I didn’t leave the Democrats. They left me.
Nowhere was this change in Democratic sympathies more evident than in the chilling reaction on the floor of the Democratic convention in September when the question of Israel’s capital came up for a vote. Anyone who witnessed the delegates’ angry screaming and fist-shaking could see that far more is going on in the Democratic Party than mere opposition to citing Jerusalem in their platform. There is now a visceral anti-Israel movement among rank-and-file Democrats, a disturbing development that my parents’ generation would not have ignored.
Another troubling change is that Democrats seem to have moved away from the immigrant values of my old neighborhood—in particular, individual charity and neighborliness. After studying tax data from the IRS, the nonpartisan Chronicle of Philanthropy recently reported that states that vote Republican are now far more generous to charities than those voting Democratic. In 2008, the seven least-generous states all voted for President Obama. My father, who kept a charity box for the poor in our house, would have frowned on this fact about modern Democrats…
As a person who has been able to rise from poverty to affluence, and who has created jobs and work benefits for tens of thousands of families, I feel obligated to speak up and support the American ideals I grew up with—charity, self-reliance, accountability. These are the age-old virtues that help make our communities prosperous. Yet, sadly, the Democratic Party no longer seems to value them as it once did. That’s why I switched parties, and why I’m now giving amply to Republicans.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Welcome aboard.
Washington Nearsider on November 5, 2012 at 10:34 AM
That’s the damned truth.
The Count on November 5, 2012 at 10:41 AM
Charity is voluntary and starts from the heart. Unfortunately, democrats think the only charity is the government handouts system, and if they pay one penny in taxes, then their duty to charity is done.
astonerii on November 5, 2012 at 10:42 AM
this is one of those tidbits that gets thrown around, but does it really have meaning? For instance, how do we know that b/c a state voted majority for McCain that it was the same people who voted for McCain who gave to charity? I suspect that is true – but the data referenced gives no ability to discern if it is true. It could be just as true that democrat voters in red states give a lot to charity.
Also, the other recent study showing that conservatives give more than democrats has been debunked as not very scientific. So, while I intuitively believe it to be true that conservatives are more personally charitable than liberals (i.e., giving of themselves rather than voting to give through gov’t), I don’t think there is a lot of data truly showing this.
I suppose, too, it depends on what one considers “charitable” giving. I think most conservatives would agree that giving to a church and volunteering through a church is charitable giving – while dems might think giving to the ACLU or giving to or volunteering for a LBGT organization was “charitable” giving, and the two sides might not agree on what is and isn’t genuine charitable work.
Monkeytoe on November 5, 2012 at 10:44 AM
I thought of mine, too. They are devoutly Catholic and feel that the Democratic Party left them years ago.
0bama is taking a hard left turn in the last days of the election, with his talk about “revenge” and other negative, unserious attacks on his opponent. Why? Because he is, at his core, an America-hating radical leftist. Bill Clinton (who is also part of the “new” far-left Democratic Party) would have read the writing on the wall and shifted more towards the center if he saw that he was struggling in the polls.
But 0bama is no Bill Clinton.
UltimateBob on November 5, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Mr. Adelso is a fierce fighter, I love having him on our team. Steve Wynn as well. Did you folks see the Wynn interview with Jon Ralston (lib anchor) last week? you should.
VegasRick on November 5, 2012 at 10:46 AM
One of the strongest reasons to support a free enterprise system is the difference between trusting private charities helping the less fortunate and trusting the government to do it. In a free enterprise system, you are free to choose the charities you want to support with your donations. If a charity is found to be untrustworthy, you can withhold your donations and find a better one. With socialism, your money is taken from you and filtered through government programs that are often top-heavy and laden with bureaucracies that are nightmares to navigate through, and it’s anybody’s guess as to whether the funds will actually reach those it’s intended to help. Not to mention the dependency those bureaucracies create, from both the poor they purport to help and the employees they overpay for lackluster work. Private charities often expect a return on their investment; you don’t get something for free–they expect you to play a part in your improvement in condition.
I’m glad he’s come aboard. May his tribe increase.
theotherone on November 5, 2012 at 10:48 AM
It fits the mindset of Democrats vs. Republicans. Democrats believe providing food stamps is charity, that providing housing assistance is charity. When it comes time to actually donate to charitable causes, their minds figure that their taxes already did it.
astonerii on November 5, 2012 at 10:48 AM
The democrats have left America.
HumpBot Salvation on November 5, 2012 at 10:51 AM
And – it’s not really charity if you expect something in return. For Democrats, they expect loyalty to their party, which boils down to votes.
Timothy S. Carlson on November 5, 2012 at 10:52 AM
I came to that conclusion in 1980… Carter was enough for me.
Better late than never, I suppose.
CPT. Charles on November 5, 2012 at 10:53 AM
That’s not charity. It’s extortion.
Washington Nearsider on November 5, 2012 at 10:55 AM
Doesn’t matter. Donations to liberal organizations show up as charitable tax deductions every bit as much as donating to your local church when it comes to your 1040. And most statistics I’ve seen on this have been mostly or entirely based on public tax records since it’s the closest thing to a universal measurement we can get.
The Schaef on November 5, 2012 at 10:57 AM
I expect my church to use a good part of my donation on charity, and not on pay for entertainers… So I guess my 10% is not charity. I expect goodwill and salvation army to take my clothes, old electronics and kitchen items and put them in the hands of lower income people for a low price, so I guess it is not charity. I expect the bum on the street corner asking for money to not use it to buy drugs, so that is not charity either. I always expect something in return for my payments, not for me, but for someone else. As for party loyalty, it is unenforceable, so …
astonerii on November 5, 2012 at 11:05 AM
I agree completely. But, just because something seems intuitively true doesn’t mean it has been proven.
Monkeytoe on November 5, 2012 at 11:06 AM
The modern Democrat party models itself on Europoean Socialist parties. European leftists have always had a problem with the existence of Israel – some will openly tell you it has no right to exist at all.
So this at least is not surprising.
CorporatePiggy on November 5, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Especially if “charity” is taking money from someone and giving another a cellphone while, of course. keeping a little something for yourself.
davidk on November 5, 2012 at 11:33 AM
I think you would argue with a lamppost.
davidk on November 5, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Welcome, Sheldon. Thank you for your vote. We won’t disappoint you.
happytobehere on November 5, 2012 at 11:40 AM
I can go with the idea it is not proven. But I think it is certain. Some things cannot be proven without getting too deep into people’s personal lives. On the other hand, you can get to a certain degree of certainty through reviews of the data available.
I did discount the public employees and other people volunteering for political causes as charity. As far as I know, all my pathetically small donations to candidates are not tax deductible as charity and no one else’ is taxable either. Maybe I am wrong on this. Is it really charity when you are promoting a cause as opposed to helping the under privileged? I think Republicans say no, while Democrats, as government equals charity may say yes.
astonerii on November 5, 2012 at 11:40 AM
I came to that conclusion in 2002, when my lefty Democratic blogging buddies couldn’t handle my insistence that suicide bombers did not deserve to have “their side of the story” represented.
Hot Air, Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds, and the right welcomed be.
I’ve never gone back.
And I have asked penance for voting for Carter in ’76.
Meryl Yourish on November 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Resident moron comes to weigh in specifically against me with someone else. I did not argue with the person. I extrapolated his position. No argument required.
astonerii on November 5, 2012 at 11:41 AM
Liberalism does not believe in charity, but in entitlement. That is why state-supervised wealth redistribution is deemed so urgent. Charity is considered a throwback to the era of Dickens. Ironically, I doubt private philanthropy is terribly rationally discriminating, except perhaps in comparison to government. The decisive difference is that state-channeled “donations” (ie taxes) are compulsory.
Seth Halpern on November 5, 2012 at 11:42 AM
And engage the resident (and don’t forget “evil”) moron.
davidk on November 5, 2012 at 11:56 AM
Exactly right. And everyone is entitled until everybody has the same amount of stuff. That;s what’s “fair.”
Never mind taking care of basic needs. Absolute material equality is their goal no matter how hard you work or haw much you produce.
Well, except for those elites who oversee the redistribution of wealth.
davidk on November 5, 2012 at 12:02 PM
You are a total believer in the redistribution system. Trying to figure out, are you cheer leading? Remember, only if you get your money returned to you are you willing to get rid of wealth redistribution. The children are slaves in your view.
astonerii on November 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Why would one engage a moron?
davidk on November 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM
To keep the easily misled from a fate of becoming like you.
Easily misled into believing the lies of the government. You were such an easy mark you were totally taken in for over 50 years according to your own statement. MORON.
Easily keeping oneself in the dark in order to keep some ignorant view that you are entitled to other people’s money. Like you do about having paid into the social security trust fund which you imagine has money in it for you. Instead of knowing that there is no trust fund, that tax payments listed under social security and medicare go directly into the government general fund. Thus, since the government is 16 trillion in debt, that means there is no money there for you. You spent yours over the last 50 years, and an extra 16 trillion dollars. Now you expect the children you saddled with 16 trillion in debt to keep paying trillions more every year to keep you in your luxury. Plantation owner davidk is a puke a human being. In fact, seems to be a good description of most Americans at this time.
astonerii on November 5, 2012 at 12:34 PM
davidk on November 5, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Wish more people realized that today’s Dem party, the Obama-Reid-Pelosi party, represents values and policies that are not just un-American, but aggressively anti-Ammerican. In many ways, it has become the enemy within. It has become what Democrats themselves used to warn us against.
(I was a Dem until Ronaldus Magnus and Milton Friedman peeled the scales from my eyes .)
petefrt on November 5, 2012 at 12:43 PM
I used much the same argument in a fisk I did on this post to send to my family:
One particular comment by the author, Jana Riess, is relevant to this thread.
After describing the allegiance of Utah voters (mostly Mormons) to the Democratic party from statehood through the 1970s, she laments that most recent elections were decisively for Republicans.
My reply:
On all axes of policy (social, financial, and defense), the Democrat leadership after 1970 espoused platforms and policies moving further and further away from the essentially centrist positions of the earlier Party. This is what convinced Ronald Reagan and many others to say in the 80s “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party; the Party left me.”
In other words, framing the question as “how did the vast majority of American Mormons veer so far to the right?” ignores the fact that Mormons and Americans have not significantly changed their center to -center-right beliefs over the years (any number of polls support that).
Frame of reference is just as important in politics as it is in physics: an observer on a train veering to the left as it leaves the station will perceive the people still standing on the platform as veering to the right.
AesopFan on November 5, 2012 at 9:20 PM