These days I do a lot of traveling, and I usually drive my car. I have spent a lot of time listening to AM talk radio. When I can no longer stand the anger, innuendo, and righteousness, I switch from sports to politics. And so it was a few weeks ago that I heard a conservative talk show host mention, with glee, the 2006 book by Arthur Brooks titled Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism. The book marshals a great deal of evidence from surveys within the United States and around the world showing that political conservatives give more - money, time, and even blood - than do political liberals. The same result holds whether the giving is associated with religious causes or secular causes.
Interesting? You betcha, especially given stereotypes about those on the left versus those on the right. Apparently it is one thing to talk the talk, and another to walk the walk.
A closer look at the data suggests that it is not politics per se that create these consistent findings but rather factors that accompany political leanings. So, people who are religious, who are skeptical of the government's role in economic life, who come from strong families, and who endorse personal entrepreneurship are the ones who are most charitable. These are neither exclusive nor inherent features of being conservative, although they do tend to go along with conservatism often enough to produce the survey results.
If you are a political liberal, how do you respond to these findings? One reaction I have seen among my liberal friends is to find ways to dismiss them - questioning the survey methods, the measures, the analyses, and the like. All of these reactions are legitimate, so long as the skeptic would have been equally critical of conclusions in the opposite direction.
I suggest an additional reaction for anyone who does not "like" these results. Change how you behave!
In contrast to the physical sciences, findings within the social sciences are subject to what are called enlightenment effects. Our ideas about rocks do not alter the rocks, but our theories about human beings can change us when the results and interpretations are widely disseminated. If we know that we are "supposed" to act in a given way, we may choose to act in a different way.
For example, I am aware of research showing that males talk more in meetings than do females. I won't claim I always act on my enlightenment, but I do some of the time, reminding myself to shut up and then actually doing so (at least for a few minutes). If one of these studies were ever done at a meeting I attend, perhaps the results would be different.
If politically liberal people become aware that they are less likely to give of their time and their money, then maybe they can use this information to act differently. Remember how Barack and Michelle Obama spent the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday the other week - giving of their time. If the First Couple can do this - their schedule was a trifle busy that week - what excuse do the rest of us have?
Who really cares about Who Really Cares? I do, enough to hope that the second edition of the book might reach the conclusion that everyone cares regardless of their politics.
