Doomacrats and Republigrins

Once again the media defies social science and pushes the meme that Republicans are rich, uncaring, greedy bastards and Democrats are poor, struggling, kind people who just want to help. In this article they do so by quoting people who parrot that view and letting their statements go unrebutted, as if these are incontrovertible facts. A Democratic consultant states that

if Republicans are more happy, it’s because they care less. “The typical Republican is happy coming home to a 62-inch television, pulling out a fine bottle of cognac or Scotch, putting his feet on the table and enjoying the fruits of his labor, but not caring what’s going on in the world outside their living room . . . and their gated community.”

And the author of the report the article is based on says, “[Republicans] have more money,” and lists that as the first of many reasons why Republicans are happier than Democrats. Neither of those assertions are true.

The article quotes Arthur Brooke and lists his upcoming book, Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America–and How We Can Get More of It.  But it fails to reference his previous book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compasionate Conservatism Who Gives, Who Doesn’t, and Why It Matters, which directly refutes the assertions in the article that Republicans are living large and neglecting the rest of the world.

In fact, it is conservatives who give the most of our time and money.

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.

… 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.

The poster boy for this attitude is Joe Biden, who lectured, “Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most,” although he gives a third of one percent or less of his income.

And the richest parts of the country are voting Democrat, not Republican:

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.

We’re giving more, from less.  So to recap, we’ve got one group demanding that the government solve the poverty problem, which is impossible and the effort harms the church, and another group who just quietly gets on with following Jesus’ instructions: (via Generous Giving)

How much am I required to give?
The short answer is 100 percent. Jesus said that anyone who does not give up all of his possessions cannot be his disciple (Luke 14:25-35). At the same time, we recognize that God graciously lets us use and enjoy some of the material resources that he entrusts into our care (e.g., Numbers 14:8; 26:53-56). While the Bible is not a simple rulebook containing a fixed percentage or simple standard for generosity, it does emphasize several guidelines over and over again. So if we want to give what God requires, we must faithfully observe these guidelines. (1) First, we must care about what God cares about—“the weightier matters of the law”—like justice, mercy, faithfulness and God’s special concern for the poor (Matthew 23:23; cf. Micah 6:6-8; Deuteronomy 10:18-19). As Jesus told the meticulously tithing Pharisees, careful obedience is not enough—it is more important for us to seek justice, mercy and faithfulness, especially for the poor and oppressed (James 1:27; Hosea 6:6; Isaiah 58; Ezekiel 16:49). Refusing to care for the needs of the poor means that we are not merely lacking in generosity—it means that we have forsaken Jesus himself (Matthew 25:31-46). (2) We must apply the Greatest Commandments to our money and possessions (see Luke 10:25-37). Everything in God’s law hangs on these two commandments: to love God wholeheartedly and to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:36-40). So, when confronted by financial decisions, we should ask ourselves, “Have I considered the financial needs of others to be as important as my own?” (see also Philippians 2:3-4). (3) We must imitate the sacrificial example of Jesus on the cross. His self-emptying death should become a way of life for us as generous Christians. This applies not only to our lives in general (Ephesians 5:1-2) but to our possessions in particular (2 Corinthians 8:9). “Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?” (1 John 3:16-17). Our generosity ultimately will be judged by the degree to which it brings us into greater conformity with Jesus Christ and his death on the cross. In conclusion, the Bible envisions givers who give freely within form—like instrumentalists in a jazz band. When a jazz band jams, the lead musician often plays improvisationally. But this creative freedom always exists within a certain form—a framework composed of constants like the basic “beat” of the song, the musical key and the musical genre.1 Similarly, there is freedom within form when it comes to biblical generosity.

We’re obviously not following those instructions perfectly. For example, my family only gives 15-20% of our gross income. But we’re on the right track, and doing better every year. Unfortunately, Americans in general give less than 3% of their income – and since the 1960s, as a percentage of our income, less all the time, as government increasingly takes over our mission field:

Looking at all those instructions on how to care for the poor, it’s striking on how much the command to give is not about the recipient, but about the giver. Giving sacrificially changes us; it brings our interests and priorities in line with biblical precepts, and both displays and increases our love for Jesus. Allowing the government to do our giving for us by forcibly taking our income and “spreading the wealth” on our behalf hardens our hearts. More importantly, it misses the real point of caring for the poor, which is not to alleviate their material needs, but to show them the love of Christ; a goal the government is singularly ill-suited to achieve.

In any event, as to which group is giving more… the assertions in the article are dead wrong.

h/t Head Noises: “Doomacrats and Republigrins”