"Conservatism"

If you are familiar with this blog's format, you may be wondering why this post's title seems to be a simple examination of a subject, rather than being in the form of a myth like the others.  But no, that is not the case.  The myth in question here IS "conservatism"--or rather that what is called the "conservative movement"-- in America in this day and age..  Now don't get me wrong, there was once a conservative side to the political debate here.  One which acknowledged our history, and held a nuanced view of what was practicable as opposed to what might be ideal.  It was one which held a somewhat pessimistic view of human nature, but nonetheless believed in a social contract, in which all had certain responsibilities, and in return that all were entitled to certain rights, privileges and most importantly an equality before the law--that is, that regardless of station, each person was of equal value.  There was suspicion of the common rabble acting as a mob, but there was no talk of people being a "waste of oxygen" as Rush Limbaugh is known to call some. In fact, the difference between this classical conservatism and the more liberal or democratic sentiments of any given age was far less than that radical and strident difference between the modern pseudo-conservatism and either of the above. 

In the America's revolutionary generation, there were more traditional individuals, and there were more liberal individuals, but there were no modern "conservatives." That generation drew upon the philosophy of John Locke:

 "The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that... being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master... there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses" 

Whether religious or secular. our founding generation was united in a revolution for the cause of Humanism, pure and simple.  After the war that accompanied this revolution, there were differences in how best to achieve the Lockean ideal.  As well many of the disloyal wealthy returned from their expatriation and formed one of the two interest groups (along with the Slave Power) who corrupted the politics of the following generations.  But if we are to look at foundational principals modern "conservatism" is absent from them.  the elements didn't really come together as a cohesive ideology until the 20th Century.  This process began in Italy during the 1920's with something that sounded rather like the modern Tea Party movement or perhaps a bit like the Libertarian Party platform:

“The State must have a police, a judiciary, an army, and a foreign policy. All other things, and I do not exclude secondary education, must go back to the private activity of individuals. If one wants to save the State, the Collectivist State must be abolished.”  -- Benito Mussolini

And indeed the founder of what is now called libertarianism said in 1929 that Fascism was "at least the lesser evil" to Bolshevism. Unfortunately the Neoliberal movement later would adopt the view with Pinochet other such stooges, that Fascism was preferable to democracy... but I digress...

The next development into the modern right came in Germany during the early 1930's as the Wiemar Republic fell victim to crushing war reparation debt.  The Hindenburg government appointed 'Liberal' Hjalmar Schacht as minister of finance, and an enterprising member of the Nazi party as Chancellor due to his perceived ability to sell austerity to the working classes. Chancellor Hitler went to work appealing to the 'job creators' as well, telling the Dusseldorf Industry Club:

"Let no one say that the picture produced as a first impression of human civilization is the impression of its achievement as a whole. This whole edifice of civilization is in its foundations and in all its stones nothing else than the result of the creative capacity, the achievement, the intelligence, the industry, of individuals: in its greatest triumphs it represents the great crowning achievement of individual God-favored geniuses."[1]

For the rabble that he dismissed so readily to these "God-favored geniuses" he stooped to appeal to their most simplistic prejudices, such as:

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and co-operation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life"[2]

and...

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith"[3]

and even...

"Whereas previously the programs of the liberal, intellectualist women's movements contained many points, the program of our National Socialist Women's movement has in reality but one single point, and that point is the child, that tiny creation which must be born and grow strong and which alone gives meaning to the whole life-struggle"[4]

And having set this foundation, the troglodyte factions were easily bent to a system of privatization of social services to the churches and civic organizations (like the coercive NGO known as the Nazi Winter Help), the subsidizing of industry through 'tax remissions', reducing the power of unions to almost nothing and even the   heartless dismissal of the victims of misfortune:

"We have founded a system based on the most sincere foundation there is, namely: Form your life yourself! Work for your existence! Help yourself and God will help you!"[5]

If there are those who think that this is all very conservative, I dare say it is not.  It is only Fascist.  For our founders believed in better things, like:

"Government is instituted for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government, and to reform, alter, or totally change the same when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."
-- from Declaration of Rights of Massachusetts (1780) 

"We must not conclude merely upon a man's haranguing upon liberty, and using the charming sound, that he is fit to be trusted with the liberties of his country. It is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty, — to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who are poorer or weaker than themselves"

-- Samuel Adams; from an untitled essay in the Independent Advertiser (1748)

"if my Countrymen should ever wish for the Honour of having among them a Gentry enormously wealthy, let them sell their Farms and pay rack'd Rents; the Scale of the Landlords will rise as that of the Tenants is depress'd who will soon become poor, tattered, dirty, and abject in Spirit...  And the Effect of this kind of Civil Society seems only to be, the depressing Multitudes below the Savage State that a few may be rais'd above it"

-- Benjamin Franklin; from letter to Joshua Babcock (Jan. 13. 1772)

"MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance: the distinctions of rich and poor may in a great measure be accounted for and that without having recourse to the harsh ill-sounding names of oppression and avarice" 

-- Thomas Paine; from 'Common Sense' (1776)

"legislators cannot invent too many devices for subdividing property, only taking care to let their subdivisions go hand in hand with the natural affections of the human mind. The descent of property of every kind therefore to all the children, or to all the brothers and sisters, or other relations in equal degree is a politic measure, and a practicable one. Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." 

-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)

"The great object should be to combat the evil: 1. By establishing a political equality among all; 2. By witholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by an immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; 3. By the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort; 4. By abstaining from measures which operate differently on different interests, and particularly such as favor one interest at the expense of another; 5. By making one party a check on the other so far as the existence of parties cannot be prevented nor their views accommodated. If this is not the language of reason, it is that of republicanism."

-- James Madison; from 'Parties' (1792)

and...

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."

--Thomas Jefferson (to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826)

If only the eyes could be so opened in this generation :(


_____________________________________________________________________

[1] --  Adolf Hitler; from speech to Dusseldorf Industry Club (Jan. 27, 1932)
[2] -- Adolf Hitler; from national proclamation (February 1, 1933)
[3] -- Adolf Hitler; at Nazi-Vatican Concordat (April 26, 1933)
[4] -- Adolf Hitler; from speech to the National Socialist Women’s League (September 8, 1934) 
[5]  -- Adolph Hitler; from speech in Wilhelmshaven (Apr. 1, 1939)

further reading:
http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/12319/RSCAS_2009_46.pdf?sequence=2
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

"The Laffer Curve"

The myth goes something like this; "If you lower taxes revenue will increase, counter-intuitively." If we doubt our intuition, we need only look at the facts and figures. 

The thing about this myth is that it isn't historically demonstrable.  Following the Kemp-Roth tax cuts in the early 1980's the revenue fell and didn't surpass (in CONSTANT dollars) the level of fiscal year 1981 (Carter's last) until FY1986,[1] even as population grew by 10.7 million during that time. Obviously, the early 80's recession had some effect on this (though it was largely over by mid FY1984) after this, revenues grew gradually until FY1987 when the income tax code was flattened while payroll taxes were raised.[2]

To illustrate more clearly, I put together a Top 25 list of all-time yearly individual income tax receipts (in millions) [3] all converted to constant 2005 dollars[4]:

2000: 1,145,731

2001: 1,106,296

2007: 1,093,694

2008: 1,038,661

1999: 1,028,151

2006: 1,008,022

1998:   982,202

2011:   947,048

2002:   939,622

2005:   927,222

1997:   882,559

2003:   846,612

2004:   838,821

1996:   802,074

2010:   800,989

1995:   738,519

1994:   698,014

1990:   682,579

1989:   671,827

1993:   667,382

1991:   650,121

1992:   640,081

1987:   632,137

1988:   627,041

1981:   597,029

Note that fiscal year1981 was under Jimmy Carter's tax policies, and surpassed the revenue of 5 of Reagan's fiscal years. Considering that there is practically an entire ideology built around this one myth, the subject is deadly serious.  But if it wasn't, I'd consider it a laugher, for sure! :-P


[1] [4] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

[2] http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/taxRates.html

[3] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

"47 percent of Americans are entitled victims"

"There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.  All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it... These are people who pay no income tax." -- Mitt Romney




This hot story is nothing so shocking to those who follow politics.  After all, numerous right-wing talking heads have regurgitated this number, apparently citing a study that predicted that 47% of "tax units" would pay no income taxes in 2010.  That prediction did not however come to pass.  According to IRS data there were 144,002,309 tax returns filed in 2010, and 93,798,331 of those paid some income tax.  The number of "tax units" not paying any tax (and presumably, most getting something back from Uncle Sam) then came to just under 35%.[1]

Now it may be posited that the above remarks were supposed to refer to potential voters.  Even assuming that voter participation was as high as in 2008, that would calculate to only around 140 million voters, so we are back to a similar calculation of percentages as before.

But beyond the wanton recklessness with facts, Mitt reveals something ugly that could hurt him in this election and perhaps even in more personal ways.  You see, demographics are not as cut and dried as he seems to believe.  In fact the wealthy and the upwardly mobile are not demonstrably more conservative than the poor or the mediocre.  People of all strata are drawn toward ideologies based on the values they perceive there, more than by self-interest.  And there is a considerable block of the conservative base that is not terribly wealthy and may have considerable deductions that they may write off on their taxes.

To demonstrate this, I picked a solidly Republican state with a very white population, that ranks highest in charitable giving at 10.6% of their Adjusted Gross Income [2] and has a larger than average household size. That state is Utah.  It seems that when we examine the IRS date for that same year of 2010, we find that of the 1,134,626 tax returns filed by Utahns, only 699,598 payed any income tax.[3]  That comes to 38.3%, or 3.4% more "entitled victims" than the national average.

Now this latest mouth-dump won't flip Utah to the democratic side, but if it could have a chilling effect on the Santorum crowd.  And then there are the neighboring swing states of Colorado and Nevada...


[1][3] http://apps2.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=171535,00.html

[2] http://abcnews.go.com/Business/generous-states-charities-lean-republican/story?id=17030246#.UFjS9qDu1xU

83% of doctors will quit because of ObamaCare

So, a right-wing medical association ( http://www.doctorsandpatients.org/who-we-are ) run by this lady



...SPAMed the fax machines of 16,227 doctors with this survey:

http://www.doctorsandpatients.org/images/files/DPMA_SurveyResults.pdf

Unsurprisingly, of the 699 who took the time to respond "Most are in solo or small group practice (81%) and office-based (89%) versus hospital-based." and "2 out of 3 say they are JUST SQUEAKING BY OR IN THE RED financially" which explains why they have time to take a spam fax survey.

 83% answered the question "How do current changes in the medical system affect your desire to practice
medicine?"  with "Makes me think about quitting" rather than "I'm re-energized" or "Unsure/no opinion"

But, when it came to assessing blame for "current problems" by choosing THREE out of ten choices...

"Middle Class" is a racial epithet

"Everyone Can Be Rich"

This myth came to the surface most recently via a certain politician, speaking at a fundraiser on a large estate which had--among other extravagances--its own golf course.  At one point in his drivel, he extolled the virtues of the estate at which he spoke, saying "everyone should live like this."  On other occasions, the same politician (who happens to be obscenely wealthy himself) said "I want everyone in America to be rich"

It need hardly be said that this is pure fantasy-land.  The most basic concept of economics informs one that if everyone had a million dollars, that million dollars wouldn't be worth very much.  It is theoretically possible that ANYONE could become rich (after all there is a multi-state lottery).  But the highest yearly income that EVERYONE--or rather, every household--could make (presuming that such was possible) would be about $63,000 in 2010 dollars.  That is, after all, the average income made in this country. And if doubled or tripled or multiplied by 15, it would retain the same purchasing power due to inflation.  $63,000 isn't too bad, but it isn't going to buy a personal golf course.  At best, it could pay greens fees at a private country club, where it would necessarily be shared with other members.  And what a dreadfully communitarian arrangement that would be!

It also need hardly be explained that whatever amount is soaked up from the pool by those making more than the average, necessarily lessens the amount left in the pool to be divvied up among the rest.  Can this be excused to a certain degree in order to encourage behavior that is beneficial to society?  Of course.  Yet, can it be assumed that all such excess wealth meet this criteria?  Certainly not!  There is the practice of parasitically sapping capital by means of speculative gambling.  There is the practice of managing companies for the short term windfall of its executives, rather than for the long-term health of the business.  There are those who have gained from gratuitous monopolies on such century-old inventions, posthumously published arts, and those natural resources on publicly owned lands, as ought all unquestionably to be public domain. There are even those who profit from selling defective weapons to our nation's military.  And are we to be subject to such a meritless hegemony by allowing these ill-gotten dollars to be each called a voice holding the same protections as our own individual voice, except free from the threat of the baton-wielding goons of the plutocracy?

We cannot be all equal in wealth in a free country.  We must however be all equal in rights.  And indeed if the rights of any one be held above the rights afforded to the rest, it cannot be considered a free country any more than in the first case.

"Traditional Marriage"

In the case of the myth before us, we need hardly look to any particular statement on the matter. It is enough to say that marriage as we know it today has so short of a history that the notion of "traditional marriage" itself is rather an oxymoron. That some ascribe civil marriage a history dating back to Adam and his "wife" Eve, is absurdly laughable. The modern blend of civil recognition coupled with ecclesiastical solemnization dates back to 1753 when Hardwicke's Marriage act was passed. Before then--under the English Common Law, from which we obviously derive much of our legal tradition--marriage was either solemnized or not--and often not for the peasantry. Such became a civil matter only when it became the subject of a legal dispute, which called for evidence establishing a history of "habit and repute" such as witnesses testimony. This recognition by a civil magistrate being the basis for marital law then is our tradition as an Anglophone nation, one should think.

The tradition of "marriage" ascribed to Christianity hardly seems relevant to a discussion of civil law (the separation between the ecclesiastical and civil laws being older than the United States--and affirmed in no uncertain terms by our Constitution), but it is an interesting study nonetheless. The lore and legends of the Hebrews, which form the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, contain none of the precise terms that we use today to describe a husband, wife, or marriage (as noun or verb). In four instances the Old Testament uses the word "ba'al" (Anglicization of letters approximate) to refer to a husband. Two of these are in reference to women taken as plunder of war, as that word means "master".  In the many other instances of "husband" the word translated ("iysh") means literally "man," as it does when the same word is used to refer to men or mankind generally. The same is true of "wife" ("Nashiym") meaning precisely "a woman" or plural "women" except in instances referring to Babylonian "queens" ("Shegal")--that word deriving from a root meaning to "violate" or "ravage."

The only verbs referring to the act of getting "married are "chathan" (the father's action) meaning "give away" and "laqach" (the suitor's action) meaning "to take posession". And the Hebrew words that refer to the noun of "marriage" are "ownah" ("to dwell together) and "yashab" ("to dwell" or "abide"), an ironic similarity to the primitive state of civil marriage under the old common law. It would seem then that the "institution of marriage" as we know it, is a product of modernity, rather than ancient tradition of Occident or Orient.

The evolution that marriage has undergone--the franchising of cohabitation within the realm of the state, which now issues licenses, and arbitrates between spouses, and even on behalf of children--can be attributed largely to an economic movement; capitalism. That the laws of marriage had to adapt to include the sound protection of propertied interest among families, as part of a broader system of contract law, was inevitable given the broader distribution of property that free market economies brought. Similarly, it was inevitable that those who take part in the marketplace, but remain disenfranchised from its full benefits, would insist upon equal protection of their property and rights. It would seem that the institution of capitalist marriage could only be aided by this broadening of the franchise, and further, that resistance to it is the prattle of the Luddite.

"Jefferson was for ecclesiastical corporate prerogative"

The myth in question here, comes from the Blunt Amendment to a transportation bill, on the subject of the contraception mandate:

' As Thomas Jefferson declared to New London Methodists in 1809, ``[n]o provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of the civil authority''.
    (B) Jefferson's statement expresses a conviction on respect for conscience that is deeply embedded in the history and traditions of our Nation and codified in numerous State and Federal laws, including laws on health care.'

Indeed invoking Thomas Jefferson's name with regard to the freedom of conscience of INDIVIDUALS', natural and inalienable rights could never have been supposed to have been held by a corporate body in those days (after all, corporate bodies--whether civil society itself, or commercial or ecclesiastical corporations--are IN THEMSELVES a form of alienation.  Why fuktarded jurists can't comprehend that is beyond any comprehension... but I digress...).  Indeed we see the OUTRIGHT DISPROOF of the assumption of the ignorant author of said amendment by looking at a little history.

During the time of the American Revolution (by which we certainly can't mean merely a military struggle) there was a striking push-back against institutions thought to be subversive to the American cause.  This resulted in a spirit of reform toward those run by the Anglican Church.  One Virginia legislator--one THOMAS JEFFERSON--introduced legislation to reform a the College of William and Mary; an Anglican institution supported by public funds:

"it becomes the peculiar duty of the Legislature, at this time, to aid and improve that seminary, in which those who are to be the future guardians of the rights and liberties of their country may be endowed with science and virtue, to watch and preserve the sacred deposit: Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, that, instead of eighteen visiters or governors of the said College, there shall in future be five only, who shall be appointed by joint ballot of both houses of Assembly, annually, to enter on the duties of their office on the new year's day ensuing their appointment, having previously given assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth, before any Justice of the Peace ...any four of the said visiters may proceed to business; they shall chuse their own Rector, at their first meeting, in every year, and shall be deemed the lawful successors of the first trustees, and invested with all the rights, powers, and capacities given to them, save only so far as the same shall be abridged by this act, nor shall they be restrained in their legislation, by the royal prerogative, or the laws of the kingdom of England; or the canons or constitution of the English Church, as enjoined in the said charter."

(more on the Jeffersonian reforms: http://www.wm.edu/about/history/tjcollege/tjattemptsatchange/index.php )

To claim that this would not have any effect on the "conscience" gratuitously supposed upon this ecclesiastical institution would be absurd.  Of course it was not supposed at that time that corporations of any sort--being artificial creations of man--could ever be endowed with Natural and inalienable rights.  When similar legislation was passed in New Hampshire to create a Dartmouth University out of the Puritan institution known as Dartmouth College, THOMAS JEFFERSON said of the bills opponents:

"The idea that institutions, established for the use of the nation, cannot be touched nor modified, even to make them answer their end, because of the rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may, perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but it is most absurd against the nation itself"-- Thomas Jefferson; letter to William Plumer (July, 21, 1816)

So having OUTRIGHT proven the fallacy of Mr Blunt, it is worth further noting that Jefferson was not alone in opposing the principles of those who hold Mr. Blunt's views.  As James Madison expressed the mischief of all such subversion in his 'Detached Memoranda':

"But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses." 

"Those Stingy, Uncharitable Liberals"

Some myths take significant creative effort to invent. Arthur C. Brooks is evidently such a brilliantly creative force. While attempting to spread his superstitious belief in cargo-cultism he managed to start a pervasive internet myth; "Liberals are less charitable than conservatives."

Now mind you, there is nothing inherently brilliant about the construction of his argument, or in his spurious ability to interpret data... or even to use data that adhered to similar definitions as those he argued. But, nonetheless, he was able to spread this absurd idea via word of mouth through those who were entirely too lazy to read the work they cited. Some parts of his book Who Really Cares; The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism -- America's Charity Divide--Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters are food for thought. Some of the arguments are inconclusive or contain vast gaps in their cited data. Other parts are unquestionably purposeful dishonesty.

Let's start with what the contemplative person can take away from the author's insight. Among the data-sets that the author looks at is one that explains that in terms of volunteering, religious conservatives are more likely to donate time, and are more likely to do so "informally." This, i didn't take any effort in trying to debunk. It is almost intuitive that rural socially conservative communities (as predominate "Red states" and districts) tend to be more communal in terms of supporting their own (even when there is substantial subsidization from government entities), while the urban capitalistic social dynamic (as predominates "Blue states" or at least districts) is more aloof and profit driven. There could be nothing surprising about informal communal interaction meeting some needs that are not met in the trickle down hierarchies of urban life. This could well be food for thought for liberals and conservatives alike.

Next, let's examine the misuse of data in the book. Early in his most substantial and most quoted argument, he defines Religious Conservatives, Religious Liberals, Secular Conservatives, and Secular Liberals for the sake of his argument, altogether comprising 70% of the population of the United States. BUT, the data he cites as proof only accounts for 43% of the population [1]. Obviously there is enough missing data here to throw out the argument he makes entirely, without making an effort to debunk his logic, but in the section on outright lies I will gladly do so anyway.

Now with the outright lies, I'll tackle that big one first, for the sake of continuity. In Chapter 2 of his book, where he examines the "difference" in generosity between conservatives and liberals (and between the religious and secular) he begins his argument be appealing to common prejudice and stereotyping. He compares San Francisco to South Dakota and how much "more" the South Dakotan gives compared to what each earn:

"For a family making $45,364 (the South Dakota state average), $1300 represents a much larger sacrifice than one making 80,822. So the real difference in giving between the communities is this: The average South Dakotan family gives away 75 percent more of its household income each year than the average family in San Francisco.
"I asked an executive at the South Dakota Community Foundation why South Dakotans donate so much of their incomes to charity. Her response was immediate: religion. 'We were all taught to tithe here'"

The first paragraph exposes the bias as well as the dishonesty of the author.  It doesn't take a degree in Rocket Science (or even in whatever field he is an academic in--such that he should really know better) to google "Cost of Living Calculator." I know I did! It then takes not much more rocket-scientific knowledge to type in that you are moving from San Francisco to a metropolitan location within South Dakota (though it need hardly be said that if averaging in all rural areas, tribal lands, etc, the difference would likely be greater still) to quote cgi.money.cnn.com/tools/costofliving/costofliving.html

Comparable salary in
Sioux Falls, SD
$46,430

If you move from San Francisco, CA to Sioux Falls, SD....
Groceries will cost:
18%
less

Housing will cost:
69%
less

Utilities will cost:
7%
more

Transportation will cost:
23%
less

Healthcare will cost:
13%
less

But in that second paragraph, perhaps blinded by his own self righteousness, HE ACTUALLY DEBUNKS HIS OWN ARGUMENT! After all, HIS definition of charity is absurdly broad--anything which is voluntary and does "no harm." Whereas any rational person would describe charitable giving as alleviating need, or relieving suffering.  In the authors own words:
"About a third of individual gifts go toward sacramental activities, primarily supporting houses of worship." [2]

And of course we all know how that gets paid for:

"We were all taught to tithe here"

Rather striking how we have reversed course now, no?

Whereas it would be impossible to argue that any significant portion given by a secular liberal living in San Francisco goes toward maintaining ecclesiastical infrastructure or clerical salaries; it would be safe to assume that AT LEAST a third of the average South Dakotan's contributions are of the expected tribute to churches.  Some portion of that latter might go to an actual charitable purpose, but the vast bulk of it unquestionably goes to maintenance of facilities and personnel.  This would be much more accurately described as a recreational expense than as charity.


With regard to the next big lie, I'm uncertain if the author himself believes in that cargo-cultism known as the Prosperity Gospel, or if his is simply pandering to those who do for the sake of his own notoriety, and I suppose it doesn't matter.  Whether he lies to himself as well as others, or merely to others is between him and his conscience.  But there can be no question that he is quite purposefully dishonest.  This takes on two parts of the same lie: 1) That people who are poor and dependent on others' taxes, are that way because they are uncharitable, and 2) That people and nations are well off because they are charitable.

The first is easily explained in the reverse.  It is only logical that one who is in dire straits and even all or partly dependent on others would be less likely to give their means of subsistence away.  To say that this is self perpetuating, and that to dig themselves out by giving some of their basic subsistence away is by any objective measure a damnable superstition.  It is no different from primitive tribes encountering the apparent riches of technology and sacrificing their subsistence to idols in order to be enriched: what is anthropologically called a cargo cult.

But the author goes into the realm of sick deception here BY TRYING TO PROVE HIS SUPERSTITIONS WITH DATA.  And of course when one is trying to prove blind faith, one has to provide myopic data.  Or in this case hyperopic data. For the author irrationally compares the charitability and prosperity of the US and European countries. The absurdity of this comparison is obvious. The latter have significant social safety nets that lessen the need for that narrow definition of charity. Secondly their economic systems are far different than... say... between different U.S. States. But of course comparing the later COMPLETELY debunks both his cargo-cultist message and his condemnation of people dependent on "Other People's Money" (title of Chapter 3 of his book)

Take for instance Mississippi. It ranks first in the Generosity Index, but has the highest poverty rate among the 50 states.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923050.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_poverty_rate

New Hampshire has the lowest poverty rate, and ranks dead last in generosity index.  Which isn't to say that being stingy makes one more prosperous by some supernatural phenomenon.  It makes one more prosperous because one can reap the rewards from investing one's capitals.  Duh.  But I digress...

I'll spare readers any further diatribe on this, but feel free to examine these other links with regard to "Other People's Money" and the relationship (or lack thereof) between charitability and overall happiness:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/310/farm-subsidies.html#here

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/the-happiest-states-of-america/



Notes:

[1] From "Who Really Cares" By Arthur C. Brooks


[2]
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers