Secular Conservatives and Charity

Ann Coulter had an interesting column this week titled, “Scrooge was a Liberal.” (Here is a link to the article: http://www.anncoulter.com/) The article was about how, despite the fact that liberals bellyache about providing for and taking care of the poor, they give far less to charities than conservatives do. However, I want to focus on one aspect of the article. Ann Coulter noted that, according to a study, while religious conservatives are the most generous group (in terms of dollars given to charities), secular conservatives are the stingiest. Coulter chalked this up, tongue in cheek, as she usually does, to secular conservatives being “mostly young, poor, cranky white guys.” However, I think that there is something else at work here.

What is conservatism based on? First, it might be helpful to define what “conservative” means. Based on what I have read and heard, I would define conservatism as the idea that freedom within the law is the birthright of all people, and therefore government should be restricted in order that it does not infringe on the people’s freedom. A key phrase in there is “within the law.” Freedom is not seen as a license that allows the bearer to commit any kind of activity without restrictions: there are restrictions based on morals and ethics. Morals and ethics represent a standard that some outside authority sets and enforces. Usually, a conservative’s morality is derived from Judeo-Christian thought, so ultimately, whether it is consciously acknowledged or not, conservatism rests on God.

If conservatism is based on God, then it makes sense that religious conservatives are the most generous group: their political philosophy is consistent with their religious philosophy (i.e. they acknowledge God in their religious life and their political life), so they behave as God instructs them to. Part of that instruction includes helping the poor. Now, a Christian does recognize that it is their business to assist the poor and not the business of government to force participation in charities or taxation of people in order to “help” the poor, as Ann Coulter points out in her article. But, the individual instruction to help a fellow brother or sister is in the Bible, and conservatives obey that commandment in their personal lives.

Now let’s look at the secular conservative. For these people, their religion (or lack of one) is inconsistent with their political philosophy: they don’t acknowledge God in their religious life but they do acknowledge God in their political life. Such a situation would lead to confusion. Moreover, why is a secular conservative conservative? Presumably, because they want more freedom. But why do they want freedom? A religious conservative may cite morals or ethics to say that freedom is right or good, but what reason can a secular conservative have for espousing freedom? None, unless it is a selfish desire to live his life as he wants. It would appear then that a secular conservative is, at his core, selfish. Such an attitude is not conducive to charity.

Does this sort of reasoning explain other groups as well? Aside from religious and secular conservatives, Ann Coulter also mentioned religious and secular liberals in her article. She pointed out that secular liberals are the second stingiest group. This makes sense based on their worldview. Liberalism sees it as the government’s duty to care for and protect people. When it comes to the poor, it is the government’s responsibility to provide for them. In this view, the government takes on a godlike aura: the government provides for, guides, leads, and protects its people. Ultimately, liberalism is atheistic (which, to mention Ann Coulter again, is the focus of her book, Godless, The Church of Liberalism). So secular liberals are consistent: they don’t acknowledge God in their religious or political lives. And what does this lead to? Stinginess, as they wait and lobby for the government to do something about all these poor people around them.

What of the religious liberals? This group is the second most charitable, coming in after the religious conservatives. Religious liberals are inconsistent, since they acknowledge God in their religious life but bow to government in their political life. These people would be confused, having the instruction to take care of the poor but also sitting around waiting for government action. The result? A mixed response resulting in a mediocre amount of charity.

So perhaps we shouldn't be so hard on secular conservatives (or liberals, for that matter) for being stingy. After all, their stinginess is simply a result of their beliefs. But that's the point, isn't it? Do people understand, or care, about the results of their ideas? Hopefully, they do, and based on the results of their beliefs, they can reconsider the foundations of their ideas.