Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism

Sarah Peasley, Special to the News

Published January 5, 2007 at midnight

Text size  

More Airlines & Aerospace

More stories »

• Nonfiction.

By Arthur C. Brooks. Basic Books, $26.

Grade: B

Book in a nutshell: While political ideology doesn't drive charity, people who ascribe to conservative principles are much more likely to give to charity, Brooks contends in this book that slices the demographic pie of Americans' charitable habits a thousand different ways. Broadly defined as voluntary sacrifice for another's good, charity is both the money we give and the time we devote to others. Brooks notes that three-quarters of American families give to charity; a third of that goes to churches and other religious entities. The working poor give a greater percentage of their money than the middle class, and millionaires give about half of all charitable donations in the U.S.

Other findings:

• There's only a one percent difference in the number of liberals and conservatives who do volunteer work, but conservatives donate much more time.

• The same percentage of liberals and conservatives donate money, but conservatives donate 30 percent more, even though they earn six percent less.

• Conservatives give more money than liberals in every income class.

• Religious people give more than the nonreligious, even to secular causes.

• People whose parents were charitable are more likely to be charitable.

Best tidbit: Charity, Brooks argues, provokes a personal transformation in the giver. By giving, I become a helper as opposed to a victim, and thus, become more effective in all areas of my life.

Pros: This book really makes you think about acts of giving and volunteering.

Cons: Often infuriating, full of caveats, sloppy definitions and specious generalizations, Who Really Cares looks at everything through a sharp, ideologically conservative lens.

Final word: Brooks mixes the micro - individual charitable acts - with the macro - political parties' positions and government policies. But you'll glean enough from his analysis to draw conclusions.