Daniel Kurtzman has written a book entitled How to Win a Fight with a Liberal. The website can be found here. The website has a Conservative Identity Quiz that can identify what type of conservative you are. Check it out. My results were as follows:
Although I stopped taking a daily paper, I miss George Will column in the newspaper. But, I stopped taking the paper because they reduced the number of columns from the conservative perspective. So, I found Mr Will’s latest column, Conservatives Are Really More Compassionate, via Mary Katharine Ham’s blog.
Here is excerpt on how compassionate a conservative is versus a liberal:
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
• Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
• Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
• Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
• In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
• People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and “the values that lie beneath” liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
What was the major factor – religion. A lot of conservatives’ attitude is due to the fact it is an individual responsibility rather than government responsibility. Government does a poor job at helping the poor. Just look at all the entitlement programs and what they cost. It is better that people help people. A lot gets done that way. The liberal attitude can be reinforced by the closing paragraph:
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore‘s charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore “gave at the office.” By using public office to give other people’s money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
Gives a new meaning on giving at the [government] office.
John Hawkins at RightWingNews has posted serveral articles on topic, Blogging While Female, a look at top conservative female bloggers. The first five bloggers are covered in Part 1 here. Mr Hawkins covers additional five bloggers in Part 2 here. He has interviewed two of my favorite bloggers, Michelle Malkin and Mary Katherine Ham in these posts. If you get a chance, give them a read. Get to know the best conservative female bloggers.
Not to be sexists or anything, but these gals are also very beautiful women, too. I like their style. 🙂
Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters also shared this post, Playwright and Film Director: “Why I Am No Longer a ‘Brain-Dead Liberal'”. It is interesting to hear things from a liberal that you would not typically hearsay from the MSM. Could this be a turning point of some liberals in their thinking? Could they abandon their party?
It makes you wonder if this year election may not tilt to the left, but a little to the right?
Bruce Walker has a great piece today at American Thinker called Buckley and Reagan: The Qualities of Conservative Greatness. Mr Walker discuses how these men were great conservatives of our time.
But, I can that this paragraph is very true how the MSM and many liberals treats conservatives today:
No Leftist will ever be as loved by Americans as that “Arch-Conservative” Reagan and no Leftist will ever be as respected and admired as William F. Buckley, Jr. While conservatives thrash about to define ourselves, to find ourselves, to seek our inner selves, let us first study a bit what made these two giants unifying leaders who they were.
Here is a summary of the qualities that made these men great conservatives according to Mr Walker:
- The first common characteristic is that both men were devoutly religious — it is impossible to think of either man without soon noting the importance of God in the biography.
- As a natural consequence of the importance of God in their lives, Buckley and Reagan believed in the divine purpose of marriage and family.
- Buckley and Reagan were also men with a genuine love of life.
- The two conservative icons were, then, whole men.
- This absence of finesse was the key to their eloquence.
I would suggest you read the article. I know that I am not close in achieving these qualities as these great men did. Mr Walker provided some supporting details how these men emulated these qualities.
In Mr Walker’s close paragraph, I would have to agree about those claiming to be our conservative leaders today:
Spoken plainly, conservative leaders today are too opportunistic, too interested in personal reward, too worried about what our enemies think, and too afraid too stand cheerfully alone. Buckley and Reagan were men of great gifts, but it was not their gifts alone that made them great. What made them great was certainty of moral purpose and absolute fearlessness in defending without equivocation what they knew was right. Nations always need such men. America particularly needs such men now.