Residents of Democratic-leaning Blue States may favor Big Government and social welfare programs for low-income households, but they're loath to step up and make charitable donations themselves. For the eighth year running, The Catalog For Philanthropy's annual report finds that charitable giving as a percentage of income is highest in poorer, Southern and Great Plains "Red States" and lowest in Northeastern, Western, and Midwest "Blue States." This CSM article has more, including a revealing map.
At this time of the year, charities of every shape and size are hunting for the most generous donors. To find them, the Catalogue for Philanthropy has a counterintuitive suggestion: Look in the nation's poorest states. That's because the Catalogue's Generosity Index for 2004 shows that giving as a percentage of income is highest in states where folks have the least to give. Mississippi - the nation's poorest in terms of average household income - ranks No. 1 in generosity, followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana.By contrast, residents of the nation's richest states appear downright Scrooge-like. Connecticut claims the highest average household income but ranks 44th in terms of percentage of income donated to charity. New Jersey and Massachusetts seem even stingier, ranking 47th and 49th respectively in giving, despite their second- and third-place rankings in income.
What puzzles some researchers is not just the parsimony of the wealthy states, but also the pattern. The same Northeastern "blue" states - those labeled Democratic at election time - have appeared near the bottom of the list in every year since the index began keeping track in 1997. And the same "red" - or Republican - states are always near the top. So is there something about geography that influences both voting and giving patterns?
Actually, it may have more to do with culture, especially religious habits.
Or perhaps it has to do with the hypocritical, ultimately self-absorbed nature of too many Blue State voters - who profess empathy for "oppressed" minorities not out of any genuine concern, but mainly to salve their middle-class guilt. How many of these same people sported virulently anti-Bush bumper stickers, but failed to vote, or, as important, to volunteer for the Kerry campaign? I don't know, but I do wonder.
Beware the impotent politics of self-absolution: i.e. the "Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Gore," and "I'm Sorry" (Bush Got Elected) memes propogated by the U.S. Left in '00 and '04, respectively. Excusing one's self from responsibility is not to be confused with taking responsibility.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at December 23, 2004 09:22 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.rosenblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/627
I don't mean to disparage the generosity of Mississippians or excuse the parsimony of the residents of Connecticut, but isn't it possible that part of the explanation is that neither the rich nor the poor think of philanthropy as a certain percentage of their income but rather as an absolute sum of money that seems appropriate to give?
The poor also spend more on housing, food, and clothing as a percentage of their income, not because they prefer more of these things than the rich, but simply because their incomes are lower. Philanthropy might be something like that; a certain sum seems obligatory, and if you have less income to share--well, so be it. The rich, on the other hand, may think another 10% of their income, after having given 25-30% at the IRS, is a bit much.
Another scrooge self-justification, I suppose.
Posted by: Tom Rekdal at December 23, 2004 10:19 AMIt could also be that the reality of poverty is clearer to residents of states that have higher poverty rates.
Posted by: Rashid Muhammad at December 29, 2004 01:41 PM