Well, for those who think the wealthy are stingy and selfish, a new study seems to disprove that old maxim, which, I hesitate to say it, but must, is most often heard from the lips of political liberals who believe the solution to problems requiring money (almost all problems for them) is money, is government.  Sorry, but they are wrong.

Paul Bedard reports in the Washington Examiner of January 19, 2016, “Americans are a charitable group, in fact the most generous in the world, according to the new Almanac of American Philanthropy.”  He surveys the results of the Almanac:

“In a first of its kind survey, the Almanac found that Americans out­donate Britain and Canada two­to­one and nations like Italy and Germany 20 ­to­ one. What’s more, more than half of every single income class except those earning less than $25,000 donate to charity. The much maligned top 1 percent in the U.S. economy fork over one third of all donations made. Even in death.”

Notice the sentence I highlighted.  It appears that the American rich are especially generous.  Here is another interesting statistic: “’The wealthiest 1.4 percent of Americans are responsible for 86 percent of the charitable donations made at death,’ said the survey conducted by Public Opinion Research”

I have always believed this was the case, and anecdotal evidence has supported that belief.  But for the first time, we have some comprehensive numbers.  What conclusions can we draw from these numbers though?  It seems the United States has developed a uniquely generous spirit, and perhaps this is a part of what makes us “exceptional.”  Alexis de Tocqueville, writing in the 1830s, marveled at the well-functioning civil society that thrived in America.  Americans, if they perceived something needed to be done, did it through private means.  This certainly included a healthy private philanthropy.  And it still does.  The implication also is that Americans have for the most part not called on the state for every problem that could or should be addressed.  They, more than their European counterparts don’t want the state to do everything worthy of doing.  That “instinct” I believe is laudable.  Much study of government institutions formed to solve problems has shown that both inefficiency and unresponsiveness to the needs of those supposedly being served has resulted (I have written on this before).

Still, liberal-minded people denigrate this approach.  They may say it cannot bring in enough money, so the state is required to coerce tax revenue to “do good things.”  But that also skews the process of choosing who is worthy or receiving our largesse.  And it presumes that every problem is just a matter of more money, when it may be something very different that is needed.  The demand becomes “politicized” as well as the supply.  Even assuming that money is the solution in a given case, and assuming the cause is worthy, as Adam Smith said in his Wealth of Nations (1776), to paraphrase, “If benevolence is coerced it is  no longer benevolence.”  People give because they want to; to force them to give, and to give randomly, as it were, is not at all what it means to be generous.

Let me add that Christians by all means ought to give when the cause is worthy.  But as in any giving situation, I would caution us not to give blindly.  Some causes are not worthy.  Some are worthy but demand a different kind of solution than mere money.  Perhaps one could build a factory that employs people, either here in the United States or somewhere much poorer.  I am glad we are generous and I personally attribute that spirit to our Christian vestige, if not always our explicit Christian faith.  But the paradigm does not always call just for giving away something for free.  Sometimes we do the true good by helping others to help themselves, to attain “earned dignity” through work.

But still it says something I think about the people of America, something good in itself.  I hope it continues.