Who Really Cares? Not Sotomayor and the Leftists
The Supreme Court, in a morning of triumph for simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense, struck down Judge Sonia Sotomayor's cursory dismissal of the Ricci appeal.
The justices' time was well-spent in deciding reasonably, but the people's time has been thoroughly, meticulously wasted -- five years of litigation, public salaries, dry cleaning fees, careers, the damned paper and power used, and the wasted daylight. And wasted not because the case could have been wisely ruled upon in lower court, but because Mayor DeStefano, Judge Arterton, Judge Sotomayor, and the four Supremes in the minority constitute far too many people in successive positions of power believing in the risen ghosts of a dead idea.
New Haven invalidated Ricci's test results because New Haven officials trusted the validity of leftist empathy as an ideology of government. On up the line, it found favor.
And that is all we are talking about.
Ricci does not happen if too small a number of people believe in leftism -- "believe" being the troubling word. Sotomayor says:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
I would hope, she says, because she believes in leftism. She does not say she "knows," yet she should, as the results are in, and as the Sun does not orbit the Earth just because one would hope it so.
In 2006, Arthur C. Brooks did a tremendous job of displaying the evidence regarding the non-existence of leftist empathy, displaying in numbers what most non-leftists already knew of themselves. Brooks wrote Who Really Cares, an empirical examination of whether political identification correlates with acts of charity and volunteerism.
And it is worthwhile to note that Brooks defined himself as a liberal when he began his research and as a conservative once he had analyzed the results.
This book has shown that one of the greatest political hypocrisies of our time is the pious sloganeering about liberals in America being more compassionate than conservatives. This stereotype is false, and it is a disservice to our country.
Conservatives give more -- much more -- to charity, both in terms of total dollar amount and in terms of percentage of income. Conservatives also give much more of their time to volunteerism.
Independents give less and leftists give the least. This is true for both religious and non-religious causes.
But leftists believe in government redistribution as the best form of charity -- that's what leftist empathy is, correct?
Yes. But they only believe in it. Whether or not leftist, socialist-leaning laws are in place in a certain city or state, leftists still give much less. They assume that believing in government redistribution, whether or not it's happening, is enough.
And in terms of volunteerism -- say, donating blood, which even the most leftist state has never required of its citizens -- leftists don't do it. Conservatives do.
What about when leftist statutes are in effect? Like generous welfare programs? Surely that makes up for the loss in revenue to charities?
Not at all. Charities starve under leftist policy. European countries contain the least charitable citizens in the world. And the welfare recipients do worse under redistribution policies.
And it is interesting to note that a welfare recipient is tremendously less likely to give to charitable causes or to volunteer, while a working American making the exact same salary as the welfare recipient -- white, black, Latina, whatever -- is likely to be among the planet's most charitable people.