From the Daily Mail:

George Orwell once wrote that politics was closely related to social identity. ‘One sometimes gets the impression,’ he wrote in The Road To Wigan Pier, ‘that the mere words socialism and communism draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, nature-cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England’.

Orwell was making an observation. But today a whole body of academic research shows he was correct: your politics influence the manner in which you live your life. And the news is not so good for those on the political Left.

There is plenty of data that shows that Right-wingers are happier, more generous to charities, less likely to commit suicide – and even hug their children more than those on the Left.

This is a shock to me not at all, except possibly that someone did get charged under hate crime laws for printing it in what’s left of the UK.  The writer, Peter Schweizer, continues from there:

In the Sixties, we saw the beginning of a narcissism and self-absorption that gripped the Left and has not let go.

The full-scale embrace of the importance of self-awareness, self-discovery and being ‘true’ to oneself, along with the idea that the State should care for the less fortunate, has created a swathe of Left-wing people who want to outsource their obligations to others.

Outsource it to where? Why, to government of course. The left feels it’s doing it’s part if they’re paying into a system ostensibly designed to maintain the poor at a minimum standard of living and solve all their problems. The fact that the government systems the left think so highly of does not do so, matters not at all. Don’t bother the left with mere facts.

The statistics I base this on come from the General Social Survey, America’s premier social research database, but they are just as relevant to the UK, as I believe political belief systems drive one’s attitudes, regardless of where you happen to live.

Those surveyed were asked: ‘Is it your obligation to care for a seriously injured/ill spouse or parent, or should you give care only if you really want to?’ Of those describing themselves as ‘conservative’, 71 per cent said it was. Only 46 per cent of those on the Left agreed.

To the question: ‘Do you get happiness by putting someone else’s happiness ahead of your own?’, 55 per cent of those who said they were ‘very conservative’ said Yes, compared with 20 per cent of those who were ‘very liberal’.

It’s been my experience that conservatives like to talk about things outside of themselves while progressives like to discuss themselves: how they are feeling and what their desires are. That might make for a good therapy session but it’s not much fun over a long dinner.

There’s a lot more of course, and I will advise you to go and RTWT.

But a few more points for us to bounce off of:

Studies also indicate that those on the Left are less likely to give to charity or to volunteer their time to charity

Well, why should THEY get involved? After all, there’s government for that kind of thing.

Uber-progressive Barbra Streisand gives lots of money to charity but the largest recipients are not organisations that feed the hungry – the cash goes to advocacy organisations such as The Bill Clinton Foundation.

Similarly, Michael Moore gives to film festivals and elite cultural institutions such as the Lincoln Center – but barely a penny goes to needy people.

The ideas of the left surrounding charity are completely nihilist. Supporting the poor and the needy is government work, to the left. Charity, they view not as supporting non-government engines that actually help the poor, but rather to these, charity is supporting political groups that support their own worldview. As we’ve pointed out often enough previously in these spaces, government isn’t charity, it is force.

Stossel over at Townhall said recently:

But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all but one (Maryland) were red — conservative — states in the last presidential election.

“When you look at the data,” says Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, “it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.”

Researching his book, “Who Really Cares” , Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:

“The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away.”

Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood.

Pretty much confirms what Schweizer says, doesn’t it? And Brooks, for that matter:

You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away.

Ann Coulter gives us a whuge example of what we’re talking about::

“George Soros is worth $7 billion! Couldn’t he get by on, say, $1 billion and donate the rest to the tsunami victims? If gun owners have to explain why they ‘need’ a so-called ‘assault rifle,’ shouldn’t Soros have to explain why he ‘needs’ $7 billion? Last year, Soros announced that the central focus of his life would be removing Bush from office. Would that Soros could refocus that energy on alleviating the suffering of tsunami victims”

If Soros’ chairty given came up as far as 10% of his poliical activism, and his current meddling in the oil markets, think it might have made an actual dent in poverty? But where does Soros, other than the above mentyioned places, spend his money? Front magazine points out one such place, and it’s one that at the time was identified closely with John Kerry and his wife.  Front Page said at the time:

“The Foundation replaced the 9/11 Fund with the “Democratic Justice Fund,” which was established with the aid of George Soros’ Open Society Institute. (Currency speculator and pro-drug advocate Soros is, like Teresa Heinz Kerry, a major contributor to Tides, having donated more than $7 million.) The “Democratic Justice Fund” seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration to the United States, particularly from countries designated by the State Department as terrorist nations.

Tides has also given grant money to the Council for American Islamic Relations. Ostensibly a Muslim civil rights group, CAIR is in fact one of the leading anti-anti-terrorism organizations within the Wahhabi Lobby, with links to Hamas. CAIR regularly opposes and demonizes American efforts to fight terrorism, claiming, for instance, that Homeland Security measures are responsible for an undocumented surge in ‘hate crimes’.”

Says the article:

“CAIR officials have reason to fight Bush’s anti-terrorism measures: all too many CAIR officials are on the record supporting terrorism. CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad openly stated in 1994, “I am a supporter of the Hamas movement.” Community Affairs Director Bassem K. Khafagi has been arrested for visa and bank fraud. Randall Royer, a Communications Specialist and Civil Rights Coordinator at CAIR, was arrested along with a group of Islamic radicals in Virginia for allegedly planning jihad. CAIR has defended terrorist “charities” shut down by the Bush administration. Every few months some CAIR campus official is arrested for aiding and abetting terrorism.”

Now that we’ve got a handle on how low the left can go in it’s ‘charity’, let’s examine once again, the principles involved with real chairty: As a Christian, I see the line drawn rather clearly that we are under a scripturally ordained responsibility… we as individuals….not the government. Not even as one church or another. As individuals. Christ himself said:

” Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and give unto God, that which is God’s.”

There’s a rather thick line being drawn between charity and government. Confiscation, is not charity, and it is certainly not the act of an individual. Charity is the realm of God, and the individual….not of government….  Charity is people taking personal responsibility to helping their fellow man… not dumping it into the arms of government. The basics apply here…the government taking my money and spending it on someone else… even someone who arguably needs it, does not constitute ‘Charity. Then again, the left isn’t about charity, and actually helping people. Peter Schweizer from the mail comments again:

Progressives see economic equality as the highest form of social justice, so they have become obsessed with questions of income inequality.

Can there be any surprise then that those on the Left tend to be more envious and jealous of successful people? That’s what studies indicate.

Now, you have a fair idea what Barack Obama is talking about when he talks about using taxation not for the purpose of funding the government, but for the purpose of ‘fairness’.  Now we see why the next few months of Democrat sales pitches is going to surround what amounts to class war rhetoric, as the far left has always done.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,