Kristof: Liberals more charity-cheap than conservatives

I’m sure folks at places like National Review will love the centerpiece of Nicholas Kristof’s new column, where he claims liberals give less to charity than do conservatives, but the column and the studies behind it are fatally flawed.

First, “charity,” “nonprofit” and other words are thrown around without any definition.

Second, and most importantly, churches aren’t separated out from other nonprofits. And we know conservatives go to church more. Ditto on Nick saying conservatives invest more time; that's surely part of the difference if not all of it.

Kristof then says neither side contributes a lot to the neediest. Well, why doesn't he provide a breakout, like money given to food pantries, homeless shelters, etc., vs., say churches by conservatives or environmental agencies by liberals? Or, prrovide a breakout of what percentage of liberals,and of conservatives' donations, per national philanthropy information, goes from these charities to actual causes?

In follow-up comments at his blog, Kristof notes that neither conservatives nor liberals do a lot to help the neediest, conceding my first point of contention. He does note greater conservative involvement with churches, but puts no number on that.

Of course, from where I sit, that is kind of a Kristof M.O. Spin out a great story, but get fuzzy on the details. When it is purely a social-issues column that doesn't need a lot of hard facts, that is fine. But this column did.