Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism,   ISBN:9780465008230

Customer Rating: 

Great Book. Uses data to show that charitable giving is a secret to happiness. Who actually gives is surprising and that the benefits from giving are amazing. An eye opening book. Really enjoyed it. Not nearly as political as some reviewers are making it out to be. The just didn't like where the data led.

Customer Rating: 

I'm a high school teacher that founded and sponsored the local Key Club (secular volunteer organization) at my high school for 7 years. My wife has been a professional volunteer coordinator for more than 15 years, in both religious and secular settings. There is nothing in these statistics that contradict our personal experiences.

So, what does Brooks say? "The conventional wisdom runs like this: Liberals are charitable because they advocate government redistribution of money in the name of social justice; conservatives are uncharitable because they oppose these policies. But note the sleight of hand: Government spending, according to the logic, is a form of charity. Let us be clear: Government spending is not charity. It is not voluntary sacrifice by individuals." (p. 20)

Brooks marshals a horde of facts to prove the point that the more politically liberal the individual, the community, the state, the country or the continent, the less likely that the individual, community, state, country or continent will be to donate to private charity in any form. Meaning, if a state voted for Bush in 2004, it generally gave more than a state that went for Kerry. The United States gives light years more to private charity than the nanny state European Union.

Why?

Generally speaking, it's because the general mindset is that there should be a government program to take care of that. This attitude affects volunteerism rates, monetary giving and even in-kind donations like giving blood or donating items to Goodwill. They are even more likely to give back extra change when the cashier makes a mistake.

Brooks breaks it down by income levels, religious affiliation, political party affiliation and even by race. The most determining factor is political affiliation and one party is way more religious than the other one so Republicans, specifically Conservative Republicans who go to church on a regular basis are far more likely to give money, time or in-kind goods than anyone else. Religious Democrats give more than any other sort of Democrat and more than many types of Republicans. The most generous of all? Working poor Conservatives - the old Reagan Democrats. Ironically, welfare payments suppress giving. People who were formerly working poor gave less when they accepted welfare, even if their income levels were comparable.

Brooks is quick to note that these are trends, not absolutes. There are religious conservatives who do not give and ultra-liberal, ultra-secularists that give plenty. But, his data does show certain trends.

Why?

"For many people, the desire to donate other people's money displaces the act of giving one's own. People who favor government income redistribution are significantly less likely to behave charitably than those who do not...For many Americans, political opinions are a substitute for personal checks; but people who value economic freedom, and this bridle against forced income redistribution, are more charitable." (p.55)

Brooks backs it up with 23 pages of data in an appendix and a healthy set of endnotes.

Customer Rating: 

I have read half of this book so far. Very good arguments on charity in this country.

Customer Rating: 

This book is completely lacking in valid research. Simply put, if you love Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, you'll love this book for its praise of conservatism and bashing of the left. If you are seeking factual information regarding giving in America, this is not the place to find it.

Customer Rating: 

It is certainly no surprise that people on the political Right tend to be positive about this book, and those on the Left negative. As a Briton with no political affiliations but a great interest in, and respect for, the USA, I am trying to reach a balanced view. Professor Brooks brings formidable statistical evidence to support two observations I made long ago on the aspects of the world I happen to have experienced, but of which I had no more general proof until I read this book. First, Americans are on average - and it is important to stress that "on average" - far more generous, hospitable, and civic-minded than Britons and Continental Europeans: I doubt many strangers have found such a warm welcome in most parts of Europe as I have found when I visited different parts of the States. Second, from what I have seen of charitable giving and active citizenship, conservatives are, again on average, likely to be more generous with their time and money than the self-styled communitarians of the political Left - or rather, to be perfectly precise, those with an active religious faith are more likely to be generous, and those with an active religious faith are also more likely to tend to the political Right. As they would be the first to point out, this does not imply that religious believers are innately "better" or more generous people - but it is logical that those who believe in, and love, an All-Seeing, All-Powerful God Who approves of, and may even reward, Compassion have a far greater motive to act compassionately than those who do not. Professor Brooks simply confirms these personal conclusions. Indeed, the book's title is misleading because there is nothing at all surprising about it: conservatism has always had a paternalist streak, and "compassionate conservatism" is something of a tautology. The only thing that was unexpected was the degree of difference in generosity between different types, which was even greater than I for one had anticipated. However, although Professor Brooks' statistical approach is powerful evidence for what was previously only suspected, there are always two inherent weaknesses in reliance on statistics alone. First, it cannot be stressed enough that all these conclusions are "on average", and there are always exceptions to the overall pattern: there are some mean people on the Right and some generous people on the Left, because there are some religious believers on the Left and some irreligious people on the Right, as well as some religious people who do not live up to their religious obligations and some atheists who are as generous as any believer. Second, one should never take statistics at their face value without questioning the basis on which statistics are selected. That said, Professor Brooks does enough to prove his basic thesis and his book deserves a higher profile in public debate.