Speaking of hypocrisy and taxes, I was amused by the following (off-topic) quote (via Open Market):
At the outset of his research, [economist Arthur] Brooks had assumed that those who favor a large role for government would be most likely to give to charity. But in fact, the opposite is true.
Several times throughout the book, Mr. Brooks quotes Mr. Nader, the political activist, who said during his 2000 presidential campaign: “A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity.”
Mr. Brooks calls it a “bitter irony” that those favoring income redistribution are not doing much redistributing from their own bank accounts — and he blames liberal leaders like Mr. Nader for letting liberals off the hook.
“In essence, for many Americans, political opinions are a substitute for personal checks,” Mr. Brooks writes.
(Ben Gose, “Charity’s Political Divide”, Chronicle of Philanthropy, Nov. 23). AEI is holding a book forum for Brooks’s book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism, on Tuesday, December 5, at 5:00 PM, free to the public; I’ll sadly have to miss because I’m attending the Scalia-Breyer debate sponsored by the Federalist Society and ACS.
3 Comments
Or to summarize the findings:
Conservatives are those who give freely of their own money.
Liberals are those who would freely give other’s money.
I don’t find it that ironic or hypocritical. This is anecdotal, but I’ve read liberals bemoaning an increase in charitable giving, because its success will make taxpayers even more averse to government spending, which will then subject those receiving the charity to the polical views of the donors. In other words, they believe it is better for people to get money from the government than from charitable citizens, because government money comes from liberals and private money comes from conservatives.
I’ll jump on the “not surprising” band wagon – liberals in general want all of that done by the government.