There has been a lot of talk about Rick Santorum as the “second coming” (so to speak) of compassionate conservatism. He has spoken eloquently about the needs of the least among us and of the inadequacy of government–any government, however large–in addressing those needs. By my lights, that’s the core of compassionate conservatism. Add to it an appreciation of the power of the market as the tide that lifts all boats, making all more capable of caring for themselves and for their misfortunate neighbors, and you have a message that ought to resonate with all the conservative constituencies.
A related narrative has to do with the relative generosity of conservatives in comparison with their liberal brethren. As Arthur Brooks found a few years ago–in a study that others have corroborated–those who identify as conservative give more to charity than those who identify as liberal.
And there have been some spectacular examples of liberals willing to be generous with other people’s money, but not with their own.
Which brings us to Rick Santorum, whose rate of charitable giving is above the national average, but hardly deep in compassionate conservative territory. His leading Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, has been far more generous, as his President Obama, though in the case of our President, there seems to be an historical connection between his rate of charitable giving and the scope of his political ambition.
I appreciate Senator Santorum’s explanation–special needs children are very expensive. And I’m not about to urge him to change the way he allocates his income for merely political reasons.
But talking the talk is less believeable when you can with relative ease be accused of not walking the walk, of not putting your money where your mouth is.
March 6th, 2012 | 10:30 am
George Bush was a compassionate conservative. Won’t get fooled again
March 6th, 2012 | 11:29 am
If you read Brooks’ book more carefully you will see that the real difference between who gives and who doesn’t is whether they are religious or not. Conservative atheists give practically nothing, while liberal churchgoers give at almost the same rates as conservative churchgoers. While the larger number of conservative churchgoers than liberal ones makes it look as if politics is the deciding factor, it isn’t. It’s faith.
I think it’s in bad taste to investigate and comment upon a specific person’s charitable giving. It’s not like you can know the full story. Someone who doesn’t have a lot to put on the tax return might be doing something they can’t declare for tax purposes — grassroots, no-government-involved things like putting a neighbor’s child through college. Or they may simply prefer not to declare where they give, not seeing their giving as a vehicle for tax savings or (in the case of public figures) showing off how charitable they are.
I do not question at all how much Mr. Santorum does or does not give. It’s easy to figure out not to vote for him based on other information.
March 6th, 2012 | 12:37 pm
Rick Santorum has lived the prolife walk. It is extremely expensive to provide 24 hour care for a disabled child especially in addition to caring for six other kids. He has not made what would be considered wealthy money until leaving congress. Comments directed against him in this regard seem churlish and small minded.
March 6th, 2012 | 12:49 pm
Bella Santorum reminds me that I cannot merely measure Richard John Santorum’s charitable giving [relatively] against Willard Mitt Romney’s via an IRS Tax form.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact