Peter Schweizer might sell more books if he didn't put a summary of the whole on the cover. The subtitle gives it all away: Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . And Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals. Whew! That's a mouthful.
So I guess I don't need to spend any time telling you about the book, since, now that you've read the subtitle, you know what it's all about! Schweizer's project here is to debunk popular stereotypes of conservatives. Using demographic studies, opinion polls, and academic studies, as well as a hearty sprinkling of anecdotal evidence, he demonstrates that the picture of conservatives, or red staters, we see portrayed in the press and popular media are not only untrue, but diametrically opposed to reality.
One of the topics he covers really gets my goat: the assumption that liberals care more about the poor than conservatives. Schweizer demonstrates that conservatives consistently give more to aid the poor than do liberals. Many liberal politicians and public figures who set themselves up as defenders of the poor actually give very little of their wealth to help the poor (Hello, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barbra Streisand, Nancy Pelosi). If they do give money away, it's often either to favorite liberal causes, many of which have nothing to do with poverty, or advocacy groups which never give a dime to poor people. Many conservatives on the other hand give generously, whether they're wealthy and prominent or not. In fact, liberals like to deride generosity. Liberals accused Cheney of getting too big a tax deduction when he gave 77% of his income to charity one year. How selfish of him! Liberals seem to equate big government with giving to the poor, so if they promote liberal social ideas, they think they're giving to the poor. I have never, ever heard of a liberal who, promoting higher tax rates to support social programs, voluntarily paid more in taxes than he or she actually owes.
Another canard is the angry conservative. But all you have to do is compare, say, the liberals protesting at a World Trade Organization meeting or on a college campus where a conservative is slated to speak, with conservatives at a Tea Party gathering. Or compare the rants of Michael Moore and Al Gore, or the screaming frenzy of Howard Dean, with the easy-going nature of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. Schweizer bolsters his claims with opinion polls and surveys which indicate that conservatives also tend to be more satisfied and content with their income, job, and lifestyle than liberals.
One of Schweizer's overall themes in Makers and Takers is his conclusion that liberalism is appealing because "it is a philosophy of lip service to virtuous ideals that demands little if any action from its adherents." You can say you're for the poor, but charity is replaced by advocacy of government programs. You can say liberals are smarter, claiming liberal ideals yet remaining uninformed. You can denounce the pursuit of wealth while you pursue wealth aggressively.
Makers and Takers is worth a read for any conservative who has gotten tired of the portrayal of conservatives in the press, or anyone, liberal or conservative, who is skeptical of the media's straw man, ad hominen portrayals of conservatives. If Schweizer presented one, or a handful, of the studies or anecdotes in isolation, the reader might be tempted to dismiss his claims. But the breadth and depth of his research and examples is so comprehensive that even the most hard-core liberal, if he's honest, will have to stop and think.
No comments:
Post a Comment