Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism

This is a well-researched, respectful, compassionate book that reveals the TRUE American character: one of remarkable charity at home and abroad, with money, time, and talents. My hat is off to Brooks for gathering the difficult to locate information and carefully documenting the facts about American culture and spirit. We are a giving people. THIS is exactly the trait we must not lose--not from a consistently overbearing nanny state mentality or from a lack of compassion that is springing up as a reaction to governmental interference in every aspect of our lives. God, family, and country are sound principles that form the basis for our compassion and have made this country the envy of the world. There are many problems in the world, but the SOLUTION is voluntary cooperation by individuals in virtually all circumstances.

Some of the reviewers here seem to think this is mostly a partisan issue of which side - liberal or conservative - is more virtuous and compassionate. I think that's unfortunate. The author's aim is clearly to understand what makes people give to charity and how to increase charitable giving, not to make a narrowly partisan argument for one side or another. This is certainly about far more than Democrats vs. Republicans. I particularly enjoyed the author's attempt to delve into the more transcendent side of giving, that is, the part of giving that brings out the best in people, that gives meaning to life, that makes life worth living. Another fascinating aspect of the book is the author's attempt to measure how giving to charity actually increases the giver's income by an astonishing $3.75 for each $1 given. Reading this book, I often thought of Christopher Hitchens' book "God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything." A debate between Hitchens and Brooks would be quite entertaining, and I think Brooks would prevail on the point that a secular society is not a very charitable one.

The book's subtitle ("the surprising truth about compassionate conservatism") overstates the book's own points about giving patterns. The main point of Brook's book, based on a huge colllection of research, is that society benefits at all levels from private charity and that some mindsets produce charitable behavior (at a statistical level!) more readily than others. Religion (however you choose to measure it, and interestingly, regardless of flavor) increases the likelihood of giving to all forms of charity. Believing that caring for others is the government's job decreases generosity *regardless* of whether the government is performing that function or not. Being married and having children both increase the tendency to give even when you control for differences in income. Despite what at least one reviewer has stated, Brooks makes it clear that there are exceptions to all of these patterns. He states that so often that I have to wonder if people ever bother to actually READ the books they're reviewing. I do have some petty quibbles with the book. Brooks tries to compare U.S. and Europen taxes by just comparing income tax rates, which doesn't take goodies like the VAT into consideration. His concluding chapter, about how to increase charitable behavior, looks far too readily to the government for solutions when the whole tenor of the book is critical of its effectiveness. Still, a fascinating book, and well worth reading.

The book uses data from many sources to prove that the one overwhelming predictor of generosity is religion. Political affiliation is almost irrelevent - the statistics for religious liberals and religious conservaties are identical. Religious people are statistically more likely to give than secularists (91% to 66%), and give more of their money (3.5 times more than secularists), are more likely to volunteer their time (67% to 44%), and volunteer more of their time (almost twice as much). The fact that the conservative population is more charitable than the liberal population is due to the fact that religious people tend to be politically conservative. Brooks defines religious people as those who attend a place of worship at least once a week (roughly 30% of the population), and secularists as those who do not believe in a diety or attend a place of worship one time a year or less (20% of the population). That clearly leaves a large "middle class" where I suspect the statistics are hazy. Contrary to comments in a previous review (by Richard Bennet), Brooks does address the issue of who the aid is given to. The statistics hold independent of the recipient of the donation or how the donation is solicited. Compared to secularists, religious people are more likely to donate to secular organizations or when the recipient is not local or is unknown. Religious people are more likely to make a donation when asked (by any organization, religious or not) than secularists. Brooks also addresses the issue (in an entire chapter) of comparing US generosity with the generosity of other countries. Foreign aid as a percentage of GDP by the US federal government may be smaller than some nations, but private donations more than make up for the difference. For example, even accounting for the cost of living, Americans give twice as high a percentage of their incomes as the Dutch (and since there are many more Americans than Dutch, the total dollar amount is overwhelming). Brooks does have some data on other countries that shows the religious versus secularist statistics are not limited to the US population. There is a lot of discussion in the book about the definition of charity which in some ways is more interesting than the statistical conclusions. How do you compare "compassion" versus "charity"? What is more important, motives or actions? Can charity be measured simply by donations or should the results of the donations be considered? The one area that Brooks is clear on is that charity must be consensual and beneficial. Charity is a personal, voluntary sacrifice for the good of another person. That means government aid as a result of taxation is not charity since the giver is forced to give (pay taxes). Overall, this is a very good book with a lot of references and data contained in a long appendix. Data is from multiple sources including religious and secular charities and government organizations. Its well written and the num

Professor Brooks shows that America has a clear split between those who contribute to charity and those who do not. This split is not between rich and poor (at least when computed as a percentage of income) but between religious and non-religious folk and between conservatives and liberals. This book provides a clear summary of the important findings he has extracted from a wealth of data about charitable giving. He has organized the book into 8 topical chapters of conclusions followed by an appendix devoted to the data sets and notes about the sources. I only wish more authors would organize their books in this highly readable form. Most dictionaries explain "liberal" using the terms: free to give, generous, giving largely and abundant. Dr. Brooks' book shows generosity does not apply to those in America we call "liberals" as much as it does to "conservatives." Clarifying this issue alone makes this a valuable book. Too often conservatives accept the liberal slur that they do not care about the poor. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The data on personal charity shows that conservatives give more than liberals to help the poor in spite of the liberals greater wealth. Actually the greatest divide is not political; it is religious. Dr. Brooks shows that religious folk give more to secular as well as religious causes than secular folk do. I was one of those who took offense when G. W. Bush used the term "Compassionate Conservatism." My disgust with the term came from the implication that linking compassion and conservatism was something new. As one who has studied various policy prescriptions for the poor, I knew that the conservative prescriptions were often the more compassionate and less cynically political than the liberal prescriptions. Dr. Brooks shows that the word "Compassionate" in "Compassionate Conservative" is probably redundant. In addition to correlating charity with religion and politics, Dr. Brooks also correlates charity with attitudes toward government welfare, the giver's income, his family, health, and happiness. He also discusses variations in charity across international borders, and even discusses the effect charity seems to have in increasing the giver's wealth. Only someone dedicated to a government solution for every ill could downgrade a book that has so many positive lessons for Americans. Because this book corrects some pernicious political slurs regarding charity it is very valuable. It also destroys the arguments many on the secular left have used to excuse their non-participation in individual giving. If they would only donate blood at the same rate as conservatives our nation would have a more than ample supply. Real benefits to the beneficiary, giver, and society accrue from voluntary individual charity whether in the form of money, volunteer time, or blood donations. We need to recognize who provides these benefits and not give credit to some for mere words.