Conservative Charity vs Liberal Government



Republicans want to kill grandma.
Republicans want to kill sick people.
Republicans want poor people to starve and die.
Republicans want blacks dead or enslaved.
Republicans want hispanics imprisoned or gone.
Republicans want the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer.
Republicans want to poison the water and destroy the land and torture puppies (before Barack Obama gets a chance to eat them).

(Photo courtesy of NOBAMA.com)

We’ve heard it all before. The outrageously outraged hate-filled emotionalist attacks. The lie-filled over-the-top propaganda designed to keep the brainwashed in line. The absolutely absurd claims by the radical Leftists in Congress and the White House and in mainstream media. Karl, of Patterico’s Pontifications and Hot Air, has a linktastic article of Congressional Democrats making many outrageous and dishonest claims about Republicans very much in line with the above lies about Republicans. And do read his linktastic article at either Hot Air or Patterico’s Pontifications. He completely destroys two WaPo liars’ radical, extreme Leftist, lie-filled, hyper-partisan accusations (such as the fact they ignored the far Left Democrats throwing centrist Democrats out of office for being too centrist and not Leftist enough during this Primary season).

*Important sidebar: Republican does not equal Conservative. And Republican Office-holder most definitely does not equal Conservative. As multiple years of surveys show. Grass-roots self-declared Conservatives and Moderates both agree by overwhelming majorities that the Republican Leadership is to the Left of and out of touch with the Conservative base, while a plurality of self-declared Liberals falsely believe the Republican Leadership represents Conservatism.

As I noted previously, a study proving what Conservatives already know, that Conservatives understand Liberals but Liberals don’t understand Conservatives, has given some insights to this phenomenon. Quoting the above-linked Tina Korbe’s explanation provided by one of the researchers:

Haidt says conservatives speak a broader and more encompassing language of six moral values, while liberals focus on a narrow subset of those values.

This is very true. The political Left has a very narrow view on nearly everything, while the political Right has a much broader, far more encompassing view. And the political Left are, more often than not, incapable of expanding their view, if even to try to understand Conservatives.

I have previously quoted Congressman Colonel Davy Crockett multiple times, most recently in my pwnage of the historically illiterate Leftists Perry Hood and Molly. No very brief quote of Davy Crockett’s words will do him justice, so do read the entire multi-paragraph quote. But for a very brief and absolutely incomplete quote:

“I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and—”

“Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.”

“This was a sockdologer. I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence. I had seen enough of them to know there is a way to reach them, and was satisfied that if I could get him to talk to me I would soon have him straight. But this was entirely a different bundle of sticks. He knew me, had voted for me before, and did not intend to do it again. Something must be the matter; I could not imagine what it was.

“I had been making up my mind that he was one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence.” Sound familiar? Like all the things Leftists say about Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians? Why yes, yes it does. Does it entice you to actually read and understand his words? If you’re a historically illiterate hyper-partisan Leftist like Perry Hood or Molly, no. But if you’re interested in facts, histo-facts, the Constitution, the Declaration, and Truth, then it should. Liberals absolutely hate when Conservatives and Libertarians reference the Declaration, the Constitution, the words of the Founders and Framers in order to destroy Liberal talking points and agenda items. Liberals automatically hand-wave Conservatives and Libertarians as “one of those churlish fellows who care for nobody but themselves, and take bluntness for independence,” just as Congressman Colonel Davy Crockett had admitted he wanted to do. But, unlike Liberals, Congressman Colonel Davy Crockett was honest enough to actually pay attention and learn the errors of his ways. And then, to work to correct his errors.

It is a documented fact that Conservatives are much more generous than Liberals in voluntarily contributing their time and hard-earned money to help the aged and infirm, the hungry, the sick and disabled, the youth, and similarly “downtrodden” folk. “Religious” Conservatives are more generous than “non-religious” Conservatives; likewise, “religious” Liberals are more generous than “non-religious” Liberals.

Kristof admits to being “unhappy with my findings,” echoing sentiments from the researcher Brooks:

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks said, “I expected to find that political liberals – who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did – would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Other findings from the data:

Follow the link to find the other findings. But be warned, Liberals will absolutely not like the other findings. They absolutely destroy the Leftist propaganda, and destroy Crockett’s self-admitted wrong belief. Across the board, Conservatives are clearly more generous and more personally involved than Liberals. And there is that Personal Responsibility thing again, something Liberals severely lack and something Conservatives have in spades. For more information, a simple Google search provides over 1.6 million results, including a New York Times opinion piece on page 1 of the search, written by an author who was taken aback by his findings proving Liberals are less charitable than those evil, greedy, selfish Conservatives.

The reason for the confusion is as simple for logical people to see as it is baffling for Liberals. It is also why Liberals absolutely believe the propagandastic lies about Conservatives promulgated by the radical Left. And it is something Crockett learned and subsequently expressed far more eloquently than can I.

As the previously noted study showing Conservatives understand Liberals but Liberals cannot understand Conservatives showed, Conservative moral positions are broad-based among the various moral groupings, while Liberal moral positions focus in on a very narrow subset. Liberals are far more close-minded in the realm of morals and cannot understand that which they cannot even see.

Liberals live under the twin fallacies of the false equivalency and the false dichotomy. In all the Liberals’ attacks against Conservatives for being “selfish”, “greedy”, “uncaring”, the twin fallacies of the false equivalency and the false dichotomy can be seen in full expression. An example of that twin-fallacy in action:

If you are against the Government feeding the poor, you are against feeding the poor. Likewise, if you are for feeding the poor, you are for the government feeding the poor.

As shown above, Conservatives are far more personally involved in charitable activities than are Liberals, thus proving the lie to the Liberal twin-fallacy talking point. But, as also shown above, Liberals in general are incapable of broadening their scope of understanding to accept anything beyond their own narrow viewpoints. And the greatest danger is that Conservatives and Libertarians will accede to the Liberal fallacies, thus inappropriately accepting Liberal redefinitions (hello, Big Brother) while trying to fight off other Liberal lies. Unfortunately, Hoagie has fallen victim to that Leftist ploy while fighting the Socialist Perry Hood over on The First Street Journal.

Remember, to the Left, those who oppose Government providing “stuff” to the “poor” oppose providing “stuff” to the “poor”, and corollarily, those who favor providing “stuff” to the “poor” favor Government providing “stuff” to the “poor”. It’s the false equivalence and false dichotomy married fallacy in which nearly all Liberals live. And it’s that married fallacy Hoagie accidentally allowed to be true, inappropriately ceding ground to Liberals that the Liberals had no right to claim. Allow me to explain.

First, and simply:
Agreeing that there are those who are suffering and in need of help does not at all mean the Government should step in and help.
Corollarily, declaring the Government has no business helping those who are suffering does not at all mean those who are suffering should be left to suffer.
Related: The US Constitution does not permit Government to step in. Period. (Full-stop, for those 17 percent reading this site who most likely speak the King’s English.)

Those who actually read Crockett’s words will have learned a thing or two about the Constitutional Conservative position. But I highly doubt Liberals and “Progressives” (read Socialists) such as Perry Hood or Molly will even bother with taking the time necessary to learn from history (hint, Molly). They are doomed to repeat the failures of the emotionalist, logic-free Left. Remember, it is a proven fact that Conservatives are more generous with their own time and money than are Liberals. And Conservatives want Government out of the business of wealth-redistribution. And these two positions are not at all in contradiction one with the other.

And here we get to Perry Hood’s lie-filled “Christian in name only” bovine biproduct. Perry Hood is a Socialist who has declared Christian doctrine to be brain-washing and mythology, and has rejected the deity of Christ Jesus. But Perry Hood, like all his Alinskyite mentors, falsely claims Jesus preached Socialism, and Government-forced Socialism at that. Despite all the parables that declared those who don’t have will have what they do have taken from them and be cast into Outer Darkness, and those who do have will be given ever more. And despite all the teachings declaring charitable giving to be a matter of the heart and not a matter of coercion.

While it is also important to give of yourself without seeking approbation from the people around you, and that would include blog readers, I am going to relate a bit of personal history. I am completely anonymous to most readers of this blog. Is my name here a pseudonym? Is it my real name? Most people don’t know, and will never know. So my speaking of myself in this medium does not allow for personal glory. But it does allow for a clear example of what I’m talking about.

I have never made as much as 35k in a single year. Never. And most of my adult life, I’ve been below 25k. So I’ve been, for the most part, one of the “poor” or very low level “middle class”. In 1988, I believe it was, I decided to provide four Thanksgiving Dinners to those less fortunate. And my family of three had an income of below 17k that year. I went out and bought four turkeys, four 5-lb bags of potatoes, four stuffing mixes, eight cans of cranberry sauce, eight cans of green beans, four aluminum turkey roasting pans. And, noting that there was a special on turkeys for Thanksgiving where one could buy a turkey for the outrageously cut-rate price of 25 cents a pound (or so), I made it a point that I paid full price. It was the principle. I wasn’t buying a single turkey and I wasn’t buying them for myself; therefore, I wasn’t entitled to the cut-rate price.

My pastor gave me the addresses of four needy families for me to personally deliver the Thanksgiving Dinner fixings, despite my very strong desire to give them to him so he could deliver them. He wanted it to be directly from me to them, while I wanted the anonymity and absolutely complete non-glorious attribute of nobody knowing nothing. But, c’est la vie. My pastor warned me that one of the families was to absolutely not be given any cash whatsoever and only food. A single mother on Welfare and Section 8 housing, who was completely irresponsible personally and would spend the money on things she should not be spending money on. But there was another family, an actual family who were members of the Church, who my pastor sent me to with my own gift of charity. That family of four was far better off than mine. Far better off. But they had hit a very severe patch of rough times and were very much in need of help. And, seeing the man’s eyes and face and body language when I told him I would be delivering the food the Wednesday before Thanksgiving, and seeing his eyes and face and body language when I delivered the food was a memory I will never forget. He was absolutely ashamed of himself and absolutely ashamed to be accepting free food. But he accepted the free food.

I will never forget the shame that man felt. And I will never forget the nonchalant, almost entitled, expression of the Section 8 Housing single mother as I delivered her free food.

But on to the more extended point.

It is entirely possible for a Conservative to absolutely and completely reject any idea for Government to aid the downtrodden, while absolutely and completely supporting aid to the downtrodden. There is no contradiction, whatsoever. In fact, it is indeed in holding to Constitutional Conservative values and Christian values.

Liberals, who absolutely demand the Government spend billions of dollars to support those the Liberals claim are downtrodden and helpless, do not willingly provide their time and money in amounts comparable to Conservatives. Conservatives, who absolutely demand the Government has no right to spend tax-payer dollars in that manner, willingly provide their time and money in amounts far exceeding that of Liberals. And that’s a documented fact.

But you don’t have to look at dry documentary evidence. Just look around your communities. Catholic hospitals. Methodist hospitals. Presbyterian hospitals. Catholic charities. Inter-Church Social Services. Inter-Church food pantries. Various denominational housing for the homeless. Red Cross. Labor Day Jerry Lewis Telethon for Muscular Dystrophy. Blood drives. Food drives. Habitat for Humanity. ASPCA fund-raisers. UNICEF. United Way. Schools sending their kids to sell candy bars. Big Brother/Big Sister. Salvation Army bell ringers. These are all examples of people taking it upon themselves to help others. And there are many more.

But when Government gets involved and starts to put regulations that violate the principles of the various charities, those charities close down instead of kowtowing to the almighty Government (ObamaCare and its unconstitutional First Amendment violations regarding the Catholic Church and others, for one recent example). And when Government starts to pump in all manner of strings-free (supposedly) money, charities die. Prior to Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, the US was a rapidly expanding, rapidly wealth-growing nation without the Government providing everything for millions. After Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, a great many charities died and Government took over.

And the Government take-over provided all manner of guaranteed votes for the Democrat (read leech) Party. Perry Hood accidentally let loose the public secret that all this money to the “poor” from the Government came with a string: You have to be beholden to the Government that allows you to be a Personally Irresponsible leech. If you don’t kowtow low enough to the Government and the Democrat Party which made the “free lunch” possible, you are absolutely derelict in your duty to be appropriately appreciative of Big Nanny Government. WOWZERS! What a massive noose around your neck the Socialist Left (such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama) have placed! And if you even deign to take that noose off your neck? You have to be destroyed by all means possible! Legal or illegal, ethical or unethical.

If Christian Charities give you the support you need in times of trouble, they have expectations, too. They expect you to be Personally Responsible enough to stand up and take care of yourself. They do not demand, nor to they expect, any kowtows. Their glory is in helping you help yourself and in helping you become totally independent of any need. The Leftist/Statist Government? Why, if you don’t scrape your nose when you bow down, you haven’t done it right! Just ask Perry Hood or any of the other radical Leftists (provided they ever are accidentally honest).

No, the massive majority of American history shows success as a result of personal actions and not Government actions. In fact, George Washington had it right.

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Today’s Democrat Party, led by a massive amount of Socialists, worse than merely not being your grandparents’ Democrat Party, are totally in love with Big Government. In fact, the bigger the better for Democrats. And the more people who get “free stuff” from Government, the more likely Democrats are to be re-elected. The most successful, most free, wealthiest nation on Earth and in History, which has provided the greatest opportunity for poor to become wealthy; that nation is dying as a result of Democrats promising “freebies” to voters and then demanding unquestioned allegiance from those voters who got those “freebies”. Just like the queen in CS Lewis’ The Silver Chair. And with the exact same evil enslavement results.

No, I do not approve of Government ever stepping in to “help the poor”. Or whatever group the Leftists think need tax-payer dollars fed into it. I do not approve of Government exceeding its Constitutional limits. But Barack Obama has already declared an aversion to the “negative rights” which the US Constitution uses to prevent the Government from being that fearful taskmaster. That fearful taskmaster that Big Government Statist Republicans and Democrats have created for all of US.

Down on your luck? Don’t turn to Government. Turn to private charities. Government will demand too much from you while keeping you dependent. Private charities will demand that you stand up and become personally responsible. They don’t want your worship.

If someone is down on their luck, do I think they should be able to seek aid?
YES.
Do I think they should seek aid from Government?
NO. ABSOLUTELY NO. NEVER. NO.

I believe we should return to the US Constitution and get Government out of all its unconstitutional “for the poor” programs.

I recognize three points regarding my plan:
1) It would be very painful.
2) It would be very liberating.
3) It will never happen so long as Socialist Democrats and Ruling Class Republicans rule government, the horrible taskmaster.

And what is my plan, exactly? It’s a mere two-point plan. And it would return America to its glory days. Those two points:
1) Eliminate any and every Government program that “helps the poor”.
2) Eliminate 99.95 percent of all regulations on private charities.

That’s it. That’s all. If such were done, the severely atrophied private charities would suddenly grow to retake their rightful places, which Government usurped. If such were done, all Governments would suddenly go from devastatingly deficit spending to having an outrageously large revenue surplus. If such were done, businesses would start booming. If such were done, the “poor” would find it far easier to move up the economic ladder, as was historically the case — which mad the USA the wealthiest, most free, most desirable destination on Earth.

But if such were done, politicians would lose their massive power. (And is that a negative or a positive?)
_________________________
Originally published on Truth Before Dishonor

Keep updated with Caffeinated Thoughts!

Please read our comment policy before leaving a comment.

  • Muscogeekid

    John, the problem with all your rhetoric is that religious charity, or any charity for that matter, could never hope to match the needs of those less fortunate.  It doesn’t have the resources.  So, if you have no place in your heart for truly helping people and only want to hold on to what is rightfully yours, then your attitude is right on.  The entire idea behind government aid is to address needs on a scope that no other institution can manage.  There is nothing nefarious about government so long as people get to vote for their representatives.  Christians, conservatives, Republicans, Tea-baggers, have all manufactured this fear mongering in the hopes of forwarding their own agendas, mostly substituting aid without strings for aid with religious strings attached.  And the more government you get out of the way, the more you insert your own brand of religious restrictions upon people’s lives.  Christians hide behind Libertarian rhetoric when it suits them, but when government enforced fairness is pushed aside, they don’t hesitate to force their own methods of crowd control over people.  Witness the attacks on birth control, education, women’s rights, gay rights…etc.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Hitchcock/100002124988161 John Hitchcock

      kid, you do like using straw-man arguments.  And your hatred of Christians is easily seen.  Also, your abject hypocrisy is showing in your usage of sexually explicit homosexual terminology to attack those of us millions of Americans who consider ourselves part of the TEA Party movement, since your kind claim to be homosexual-affirming.  (How is it someone who is truly homosexual-affirming can use a homosexual slur to viciously and hatefully attack someone?)

      And nothing nefarious about government?  You might want to talk to the Founding Fathers and the Framers about that one.  They were very much into the limited government idea because they knew, without doubt, that an unconstrained government was absolutely, without doubt, nefarious.

      As far as “aid with no strings attached” are you kidding me?  The government has massive amounts of strings attached to their aid, all of those strings absolutely destructive to human independence and all destructive of self-worth.  The strings Christians attach to aid force people to be self-responsible (and  I know Self Responsibility is an evil among Liberals, as you have shown in your comment) and to grow up and to become contributing members of society, and aid them in doing so.

      Attacks on education?  Are you serious?  Of course, you are.  You are obviously a product of government education, which has been failing ever since government took over education from the Churches.

      As far as charity being incapable of handling the needs of the truly needy, you are right, but only because the government has pumped in so many outrageous regulations that many private (not necessarily even Christian) charities have closed up shop over the past 100 years and because government has that “no strings, just agree to never try to be self-sufficient” attitude you so love.  But charitable organizations are multiple orders of magnitude more efficient in transmitting the charitable contributions into aid than government is in transmitting its legalized theft into aid-with-demands-of-servitude, as the government pays people huge sums for all the bureaucracy involved, destroying the billions of dollars legally stolen from others before spreading the pittance around to keep others dependent on government.  And to keep others constantly voting for the free lunch.

      Greece.  Spain.  Portugal.  Now France.

      There is a saying “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.”  You, being a product of government indoctrination, were never even given a chance to learn history.  Learn how and why the US became the wealthiest, most successful nation in the history of man.  You’ll learn it was a result of everything that preceded Woodrow Wilson.  And if you spend any time learning from history, you’ll also learn that Franklin Roosevelt prolonged US suffering for a great many years after it would have naturally ended, by using the agenda and approach you espouse.

      No, kid, it is you who are totally ignorant of the facts.  It is you, kid, who are blinded by a historically failed ideology.  It is not me, a man who has experienced the stress of wondering where my next meal was coming from and the gratitude and shame involved in receiving Christian charity.  Do you know what it’s like for two pre-teen kids to show up at your door, with hot food in their hands?  I do.  It was way back when Barack Obama was President and I was without work or any sort of income whatsoever.

      So, until you walk a mile in my moccasins, don’t presume to judge me with your narrow-minded, bigoted, straw-man, hate-filled, dishonest agenda.