Maintaining Optimism in the Face of Reality. Occasional observations on the state of the world, society, business and politics. Usually anchored by facts, always augmented by opinion.
But maybe another reason why many blue-staters didn't get it is that they don't understand how important charity, of the non-governmental variety, is. The Catalogue for Philanthropy started computing a Generosity Index to "summarize Massachusetts' and New England's greatest problem in philanthropy: that we have the nation's largest gap between our ranks in income and our ranks in charitable giving." The Generosity Index makes clear which states are the most charitable, and the least charitable, color-coded here in traditional red and blue.
I imagine this is skewed by church contributions, however, I don't think that can account for the entire discrepancy, particularly given that church attendance figures are similar when you compare states like Minnesota and Mississippi. Moreover, setting aside the issue of church donations being used for charitable causes even secularists would agree are non-religious, I suspect that the teachings of most religions about the importance of caring for one's fellow man encourage higher contributions of all within the flock.
e-mail post | Link Cosmos | [Permalink] | | Sunday, November 14, 2004
Anecdotally, this index can also demonstrate one of the failings of Blue State candidates. For all the populist talk of raising the lower classes, the candidate's constituents appear to be the least willing to do this themselves.
I should add that I just recently moved from New Hampshire and can add that while Massachusetts and the rest of New England suffer from a hearty dose of snobbery that prevents them from understanding what true need is, New Hampshirites are simply cheap skates.