DankyDank
Well-Known Member
I recently conducted an experiment in politics. It wasn't intended as an experiment, but as it turned out, the results were interesting.
I work for a relatively small business. It has about 25 employees. The average pay is 9.50 an hour. The business is what is known as a "group home", where we care for young males who have gotten into various kinds of trouble. Because the facility is open 24 hours per day, we work in shifts that run 2-3 days, and require many of us to stay overnite. Inevitably, the employees get to know each other on a much more personal basis than would normally be expected at a more typical job.
One of the guys who works for the group home is not an American citizen. He is from Australia, but is married to an American woman. They have one daughter who just turned one year old. The guy is around 40. He had an accident in Australia just before he turned 20, and he lost his left leg at the knee. As it turns out, his artificial leg has reached the end of its usefulness, and he now needs a new leg. The old one has gotten so bad that he is scared to carry his baby daughter in his arms, as the doctor has made it clear that his artificial leg could totally give out at any time.
For various reasons (not the least of which is the fact that he only makes 9.00 an hour), the guy is in a position right now where he does not have a lot of money. Even with the insurance provided through our employer, a new leg will cost hom 3500 dollars... and the guy simply cannot afford it.
So three weeks ago, I took it upon myself to raise money for the guy's new leg. He has been working at the agency for a little over a year, and he is well liked. He and I have also gotten to be very good friends. So I personally approached every employee of the company, and pitched them for money. Last Wednesday, I received the final donation that put us over the top, and we paid for his new leg in full this last Friday. The guy couldn't believe it- as you can imagine, he was very moved and very happy.
Now I told you all that to tell you this. Here is where it gets interesting.
As I said before, because of the length of the shifts, we get to know each other very well at this job, including each others' personal politics. I was the person who was soliciting the donations, and I was the person that people actually handed the money to. I am the only person who knows exactly who gave how much. And it was the conservatives, both religious and political, who instantly reached for their checkbooks when I approached them about donating. Four or five of them even made a point of asking me to approach them again if we came up short. The liberals, on the other hand, showed a great deal of hesitation. Almost to a person, their initial response was to ask me if we had yet sought the services of any particular government programs or agencies. They ultimately ended up contributing, but their donations averaged about one-third of the average conservative.
There was only one employee who did not contribute; it happened to be the employee who is most active in the advocacy of social programs, and who frequently works with organizations like Head Start and Habitat for Humanity. This particular employee, who is normally known for her compassion and generosity, actually was heard to complain that we "were doing it all wrong" and "should have asked for help from some official sources."
The two most conservative and religious employees donated 300 dollars each the moment they were approached. The director of the program, who is a millionaire and very politically active in the local Democratic Party, was the only person who I approached and asked for a specific amount; knowing how wealthy he was, I asked him to match my personal donation of 500 dollars. Instead, he waited three weeks until he knew that we were within a couple of hundred dollars of our goal. Then he donated 100 dollars at the last minute; suspecting that his donation had been the one to put us over the top, he then started spreading the word that "we did it!"
For the record, I do not believe that the issue is one of generosity or stinginess; I do not believe that the conservatives are "kinder" than the liberals. Rather, I think the trend is a result of how government and its role is perceived by the individual. The liberals in the group definitely feel that it is the government's obligation to provide charity; the conservatives in the group, especially the church-goers, feel an individual responsibility to give. They are also used to the idea of helping out individual people in their respective congregations. I suspect that the liberals would have felt much more comfortable donating to some faceless beauracracy. (This idea was reinforced this morning when my boss made a point of mentioning that he was sending 200 dollars to the "Keep Tahoe Blue" campaign.) I suspect that when it gets down to it, the liberals don't trust the individual to do the right thing if given money, but for some reason they trust a large group (i.e. government) to do the right thing if they are given the money. I must admit I don't get the logic of it... but there it is.
I work for a relatively small business. It has about 25 employees. The average pay is 9.50 an hour. The business is what is known as a "group home", where we care for young males who have gotten into various kinds of trouble. Because the facility is open 24 hours per day, we work in shifts that run 2-3 days, and require many of us to stay overnite. Inevitably, the employees get to know each other on a much more personal basis than would normally be expected at a more typical job.
One of the guys who works for the group home is not an American citizen. He is from Australia, but is married to an American woman. They have one daughter who just turned one year old. The guy is around 40. He had an accident in Australia just before he turned 20, and he lost his left leg at the knee. As it turns out, his artificial leg has reached the end of its usefulness, and he now needs a new leg. The old one has gotten so bad that he is scared to carry his baby daughter in his arms, as the doctor has made it clear that his artificial leg could totally give out at any time.
For various reasons (not the least of which is the fact that he only makes 9.00 an hour), the guy is in a position right now where he does not have a lot of money. Even with the insurance provided through our employer, a new leg will cost hom 3500 dollars... and the guy simply cannot afford it.
So three weeks ago, I took it upon myself to raise money for the guy's new leg. He has been working at the agency for a little over a year, and he is well liked. He and I have also gotten to be very good friends. So I personally approached every employee of the company, and pitched them for money. Last Wednesday, I received the final donation that put us over the top, and we paid for his new leg in full this last Friday. The guy couldn't believe it- as you can imagine, he was very moved and very happy.
Now I told you all that to tell you this. Here is where it gets interesting.
As I said before, because of the length of the shifts, we get to know each other very well at this job, including each others' personal politics. I was the person who was soliciting the donations, and I was the person that people actually handed the money to. I am the only person who knows exactly who gave how much. And it was the conservatives, both religious and political, who instantly reached for their checkbooks when I approached them about donating. Four or five of them even made a point of asking me to approach them again if we came up short. The liberals, on the other hand, showed a great deal of hesitation. Almost to a person, their initial response was to ask me if we had yet sought the services of any particular government programs or agencies. They ultimately ended up contributing, but their donations averaged about one-third of the average conservative.
There was only one employee who did not contribute; it happened to be the employee who is most active in the advocacy of social programs, and who frequently works with organizations like Head Start and Habitat for Humanity. This particular employee, who is normally known for her compassion and generosity, actually was heard to complain that we "were doing it all wrong" and "should have asked for help from some official sources."
The two most conservative and religious employees donated 300 dollars each the moment they were approached. The director of the program, who is a millionaire and very politically active in the local Democratic Party, was the only person who I approached and asked for a specific amount; knowing how wealthy he was, I asked him to match my personal donation of 500 dollars. Instead, he waited three weeks until he knew that we were within a couple of hundred dollars of our goal. Then he donated 100 dollars at the last minute; suspecting that his donation had been the one to put us over the top, he then started spreading the word that "we did it!"
For the record, I do not believe that the issue is one of generosity or stinginess; I do not believe that the conservatives are "kinder" than the liberals. Rather, I think the trend is a result of how government and its role is perceived by the individual. The liberals in the group definitely feel that it is the government's obligation to provide charity; the conservatives in the group, especially the church-goers, feel an individual responsibility to give. They are also used to the idea of helping out individual people in their respective congregations. I suspect that the liberals would have felt much more comfortable donating to some faceless beauracracy. (This idea was reinforced this morning when my boss made a point of mentioning that he was sending 200 dollars to the "Keep Tahoe Blue" campaign.) I suspect that when it gets down to it, the liberals don't trust the individual to do the right thing if given money, but for some reason they trust a large group (i.e. government) to do the right thing if they are given the money. I must admit I don't get the logic of it... but there it is.
