It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Liberals vs. conservatives: How politics affects charitable giving

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:18 PM

Americans are more likely to donate to a charity that reflects the values of their political affiliation, according to a new study from Rice University, the University of Texas at San Antonio and Pennsylvania State University.

I am becoming more distressed when I realize how blatant the establishment is in trying to change the narrative about certain things... for example;

"The political divide not only impacts political actions, but everyday actions such as donating to charity," said Rice University Professor Vikas Mittal, co-author of the research paper. "When you ask people if their donation behavior to a charity helping children will change because of their political leanings, most say, 'Of course not!' We wanted to see if that is true or not."

The crux of the idea here is that what makes for the success of a charity in its aims is directly related to the ideological perception they create about their cause.

An astoundingly stark declaration is made upon which the premise of this study is based:

Republicans' moral foundations are embedded in respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity; Democrats' moral foundations are rooted in equality and protection from harm.

I don't think I could possibly show all of you how many times I have asked for a specific distinction which separates those two groups.. the so-called "Republicans" and the so-called "Democrats." No one conversation has had the effect of clearing that question up. I have an idea why; but this is neither here nor there because I want to point out how we are constantly 'told' what to think is true... and what to reject flatly - by the likes of organizations like the International Journal of Research in Marketing.

Respect for authority and traditions, loyalty and purity apparently precludes equality and protection from harm. This is no trick of logic or argument... it is the nature of the assertion they are putting forth here.

Republicans - according to this publication's maxim; do not value equality, they apparently are being described as not inclined to see protection from harm as a moral mandate for their policy.

Democrats - conversely reject traditional values, have no moral compunction to offer loyalty, and are not likely to value respect for the established authority....

(I am uncertain of how to interpret "purity" in this regard unless the publication is implying something which most rational people reject outright.)

At any rate, while the purpose of this article is probably to highlight how charities can (and should) play the same political games the regime does; it succeeds instead in demonstrating how entrenched the reliance of bias exploitation is. As if saying "To get what you want, tell them what they want to hear" instead of "Tell them the truth, and work for what you want." Clearly they feel charity is a business that needs this guidance from them.

Take from this what you will; but please remember... the Internet has made it painfully clear that you must consider the source, and what lies behind it before you accept their 'facts' - because their facts are secondary to their goals - if you don't; don't be surprised to learn that you've been 'played.'

I probably don't have to point out that the meme of Republicans as incapable of liberalism and the democrats likewise incapable of conservatism is "taken for granted."

Ever wonder why compromise is often unachievable.... herein lies a clue.

posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 03:44 PM
Seriously, I could smack my head against my desk when I hear people referring to this opinion or that opinion as "liberal" or "republican", which then quickly evolves into the most creative abstractions of these two terms.

I think the majority of the people throwing these terms around are not even aware of their definitions or of what they practically stand for.

It's one thing to see the powers that be using the old method of "Divide et impera", you can't even blame them, but I fail to understand how anyone with a sane mind of his own can fall for this paradigm, voluntarily and willingly putting themselves into certain groups.

And I see this in the whole spectrum of what we call "western society". People are divided into CAtholics and Protestants, Democrats and Liberals, Black and White, Blue Collar and White Collar and if one group gets too infuential you split it again.

I'm not a big fan of David Icke but the guy sometimes comes up with quite intelligent stuff, and one of the things he said was something to the effect of "The biggest prison people have willingly put themselves is what other people expect from them, or think of their actions. We've created a system of voluntary prison guards that will jump at anyone overstepping the norms that the elite has dictated" or something like that.


log in