Latino business leaders, she explained the wide appeal of her show: "Everyone on Wisteria Lane has the money of a Republican, but the sex life of a Democrat."

It's a pretty good joke — but very poor sociology.

Over the past 15 years, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, who have emerged as the party of upper-income America. In 2000, Al Gore beat George Bush among the 4% of voters who described themselves to exit pollsters as "upper class." In 2004, John Kerry won nine of the 10 richest zip codes in the United States.

As for sex — well, it turns out that it's Republican (and especially Republican women) who have it more often and better. The two strongest predictors of Republican affiliation in America are (1) marriage and (2) church attendance. These are also the strongest predictors of female sexual satisfaction. The authoritative 1995 University of Chicago survey Sex in America found that conservative Protestant married women were the group most likely to report that they "nearly always" orgasmed during sex. Married women of all religions were almost twice as likely as unmarried women to describe their sex lives as "extremely satisfying."

So if offered the choice, reader, you'd be wiser to choose Democratic money and Republican sex.

And yet, somehow the joke would not be very funny that way would it? Stereotypes overwhelm even the strongest facts.

Here's another stereotype, even deeper and more enduring than Longoria's: Liberals are more compassionate than conservatives. Certainly, this is a view deeply held by liberals themselves. Yet the truth is exactly the opposite.

Next week, Basic Books will publish an astonishing new volume by Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks: Who Really Cares. Prof. Brooks reviews the vast academic literature on charitable giving and arrives at a startling conclusion: By virtually every measure, political conservatives are demonstrably more generous, more honest and more public-spirited than political liberals.

Consider for example this one fundamental liberal/conservative dividing line, the question "Do you believe the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality?" In a major 1996 survey, 33% of Americans gave the liberal answer, "yes"; 43% gave the conservative answer, "no."

Those who gave the conservative answer were more likely to give to charity than those who gave the liberal answer. And when they gave, they gave much more: an average of four times as much as liberal givers.

Correct for income, age and other variables, and you find that people who want government to fight inequality are 10 points less likely to give anything at all — and when they did give, they gave US$263 per year less than a right-winger of exactly the same age earning exactly the same money.

A second survey, this one conducted in 2002, found that people who believe that "people should take care of themselves" accounted for 25% of the population — but gave 31% of America's blood.

"To put this in perspective," Brooks says, "if the whole population gave blood like opponents of social spending do, the blood supply would increase by more than a quarter. But if everyone in the population gave like government-aid advocates, the supply would drop by about 30%."

A third survey found that people who believe that the government "spends too much on welfare" were more likely to give directions to someone on the street, return extra change to a cashier, or to give food or money to a homeless person.

A fourth found that a poor family that worked for its income donated three times as much money as a family that received an exactly equal income from welfare.

It's almost a psychological rule: The more you espouse "compassion" in your politics, the more likely you are to be selfish in your personal behaviour.

How often do we hear the generosity of Europe contrasted to the "savage individualism" of the United States? Yet Americans give vastly more to charity: per person, more than twice as much as the Spanish, more than three times as much as the French, seven times as much as the Germans and 14 times as much as the Italians.

Despite working an average of 400 hours more per year than their European counterparts, Americans are 15 percentage points more likely to volunteer their time than the Dutch, 21 points more likely to volunteer than the Swiss and 32 points more likely to volunteer than Germans. (Indeed, 80% of Germans never volunteer their time for any cause at all.)

If we must have stereotypes, let's at least have accurate ones. Not only are conservatives sexier than liberals — they are kinder too."

[White Doors]

haha

good one. Liberals love to give to charity, as long as it's not their money.

[Riverwind]

Those who gave the conservative answer were more likely to give to charity than those who gave the liberal answer. And when they gave, they gave much more: an average of four times as much as liberal givers.

Such statistics mean nothing as long as donations to churches are included in the definition 'charitable' donations. Most of the money given to suburban churches only goes to provide services to the people making the donations and cannot really be considered charity in the way the author of the article above wishes to define it.

[JerrySeinfeld]

haha

good one. Liberals love to give to charity, as long as it's not their money.

It's because there's a strange paradox with lefties: they're obsessed with themselves and with money.

Most lefty "community organizations" revolve around how to EXTRACT money from the community, not how to CONTRIBUTE it

[Black Dog]

Oh yeah, so sexy.

Actually, I can believe that Republicans have better sex. Seems like everytime some pundit or politico is embroiled in a sex scandal involving gay hookers, obscene phone calls, swingers clubs, adultery or some other kinky shit, they are invariably Republican (the Clenis being the notable obsession and even he was downright vanilla compared to some GOP horndogs). And of course, even if they do have better sex, the Republican idology is strictly "sex for me and not for thee".

As for the charity thing, Riverwind nailed it.

[newbie]

Kinder and sexier. Oh yeah, I could go for Ann or is that Dan?? And how about these

two

[Technocrat]

ohmy thats hawt

[sunsettommy]

Those who gave the conservative answer were more likely to give to charity than those who gave the liberal answer. And when they gave, they gave much more: an average of four times as much as liberal givers.

Such statistics mean nothing as long as donations to churches are included in the definition 'charitable' donations. Most of the money given to suburban churches only goes to provide services to the people making the donations and cannot really be considered charity in the way the author of the article above wishes to define it.

That is an interesting point.

However can you provide some evidence to back them up?

[Riverwind]

However can you provide some evidence to back them up?

What stats are necessary? The gov't treats churches as charities which means that all stats regarding charitable giving includes donations to churches unless someone has gone to the effort to separate them out. It doubt Frum would bother to do that since separating them out would undermine his arguments. I also know from experience that the overwhelming majority of monies donated to Catholic churches go to pay for priests and buildings. The priests do some charity work but the majority of time they spend working with parishioners.

[White Doors]

However can you provide some evidence to back them up?

What stats are necessary? The gov't treats churches as charities which means that all stats regarding charitable giving includes donations to churches unless someone has gone to the effort to separate them out. It doubt Frum would bother to do that since separating them out would undermine his arguments. I also know from experience that the overwhelming majority of monies donated to Catholic churches go to pay for priests and buildings. The priests do some charity work but the majority of time they spend working with parishioners.

What a asinine assertion. You think it's cheaper to run a church or Unicef?

feel embarrassed yet?

[JerrySeinfeld]

However can you provide some evidence to back them up?

What stats are necessary? The gov't treats churches as charities which means that all stats regarding charitable giving includes donations to churches unless someone has gone to the effort to separate them out. It doubt Frum would bother to do that since separating them out would undermine his arguments. I also know from experience that the overwhelming majority of monies donated to Catholic churches go to pay for priests and buildings. The priests do some charity work but the majority of time they spend working with parishioners.

Ha! You're just mad because I'm sexier than you and kinder too

However even if you choose to dispute the facts, at least we're debunking the great stereotype!

[Riverwind]

What a asinine assertion. You think it's cheaper to run a church or Unicef?

feel embarrassed yet?

Rediculous. Suburban churches are nothing but glorified social clubs that do almost nothing that can be classed as 'charity' work (i.e. feeding the poor). They should not even be entitled to a tax deduction in the first place but that is a different issue.

[JerrySeinfeld]

What a asinine assertion. You think it's cheaper to run a church or Unicef?

feel embarrassed yet?

Rediculous. Suburban churches are nothing but glorified social clubs that do almost nothing that can be classed as 'charity' work (i.e. feeding the poor). They should not even be entitled to a tax deduction in the first place but that is a different issue.

If you could give me some concrete examples (other than tax confiscation) of left wing altruism in the form of dollars and sense, I'd be thrilled to see the comparison.

[Riverwind]

If you could give me some concrete examples (other than tax confiscation) of left wing altruism in the form of dollars and sense, I'd be thrilled to see the comparison.

Which does more charity work: a group that sets up food banks and asks for gov't and private contributions or a group that lobbies politicians to outlaw abortion? Your statistics cannot be used to draw the conclusions you would like to draw so don't bother pretending you have proven anything. If you really believe that 'right-wing' people are more charitable then post some statistics that exclude donations to churches and political lobby groups.

[White Doors]

What a asinine assertion. You think it's cheaper to run a church or Unicef?

feel embarrassed yet?

Rediculous. Suburban churches are nothing but glorified social clubs that do almost nothing that can be classed as 'charity' work (i.e. feeding the poor). They should not even be entitled to a tax deduction in the first place but that is a different issue.

Evidence? Back up your ridiculous claim.

[White Doors]

If you could give me some concrete examples (other than tax confiscation) of left wing altruism in the form of dollars and sense, I'd be thrilled to see the comparison.

Which does more charity work: a group that sets up food banks and asks for gov't and private contributions or a group that lobbies politicians to outlaw abortion? Your statistics cannot be used to draw the conclusions you would like to draw so don't bother pretending you have proven anything. If you really believe that 'right-wing' people are more charitable then post some statistics that exclude donations to churches and political lobby groups.

Again, why would you want to exclude churches? They do lots for charity. Because you are obviously ignorant to what they do doesn't mean that they are any less a charity than Greenpeace is. You just don't like Churches, obviously. Besides, I'm sure there are alot of liberal supporters that give to churche's too.

Your assertion is assinine, illogical and hateful. Back it up or retract it like a man.

[Riverwind]

Evidence? Back up your ridiculous claim.

Why don't you try proving that my claim is false? I have seen the financial records of at least two suburban churches and I know that 90% of the money was going to pay for buildings and priests. It can't really post that info online though. From my perspective it is obvious that suburban churches do not domuch charity work and anyone who claims otherwise is making a rediculous claim.

[White Doors]

Evidence? Back up your ridiculous claim.

Why don't you try proving that my claim is false? I have seen the financial records of at least two suburban churches and I know that 90% of the money was going to pay for buildings and priests. It can't really post that info online though. From my perspective it is obvious that suburban churches do not domuch charity work and anyone who claims otherwise is making a rediculous claim.

You have heard of the Salvation Army right? You do know that is a church?

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

[Higgly]

Ha ha. David Frum. Good one. I love it.

This will certainly restore his lost lustre.

This is a guy who has fallen out with a party on the wane.

Look for him at the Barbara Frum branch of the Toronto Public Library.

Hee. Hee.

[Riverwind]

You have heard of the Salvation Army right? You do know that is a church?

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

The Salvation Army is run differently that any other church and operates mainly in downtown areas. That is why I specifically used the term _suburban_ churches.

It was Jerry that made the original assertion that higher charitable giving amoung the right-wing crowd was proof of a more charitable mindset. I pointed out that such conclusions cannot be drawn from the data if it includes donations to suburban churches.

[White Doors]

You have heard of the Salvation Army right? You do know that is a church?

Your assertion, your burden of proof.

The Salvation Army is run differently that any other church and operates mainly in downtown areas. That is why I specifically used the term _suburban_ churches.

It was Jerry that made the original assertion that higher charitable giving amoung the right-wing crowd was proof of a more charitable mindset. I pointed out that such conclusions cannot be drawn from the data if it includes donations to suburban churches.

That is a crock. Salvation Army churches are all over the place. I grew up in a town of 3000 people, there was one there. You've been had - just admit it.

[White Doors]

Ha ha. David Frum. Good one. I love it.

This will certainly restore his lost lustre.

This is a guy who has fallen out with a party on the wane.

Look for him at the Barbara Frum branch of the Toronto Public Library.

Hee. Hee.

So can you find fault with his message or do you simply dismiss it because of the source of the person who posted these facts?

[Riverwind]

That is a crock. Salvation Army churches are all over the place. I grew up in a town of 3000 people, there was one there. You've been had - just admit it.

There is nothing to admit. The Salvation Army is one church that places any extremely heavy emphasis on charitable work. Most other churches are not like that. Why you just admit that sururban churches are simply social clubs that might do some charitable work as a sideline but their primary purpose is to provide services to the membership.

[sunsettommy]

However can you provide some evidence to back them up?

What stats are necessary? The gov't treats churches as charities which means that all stats regarding charitable giving includes donations to churches unless someone has gone to the effort to separate them out. It doubt Frum would bother to do that since separating them out would undermine his arguments. I also know from experience that the overwhelming majority of monies donated to Catholic churches go to pay for priests and buildings. The priests do some charity work but the majority of time they spend working with parishioners.

Ok then it is your opinion.

Thanks

[sunsettommy]

What a asinine assertion. You think it's cheaper to run a church or Unicef?

feel embarrassed yet?

Rediculous. Suburban churches are nothing but glorified social clubs that do almost nothing that can be classed as 'charity' work (i.e. feeding the poor). They should not even be entitled to a tax deduction in the first place but that is a different issue.

Another opinion?