To me, the hypothesis is remotely plausible. Not having any first-hand knowledge or academic study of this subject under my belt, and not knowing anything about the author, I did a search of Daily Kos to see what liberals think about the theory. I found this diary, which I think is worth a read regardless of where you are on the political spectrum because there are several posts which shine an informed, reasoned, but critical light on Brooks' views.

Since the book isn't out yet, it's hard to really have a substantive discussion of its content. But, I think the following excerpts from the Kos thread above are worth considering as counterpoints:

If the theory holds, here are some possible justifications

Quote:

* Progressives have a more expansive view of the community supporting social justice through taxes, and therefore view some types of charitable giving as a weak alternative
* Some forms of charitable giving are much more self-interested than others: the liberal donating to NPR, the conservative donating to an activist church
* The tax code (including the estate tax) creates heavier incentives for the wealthier

Some damning math on one of the more dubious claims put forth by the author

Finally, this post really crystallizes my initial impulses on this subject:

Quote:

Pretty Much Arguing by Definition

Seems the author is defining conservatives as people who think individual charity rather than reditributive government programs should support those with less income, and then saying conservatives are more likely to participate in individual charity.

He then dismisses the things which liberals may do to rally for government poverty programs, education reform, etc. as something other than charitable.

It is, in the narrow sense that I would like to see more people have an entitlement or right to basic necessities (basic sustenance, housing, medical care, education) from the government, that they should not feel beholden or grateful to me for having received these things. I don't want access to basic services to be a matter of charity.

But on the other hand, if the author is attempting to say that my feelings or my work for better government support for low income people does not reflect altruism or community feelings on my part, he's nuts.

There's much more in that thread discussing some of the merits of the theory and some of the places where it could fall apart. I'll be interested to hear how it's judged once academics (and the wanna-be academics on the Internets) have a chance to digest the material. But, if you want my initial gut feeling, it seems he's setting up the word "charity" to mean "giving that doesn't involve the government, because government is bad" and then using that definition to nail liberals. In my view, any fair redistribution of wealth from the haves to the have-nots is a helpful thing for society regardless of whether the Government facilitates it or not, so limiting "charity" to churches and NGOs is disingenuous.