Jeff Jacoby opinion, why I find it annoying
So, the title of Jeff Jacoby's editorial today was "Stingy liberals." Which is a great title, very catchy and immediately makes you reread it, to see if you read correctly. What he writes however is not so great in terms of reliable information (not a big surprise) and interpretation of that information (also not a surprise).
Let's start by pointing out some of the problems with the information he gives. I have not read the Chronicle of Philanthropy article, or ever even read that publication, so this is based entirely on the info from the opinion piece. So, Jacoby states that this study was completed by Arthur Brooks who took data from the US Census to determine which parts of the country were more charitable.
Which is fine, but then the idea of a state being either a liberal state or a conservative state became part of the interpretation and things become questionable. If you are trying to answer the question "are liberals or conservatives more charitable", comparing a "blue state" with say 55% Democrat governors and a "red state" with 52% Republican governors (or any way of measuring liberal/conservativeness of a state), is very silly. It is similar to comparing the charitable-ness of one state that has a slightly larger male population to one with a slightly higher female population and saying that men are stingier than women because in Ohio the giving was 4.5% and in Kentucky the giving was 9%. Pairwise analysis might make sense, where you compare one man in Ohio with a similar man in Kentucky (a bunch of times of course) and one woman in Ohio with a similar woman in Kentucky (a bunch of times).
I am sure that there are plenty of other problems with the comparisons made (such as charitability being defined solely by money given to charitable organizations), which would not be at all surprising from a "researcher" who states that "In the end, I had no option but to change my views". Um, shouldn't researchers start off without an expectation of what will happen (be "viewless"). (answer: YES)
Now, let's assume that despite the flaws in the research, it is true that conservatives give more of their discretionary income to charities than liberals do. Why would that be surprising? Liberals are charachterised as people who believe that the government should be involved in ensuring equitabilty. Conservatives are charachterised as people who believe that individuals should decide who gets their charity. If you think it is the government's job to ensure equity, why would you give your money to private charities that do the exact same job as a government group. It wouldn't make sense. If however, you are conservative you might be more inclined to support a group that does similar things to a government group, but perhaps does it in a way that you prefer. Makes sense.
Silly, Silly, Silly.
posted by Elizabeth O @ 8:34 AM
0 Comments
