Guys, what info is there to refute this book?

dpakman91 · 12-03-2006, 12:32 PM

I might have Arthur Brooks from Syracuse on my show again. One idea would be to talk about this article: OpinionJournal - Featured Article

A better idea would be to talk about his book: Who Really Cares • Arthur C. Brooks

If i did that though, i would wnat to build a strong case to refute his premise that conservatives donate more than liberals and that's that. What ideas or information might i be able to use?

Kytro · 12-03-2006, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by dpakman91

If i did that though, i would wnat to build a strong case to refute his premise that conservatives donate more than liberals and that's that. What ideas or information might i be able to use?

You shouldn't look for information to refute his premise. You should look at the premise and the information and determine if the premise is correct or not.

Thorgrim · 12-03-2006, 10:02 PM

The Tragedy of American Compassion, Marvin Olasky

Also look up charity statistics in the 1980s, where charity payments among the rich (and conservative voters) went down when they were recieving more tax cuts

Basically, that guy is framing the debate by using the word charity in the way that suits him the best...aka giving 10% of your money to your local megachurch so it can reach more late night television is "charity" and funding a local program that helps your children in particular is "charity"

When in reality its a basic business deal, you are giving something in return for something else...whether it is seeing your pastor on TV more, or the radio...or seeing your children benefit from your givings

dpakman91 · 12-03-2006, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

You shouldn't look for information to refute his premise. You should look at the premise and the information and determine if the premise is correct or not.

i've looked at his information and it's all factually accurate. however, there may be other ways to represent "more generous," "donate more," etc

Phantom · 12-04-2006, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by dpakman91

i've looked at his information and it's all factually accurate. however, there may be other ways to represent "more generous," "donate more," etc

I think cutting out church donations might help, but I'm not convinced doing so would change the conclusions. Without all the numbers in front of you, the best this could do is bring question for the conclusion - not support a finding for the opposite conclusion.

dpakman91 · 12-04-2006, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Phantom

I think cutting out church donations might help, but I'm not convinced doing so would change the conclusions. Without all the numbers in front of you, the best this could do is bring question for the conclusion - not support a finding for the opposite conclusion.

you may be right there.

Phantom · 12-04-2006, 03:08 PM

here's a critique (sort of):
The Volokh Conspiracy - Concerns About Arthur Brooks's "Who Really Cares."--

the earlier analysis by the same author:
The Volokh Conspiracy - -

Ardentfrost · 12-04-2006, 03:17 PM

Does his data only account for REGISTERED republicans and democrats? If so, what % of donated money comes from unaffiliated citizens. With that information, it could be said that his numbers hold a party bias and doesn't represent the actual population.

I haven't read his book... if I had, maybe I could point out some problems with his statistics. It's rare that statistics are done without bias at the national level.

dpakman91 · 12-04-2006, 06:09 PM

ok this is good we are getting into some good stuff.

RMNIXON · 12-04-2006, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

You shouldn't look for information to refute his premise. You should look at the premise and the information and determine if the premise is correct or not.

If the book is true then you can't refute it. Not in any honest way. Perhaps if liberals were concerned more with private charity and a little less in attacking conservative books as they are published they might learn something? Or are they just right about everything?

Thorgrim · 12-04-2006, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Or are they just right about everything?

You do realize that is a possiblity?

Just think about it, in 100 years I'll probably be regarded as a rigid conservative

Diamond Cross · 12-04-2006, 08:29 PM

You want to look at hard data from as many relevant sources as you can which means looking at things like tax records, check stubs, charity records, so on and so forth, and not bigoted opinions that are irrelevant and unproven.

benwbrum · 12-05-2006, 01:04 PM

Probably the best thing to do is to familiarize yourself well with his research, the common questions he's addressed, and the ones that remain to be answered.

If you're not a statistician, you won't be able to "refute" his research.
Steve Reuerland makes a half-hearted attempt here, but (I think) just ends up looking silly:
http://stevereuland.blogspot.com/200...ur-brooks.html

The Chronicle of Philanthropy chat session of last week might be another good resource. I brought up Lindgren's criticsm there, but wasn't completely satisfied by his response:
The Chronicle of Philanthropy: Live Discussions

A common question that Brooks addresses is whether those extra conservative contributions are religious. Apparently they're not, and you should probably get that out of your way clearly and quickly for your listeners.

I encourage you to go over Brooks's original findings in this 2004 Faith & Economics paper and this 2003 Policy Review column, especially the last few pages of analysis. They seem to indicate that the main determiner of charitable giving is frequency of religious attendence. Not where you attend or what creed you follow, but how often you show up.

If that's true, then doesn't the "God gap" explain the entire premise of his book? If religious liberals give as much as religious conservatives and secular conservatives are as stingy as secular liberals, then doesn't the conservative/liberal dichotomy boil down to the secularization of the Democratic party? I suspect that Brooks (a politically independent Roman Catholic) has some pretty strong opinions on the God gap, but would really like to see him address if it undermines his analysis.

Another question is about income vs. disposable income. Brooks points out that liberals earn more but give less than conservatives. But does cost of living in liberal-heavy urban areas cancel out the earning difference? Tied into this somewhat are his findings about the poor and rich both giving more than the middle class.

Your listeners would probably benefit from hearing Brooks's opinions on why civil society is important in the first place, and how secularization ties into "Bowling Alone". That ties into the question of why liberals should care about lower rates of charity among them (or lower religiosity, if that's all the difference is).

benwbrum · 12-05-2006, 01:05 PM

I forgot to ask: when do you think the interview might happen/air.?

dpakman91 · 12-05-2006, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by benwbrum

I forgot to ask: when do you think the interview might happen/air.?

i was hoping for tomorrow but it may not happen. i've had him on my show before, so it's just a matter of when not if, but we'll see.