Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism Paperback – December 4, 2007

The book uses data from many sources to prove that the one overwhelming predictor of generosity is religion. Political affiliation is almost irrelevent - the statistics for religious liberals and religious conservaties are identical. Religious people are statistically more likely to give than secularists (91% to 66%), and give more of their money (3.5 times more than secularists), are more likely to volunteer their time (67% to 44%), and volunteer more of their time (almost twice as much). The fact that the conservative population is more charitable than the liberal population is due to the fact that religious people tend to be politically conservative.Brooks defines religious people as those who attend a place of worship at least once a week (roughly 30% of the population), and secularists as those who do not believe in a diety or attend a place of worship one time a year or less (20% of the population). That clearly leaves a large "middle class" where I suspect the statistics are hazy.Contrary to comments in a previous review (by Richard Bennet), Brooks does address the issue of who the aid is given to. The statistics hold independent of the recipient of the donation or how the donation is solicited. Compared to secularists, religious people are more likely to donate to secular organizations or when the recipient is not local or is unknown. Religious people are more likely to make a donation when asked (by any organization, religious or not) than secularists.Brooks also addresses the issue (in an entire chapter) of comparing US generosity with the generosity of other countries. Foreign aid as a percentage of GDP by the US federal government may be smaller than some nations, but private donations more than make up for the difference. For example, even accounting for the cost of living, Americans give twice as high a percentage of their incomes as the Dutch (and since there are many more Americans than Dutch, the total dollar amount is overwhelming). Brooks does have some data on other countries that shows the religious versus secularist statistics are not limited to the US population.There is a lot of discussion in the book about the definition of charity which in some ways is more interesting than the statistical conclusions. How do you compare "compassion" versus "charity"? What is more important, motives or actions? Can charity be measured simply by donations or should the results of the donations be considered? The one area that Brooks is clear on is that charity must be consensual and beneficial. Charity is a personal, voluntary sacrifice for the good of another person. That means government aid as a result of taxation is not charity since the giver is forced to give (pay taxes).Overall, this is a very good book with a lot of references and data contained in a long appendix. Data is from multiple sources including religious and secular charities and government organizations. Its well written and the numbers and statistics don't overwhelm the reader. Its obvious that the conclusions will be controversial and some are very surprising (such as the working poor are the most charitable of any group, but the nonworking poor are the worst even though they both have the same income).

Like all of Brooks books, this one is superbly researched, articulate, provocative, and even generous with those who could be insulted by the research. He assiduously avoids the latter to an amazing degree. This is the fourth of his books I have read and I consider reading them all essential-one to the next!!

I had heard of this book a couple years ago, but didn't buy it until recently, after I heard a religious functionary joking about how conservatives don't care about the poor anyhow, and it irked me. He should have known better. I remembered hearing of this book, so I ordered it and read it. It is fascinating, VERY WELL RESEARCHED, and VERY WELL-DOCUMENTED. I can see why it makes lefties want to pan it. It reveals that Conservatives, who leftists typically accuse of selfishness, turn out to be far more charitable than liberals. Conservatives give more money, INCLUDING TO SECULAR CAUSES, volunteer more hours, donate blood more often and even are more likely to be kindly in ordinary ways, such as being willing to stop and give a lost person directions, than do liberals. Reading the book and then reading some negative reviews, I conclude, and not for the first time, that liberals like to pan books they consider antithetical to their pet causes, even though they don't want to let any mental fresh air into their closed minds by actually reading what they are slamming. That way they do a bad deed by lowering the book's ratings for no rational reason at all, and can increase their self-esteem by helping their cause. Professor Brooks is well-respected scholar and author and he covers this subject in a way that would hold the interest of anyone who can think at all, enlightening while entertaining.You would do yourself a favor by reading this book, and practicing what Professor Brooks preaches: his research proves that if you do so, the life you improve by becoming more charitable might well be your own.

Given a fair reading, this book will be an eye-opener for some, and an encouragement to others. I hope there's no cause for cynicism or gloating. Keep in mind that this is a broad brush, "big picture" kind of book. Brooks is careful to point out that his study is not predictive of individual behavior, but measures influential factors on a large scale. Subtitled America's Charity Divide: Who Gives, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters, this is fascinating and well documented study of correlations between charitable giving and things like religion, sociopolitical and economic views, family structure and work ethic. Brooks finds a very strong correlation between religion and giving; not just giving to religious charities but to secular ones as well, giving time and money to help others. Conservatives were much more charitable as a group than Liberals owing largely to a difference in philosophy on who is responsible for caring for those in need. Those who place less responsibility on government are more generous with their own time and money. The working poor tend to give a much larger percentage of their time and money for helping others than any other group. Charitable values are largely passed on by example from parents to children in intact healthy families. Brooks also draws some interesting comparisons of charitable activity in the USA and Europe. He finds that where government becomes more of a caretaker, people become less charitable and less prosperous. Brooks finds a strong correlation between charitable activity and the economic prosperity of a country, seeing trends that discourage personal giving as worrisome. Many commonly held stereotypes are contradicted in this book. Brooks was very surprised to see his own findings contradict the assumptions he had going into the study. I came away from the book feeling encouraged that there are a lot of good people in this country who ought to get to know one another better. I highly recommend it.

very informative, fast delivery