Perhaps the oldest and most unanswerable question of the Bloggernacle is why do Mormons vote so overwhelmingly Republican.
I’ll try to avoid that directly, but the SL Tribune’s weekly provocateur of the dominant Utah culture, Rebecca Walsh, joins Sen. Reid’s latest lament that misguided Utah LDS so overwhelmingly align themselves with the GOP.
Democrats have been scratching their heads for years, trying to make sense of the paradox that has Reid so flummoxed: It seems counterintuitive that a state largely populated by compassionate, peaceful, faithful people who are admonished by their religious leaders to volunteer, give to the poor and live modestly and within their means should hang on the coattails of a political party that does not.
This makes no sense. Of course Mormons (and Utahns) believe in virtues such as service, charity, and sacrifice. But Walsh seems to mistakenly think that they are synonymous with supporting government action: unless the government does it, it isn’t charity.
Except she has it exactly backwards. We are taught to not wait for the government to tax and act in our place. In fact we are not performing our charitable duty unless we give and do of our own time and talents.
So where’s the disconnect? It’s in fact with Ms. Walsh. Conservative Mormons are very similar to other religious conservatives who are suspect of the government accomplishing charity and instead rely on themselves. Arthur C. Brooks has studied the poltical and religious influences on charitable giving and found that:
religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
So putting aside social issues and other sundry reasons why Mormons vote Republican, there’s no inconsistency that a people which believes in service and charity support a party that doesn’t want to outsource them to bureaucrats.
(Possibly) Related posts:
Tags: charity, conservatism, Democrats, Harry Reid, Republicans, utah
-
My lesbian employee (and friend) asked me to take an on-line test to determine if I was liberal or conservative. She admitted that she thought that I would max out on the conservative end of the spectrum. I came in to the left of the centerline, which surprized her to no end.
We than had a very enlightening discussion which pointed out that we both believe in the importance of charity, but that she felt that it should be government mandated and I feel that people should do good works of their own free will.
-
Thank you David,
You’ve pointed out the biggest disconnect between historical conservatives and liberals. Libs tend to believe that humanity can force one another to do the right thing via laws, subcommittee’s, agenda’s and propaganda. Conservs tend to rely on the inherent selfishness and goodness (how’s that for both ends of the spectrum) in getting people to behave properly.
To me it’s really fun how the Libs will take the words like “pro education” when that is not really their standpoint. Their standpoint is “education via government funding only.” Conservatives also are in favor of education, but their philosphy is fundamentally different, rather than allowing the government to choose who gets to get educated (like the Liberal plan), conservatives believes that an individual must be willing to take risks (e.i., a loan) for their education. Here conservatives rely on the selfishness of the individual (if I want to earn money I have to work for it), whereas the liberals continually take away the responsibility of the individual away (the government will provide). The scary thing is, Liberals don’t recognize that “If the government giveth,” then, “the government also taketh.” I don’t want the government getting to decide who deserves to be educated, or to have health care, or who can reproduce, or anything else. It’s a scary road, one that any person who has read “Brave New World” and 1984 shouldn’t even think of approaching. -
As a conservative I will have agree with you, but the question then becomes whether we should start to rethink these politcal ideals when our country gets to a point where a lot of the rich and powerful people are no longer charitable, but corrupt and greedy…
The question is whether or not there comes a tipping point where a balancing act needs to be performed…If the rich get too rich and greedy, and the poor start to feel trapped and uncared for, they are bound to select democrats who want Big Government to solve all their problems…I think the only way to stop that natural progression is if the rich actually are charitable. The problem is most dont see enough of that from the mega rich oil companies or corporations, instead they see big bussiness paying small wages with no or little insurance and a system that makes it a lot harder to work your way up in (not saying you cant work your way up, just saying it seems a lot harder now days)
In all the arguments I’ve been in I had with liberal friends, they all come to the same argument that they percieve the super rich as greedy and uncaring about their poor status.
-
Thanks for agreeing comments. Too often, my disagreeing friends are the only ones prompted to leave a comment to argue a point. So it’s nice to get some agreeing comments.
Dustin – You have a valid point, but I think there is plenty of philanthropy out there and especially good work done by private organizations and churches. But there is little recognition and gratitude.
Too much energy is devoted to fomenting envy and discontent and not enough to thanking what good is being accomplished.
Things aren’t perfect but the constant class warfare and bashing corporations that create jobs and pay people are not helping.
-
Yes conservatives believe in self reliance and a charitable attitude. The problem with the Republican party is that they are identified with corporate greed and lets face it. In the last 20 years corporate greed has become rampant. We have sacrificed industries in the name of profit and greed. The trade deficit is outrageous.
I left the corporate world after 20 years because I got tired of seeing my friends get laid off in times of difficulty when upper management continued to give themselves raises in the form of stock options, contract buy outs etc. It really is a disgusting thing.
I believe in the American dream but how much does one person need? I think I just heard of one of the major airlines laying off flight attendants while upper management gave themselves a new raise. I cannot be more specific because I heard it on the radio a couple of weeks ago. I would not be shocked however.
-
David,
I agree that it is possible to be charitably oriented and a republican.
I think it is also possible to support “family values” and be a democrat.
-
ThomasB –
I think you hit on something that is a serious problem that needs action. I don’t know how to best solve it but for company employees and stockholders to start revolting.
The government enacted Sarbanes-Oxley in response to the Enron fiasco and it has been a horrible example of how onerous regulations and their unintended consequences squelch any of the hoped for benefits.
I think there needs to be a much greater public outcry to push-back on companies that behave this way.
DavidH –
You’re absolutely right.
-
In general, my perception is that the approach the political left takes to social issues (and all too often these days, the political right as well) is a reflection of the “messiness” factor — a fundamental reluctance to be involved toe-to-toe with inconvenient, cantankerous humans who actually need help. The basic modus operandi seems to be, “As long as I have made sure that money will be applied to the problem then my conscience can be clear.”
Whether the problem is struggling schools, affordable housing, deadbeat parents, the cost of college, world hunger, AIDS, etc. the solution is sending someone’s money (read: someone else’s money, usually in the form of taxes) after the problem, with very little long-term concern for whether this is actually helping anyone.
My stridently left-leaning brother-in-law (who is most certain a family man, DavidH…) likes to say that we all have an obligation to be helping the poor and needy, and that to him, the Democratic Party best embodies this message. My more conservative brothers-in-law and I often remind him that:
a) Nobody’s capacity for loving and serving their fellow man is being expanded by the IRS.
b) “I paid my taxes” doesn’t put a check in the box for anyone’s annual compassionate service goal.
c) In many cases, public assistance programs in their current incarnations are not truly helping the majority of these people anyway — at least not helping them become self-respecting hard-working independent agents for good in the world.
One of the most fascinating things for me about the Perpetual Education Fund is the huge percentage of people who start the conversation with their local CES representative and come to the conclusion that with some lifestyle changes, they can actually finance the life-changing educational endeavor themselves, without any assistance from the PEF. I forget the exact number, but it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 80%. Amazing what a difference toe-to-toe interaction with someone who cares can make, versus the billions of people around the world living on the dole.
…and yet, as David (H. Sundwall) mentions above, we rarely hear about the amazing good being done in the world by the majority of private charities (religious charities in particular). I’ve always wondered if part of that is a “do your alms in secret” mentality that dismisses good PR out of fear of becoming (or even appearing) prideful.
To be clear, there are certainly some sincere, genuine people out there doing amazing things in the world. Some of these people are even socially liberal. Some of them are entirely earnest in their desire to help people at a very personal level. In general, however, I think that “messiness” factor scares a lot of folks away from the kinds of truly meaningful service that make huge impacts at an individual/family level.
-
“Too often, my disagreeing friends are the only ones prompted to leave a comment to argue a point.”
I am taking the day off.
-
Happy Labor Day, Chris.
-
Generally good thoughts, i think (though i come down quite a bit more on the government-programs-are-good side of things than you, of course), but i wanted to point out one error in…well, not logic, but i can’t think of what else to call it.
You wrote: “Except she has it exactly backwards. We are taught to not wait for the government to tax and act in our place. In fact we are not performing our charitable duty unless we give and do of our own time and talents.”
Actually, i’d argue that you *both* have it exactly backwards (or maybe inside-out would be a better image). That’s because *both* corporate and individual actions are necessary.
That seems to be the missing part of these sorts of discussions: Individual action is necessary and is often, if not generally, to be preferred, and individual action is certainly more nimble and has a higher efficiency rate–however, there are so many problems that no individual or even small collection of individuals can provide enough help, in part because the number of willing individuals is limited by awareness and even greed, so there is a necessary place for government intervention to help those less fortunate, even when not all of the people providing help via the government want such help to be provided.
(Yeah, that was way too long a sentence, but i couldn’t figure out where to break it up.)
It’s worth pointing out, for example, that the estate tax was originally proposed by a group of the ultra-*rich*, as a way to force their children not to rely on their parents’ accomplishments, and to make sure that some of what had been acquired was spread around to other (poorer, less successful) interests. Unfortunately, these days we seem to be seeing the successful exhibiting (to steal a phrase i found in a novel once) a lot of noblesse, way too little oblige.
-
David B –
I don’t think we’re that far off. I certainly agree that there is a place for corporate action and relief, but mostly through churches and private organizations. That still requires voluntary efforts and donations.
I can even go with some government efforts or safety nets. But nothing like what we have today. Churches and charities used to do a lot more than they do now because they have been pushed out of the way by government taking a larger and larger stake of helping the needy. I think the needy and those what would be serving them are far worse off.
Call it inside out or whatever, but my main complaint is that the columnist could not see how compassionate people weren’t for government programs doing their charity for them.
You make a good point in clarifying that it is often best done through large organizations, I just think government should let it be mostly done by others.
-
Yep. Gotta agree with you there, Dave.
There’s no disputing the fact that the organizational efficiencies of large organizations can expand the reach of programs, but I might posit that it is the point at which the “program” touches the *individual* that the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the program is determined — for better or for worse.
One could certainly argue that there’s a tradeoff between:
a) hiring more people to administer a program in a more personal way (while increasing overhead costs and potentially reducing the total dollar amount of “help” going to people)
and
b) reducing administrative headcount (and thus, oversight?) to ensure that the total dollar amount of “help” going to *someone* is maximized (while accepting a certain level of fraud, mismanagement, or mistakes.)
Few (if any) government programs can realistically be administered by local individuals who have daily personal interactions with the people they’re helping — thus falling severely toward the “b” end of the tradeoff above.
But even if funding is received from a centralized source, when programs are *administered* by private charities (and, dare I say, religious groups?) they would seem to have a much higher chance of:
1. having unpaid volunteers (reducing general overhead) and…
2. being staffed *very* locally by people who…
3. personally know the actual recipients of the help, and…
4. can make more efficient decisions, allowing…
5. a larger number of individuals to actually be helped.As I mentioned before, the PEF is an amazing example of this principle — centralized funding, with extremely distributed decision-making (and 100% volunteer administration.)
That, or we could just keep mailing out bazillions of monthly “aid” checks to millions of able-bodied people who don’t really need them, and just hope that things get better someday.
Sadly, there are huge segments of our society that have become institutionally dependent on government assistance — not because they really *need* it, but because it has been *so* easy to get, and *so* easy to continue getting.
My extended family has enough heartbreaking circumstances for me to realize that there are *definitely* times when we as a society should be pooling resources at institutional levels… But we’ve also personally observed the tragically soul-numbing effect of wasted individual potential in folks who have been taught by our society to take the easy way out.
-
Pingback from ‘Outsourcing Virtue’ | A Soft Answer on 11 September 2008 at 6:27 am
-
The SL Tribune published my letter in response to the column.
-
11 September 2008 at 8:09 am
weblackeysgirl
Thank you!!!!!! I am glad to see there are others out there that understand the truth of liberalism. Most dems I know dont do anything and expect the government to do it by taxing the “wealthy”. I know I am having the crap taxed out of me and I am not wealthy. there is clear evidence that the government doesnt take care of the poor.
They are all falling in a trap and here is a great quote from Norman Thomas that sums it all up for me.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://asoftanswer.com/2008/09/01/voting-democrat-does-not-equal-charity/trackback/