[NOTE: this post may be long, but I would ask that you read it all. I think, at least for those for whom I wrote it, you’ll find it will be worth your time.]
I just do not understand how we can have such a stark difference as these and still have people defending the Liberal/Progressive ideology. I suppose I never will:
Fresh off his “climate disruption”-driven endorsement of President Obama, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has chosen to divert critical food supplies and power generators from desperate residents of Staten Island to Sunday’s New York City Marathon.
Mercury One staffer Adam Blaylock describes Kerry’s reaction to Coney Island:
One of the things that stood out most to Kerry and those that were with him was the silence of the media. While meeting with members of the New York Christian Resource Center (NYCRC), Kerry learned that no one else had visited that Coney Island community to offer help – no relief organizations or emergency management organizations. They had been left to fend for themselves.
“I think people hear about the flooding of New York City and think of rich people with big homes,” Kerry said. “Yes, that has happened. And yes, they need our help, too. But this area was devastated. No food, no water. Roaming armed gangs. We heard sirens from the moment we arrived until we left. I could not believe how quickly the chaos started.”
Some of the church leaders Kerry met with had worked with Mercury One and Operation Blessing earlier this year during a food drive connected to the Restoring Love event on July 28th, where 14 tractor trailers of food were sent to communities across the nation, including one on Coney Island.
In a video message to Glenn, Jim Esposito of the NYCRC commented on Mercury One’s assistance with the food drive and expressed gratitude for the additional assistance after hurricane Sandy:
“You have no idea what you guys have brought to us today – the hope that’s descended here in Coney Island, Brooklyn and beyond. You were the first people to come to this community, to this church and to see what we need. And that’s God’s honest truth. They didn’t know where they were going to turn today. And I’m glad that you were there. Thank you so much, sir.”
Personally, I think the difference is connected to the FACT that the Liberal/Progressives demand we all work through government where Beck and his people are working through the Church. But then, I suppose that is part of why I will likely never understand… All I know is that this is a trend, not an isolated anecdotal story:
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was far more generous to charities than President Barack Obama or Vice President Joe Biden last year, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income, tax return data Romney’s campaign released Friday indicate.
Romney and his wife, Ann, gave 29.4 percent of their income to charity in 2011, donating $4,020,772 out of the $13,696,951 they took in.
Obama and first lady Michelle Obama gave 21.8 percent of their income to charitable organizations last year, donating $172,130 out of the $789,674 they made.
Biden and his wife, Jill, gave 1.5 percent of their income away in 2011, with charitable donations totaling $5,540 out of $379,035.
Thomas Sowell captured this overall sentiment in a Nov. 2006 Human Events piece when he wrote, “One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring.” While myths surrounding leftist giving and volunteerism continue to be perpetuated, American researchers have taken a pretty clear and concise look at this issue and the case is closed: Conservatives out-give and out-volunteer the opposition. Don’t believe me? Examine the facts.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy released a fascinating survey this week on how (and how much) America donates to charitable organizations. One of the most interesting findings shows that those who tend to give the most live in more religious areas. A substantial portion of giving in the U.S., you see, comes in the form of tithing to churches. When religion is taken out of the equation, the charitable landscape alters considerably.
The more religious a person is, the more conservative he is, and this relationship is strongly mediated by the value placed on tradition—respect for customs and institutions. But, even though religiousness and spirituality are highly correlated, the more spiritual a person is the more liberal he is. This relationship is mediated by the value placed on universalism—social tolerance and concern for everyone’s welfare.
As with previous studies, conservatives were more conscientious (organized and self-disciplined), while liberals were more agreeable and more open to new ideas and experiences. The trend of conservatives being more religious and liberals being more spiritual held even when controlling for these personality factors, and when controlling for age, gender, and socioeconomic status.
[NOTE: Be VERY careful NOT to equate “spiritual” with “religious:” they are two VERY different concepts.]
WHO is happier about life — liberals or conservatives? The answer might seem straightforward. After all, there is an entire academic literature in the social sciences dedicated to showing conservatives as naturally authoritarian, dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity, fearful of threat and loss, low in self-esteem and uncomfortable with complex modes of thinking. And it was the candidate Barack Obama in 2008 who infamously labeled blue-collar voters “bitter,” as they “cling to guns or religion.” Obviously, liberals must be happier, right?
Wrong. Scholars on both the left and right have studied this question extensively, and have reached a consensus that it is conservatives who possess the happiness edge. Many data sets show this. For example, the Pew Research Center in 2006 reported that conservative Republicans were 68 percent more likely than liberal Democrats to say they were “very happy” about their lives. This pattern has persisted for decades. The question isn’t whether this is true, but why.
By any objective measure, it would seem that the Liberal/Progressive path is — in fact — the wrong path, and the evidence supports this conclusion. Now, if it pointed in the other direction, the Left would tell us it is based on “science,” and, therefore, we can’t argue with their conclusion. Somehow, because the “science” seems to be against them, I suspect they will disagree with the conclusion. To me, that in itself is a condemnation of the liberal/progressive mindset: characterized by a stubborn refusal to accept objective reality and irrational adherence to their own beliefs instead.