Reading the first few pages of this book made me shudder with embarrassment...for liberals. The author deftly documents the opinions of liberals with anyone who disagrees with them. "Knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" would be an approximate summation.

This very evening, I gave my Thai boyfriend short definitions of "liberal" and "conservative." The short definitions amounted to "conservatives don't want change" and "liberals want change." And I went on to mention the problems of "change," in particular, Iran. I was in Iran when the Shah controlled the government, and the common liberal "change" mantra resulted in ("There could be no government worse than the Shah's") the rise of insane Islamist terrorists running Iran.

There couldn't be anything worse than the Shah? Well, put that idea in the category of "non-working ideas."

So...I then proceeded to ask this guy, my boyfriend:

"Who do you think would be more likely to live without children?"

His answer: liberals.

"Who do you think would be more likely to enact crazy government plans which don't work?"

His answer: liberals.

"Who do you think contributes more to charity?"

His answer: conservatives.

"Who do you think takes better care of their children?"

His answer: conservatives.

Well, quite amazing for a 23yo guy from the hills of Thailand. He scored 100 percent!

There is no question that Peter Schweizer is a conservative. Likewise, this book is aimed at an audience of conservatives. Schweizer's main theme is that liberals are "completely wrapped up with the notion of self". Liberals, according to Schweizer, also delight in proclaiming themselves smarter than conservatives and invent "studies" to prove it.

Well, Schweizer has his own study to rely on and it isn't one he invented. It is the General Social Survey conducted by the University of Chicago and the National Opinion Research Center.

So armed, Schweizer begins his comparison of liberals and conservstives. It boils down to "[m]odern liberal ideas consistently encourage bad habits and destructive behavioral tendencies".

It's good stuff as Schweizer holds forth on why liberals are more self-centered, less generous, less honest, angrier and less knowledgable than conservatives.

Obviously, it is not a book that left-wingers will enjoy.

But conservatives, independents and the intellectually curious will find "Makers and Takers" reasonably informative and very entertaining.

Jerry

Based on the jacket I thought this book would be like Millionaire Next Door but for politics. In Millionaire you find that the guy with the used car and jeans is a millionaire. In the book I was hoping for some defense of my positions. Like you'd find the guy with the short hair who votes Republican is actually the most generous and caring guy on the block. But that's not what this book is. It has moments when it is that. But, for the most part, it is just rehashing of some of the stupidest things said by people who, for the most part, aren't even in politics. For example, Al Franken tackling some college kid because he supports lower taxes, or whatever. Yeah, granted, Al Franken is outrageous. But what does that really say about the average Republican or Democrat? It says nothing. I suspect the truth is that the exact same percentage of caring and generous people exist on both sides of the aisle. They just have different ways of showing it.

Schweitzer's characterization of Liberal arrogance and self-absorption is right on the mark but the "facts" used to support some of his conclusions are a little thin. He relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and polling data that reeks of subjective bias, then he interprets it out of context.

Particularly annoying is his contention that Liberal attitudes toward child rearing are selfish and civically irresponsible, as if propagation of an individual's genes isn't the ultimate act of self interest. If he wanted to prove that point, he should have looked at adoption statistics ... or maybe he did.

Schweitzer does a good job of deflating the Liberal version of conventional wisdom but in so doing relies on a few conservative myths. I suppose it would be asking too much for a touch of balance.

The argument of Makers and Takers is that conservatives have it right, behaviorally, and liberals are deeply troubled. Thus, it will give heart to the right and dyspepsia to the left, though it is written in the spirit of bemused interest, not in that of an angry screed. The core of the argument is built upon survey research. If the survey research is accurate, this is a significant book, for it traces a large number of behaviors which, it is argued, characterize those of each broadly-conceived political persuasion. Schweizer argues that behavior and ideas are closely intertwined and proceeds, he believes, to demonstrate it here.

With all turning on the reliability of his evidence, there is a consistent attempt to correct for potential survey errors. For example, conservatives are more happy with their incomes than are liberals. That could be, of course, because they make more money. However, Schweizer is careful to point out, in this case, that the liberals skew toward the negative, while the conservatives skew toward the positive when, in fact, they each make the same amount of money. Conservatives are likely to see the book as successfully and scientifically confirming their intuitions, while liberals are likely to see it as little more than polemic and propaganda. It all comes down to the reliability of the survey instruments themselves. Schweizer certainly takes them seriously, but how broadly accepted are they by dispassionate social scientists? I believe that it is a shortcoming of the book that he does not go to great pains to assure his readers (with hard evidence) that these survey instruments are reliable. There is also a great deal of anecdotal evidence, but that is notoriously slippery, though it does make for an interesting read. Unfortunately, since the book is written for a popular audience it is unlikely to be reviewed by survey research experts and be validated or dismissed. That is too bad, since the subject is so important. On the other hand, a popular audience will find it to be an interesting and engaging use of statistical information (particularly those who are conservative).

Anyone who is not a liberal has noted how they continuously heap praise upon themselves for their moral superiority, while at the same time demonstrating a priggish hostility to those who disagree with them. In this fascinating book, the author undertakes to examine the liberals' mindset, contrasting their words with their deeds. Everything is covered here, from helping the poor (who actually gives the most of their own income to the needy), to just plain being happy. Want to understand the real, bedrock differences between conservatives and liberals? Read this book!

Overall, I found this to be a fascinating and insightful read. The author does an excellent job of comparing and contrasting people's words with their actual deeds, drawing on many public and private sources, including many surveys and scientific studies. I think that this is a very interesting book, and I cannot recommend it enough!

It's been anecdotally the consensus for awhile that conservatives are generally happier, more family-oriented, and so forth than liberals, but until Schweizer's book, no one had bothered to amass the necessary statistics on the matter. MAKERS AND TAKERS does our understanding of American society a considerable service in this.

There are two areas where Schweizer's tome could have been improved. First, its self-congratulatory tone would be off-putting to a liberal -- and it's liberals who would benefit most from absorbing and pondering the objective information it offers. Second, Schweizer had the opportunity to score a grand slam by extending his treatment to FAKERS: persons nominally self-supporting, but whose positions are mostly or wholly sinecures that demand little from them. The distribution of political allegiances among such persons -- government workers; featherbedded workers in unionized industries; marginal employees in public schools; and the like -- would be illuminating whether or not it confirmed Schweizer's larger thesis.

All the same, MAKERS AND TAKERS is informative in its objective data and thought-provoking in its implications. Four stars.

Great recap of some differences between liberals and conservatives. The former will not enjoy it as much as we did!

Although I am a conservative, I was not particularly impressed by this book. It has some statistical support but it is primarily opinion, innuendo, and anecdote. A much better book, which was published in early 2008, is Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality: Comparing the Voters in Statistics and Anecdotes. That book is about twice as voluminous and contains a wealth of survey support - not just GSS surveys. The conclusions in Democrats and Republicans - Rhetoric and Reality: Comparing the Voters in Statistics and Anecdotes are much more believable, and the author (Joe Fried) seems to be more objective.

Also, Fried's book (Democrats and Republicans...) argues convincingly that we should not even be comparing "conservatives" with liberals because, during the last 30 or 40 years, 25 to 50% of all conservatives have been Democrats, and they are polar opposites of Republican conservatives in many ways. That is the reason Fried uses the Democrat-Republican paradigm throughout his book.

This book illustrates contrasts in personalities between those who take responsibility and those who try to make a commodity of responsibility. It stands to reason that those who more clearly see and are less conflicted in decisions regarding right from wrong are happier.

People who are relatively happy with their life and their decisions are less likely to be interested in wanting to control/exert influence on others.

The book was as I expected a comparison between the liberal and the conservative world view point. What I didn't expect was the statistics and studies: the number of numbers thrown at the reader was overwhelming. The percentages weren't that compelling to conclude much more than trends and tendancies, and the number of times other studies were simply implied or alluded to was disconcerting. While well written, the subject matter wasn't truly conducive to a book. Perhaps a paper with charts and graphs.

The book is irreverent in a number of places.
The author deals with a popular belief that liberals
are more enlightened versus conservatives who tend to
be ignorant. Liberals tend to be less satisfied with
marriage. As a group, conservatives give more money
to the poor. For instance, President Reagan gave 4 times
as much money to charity than contemporaries reaching
6% of his income in 1985. In 1991, President Bush made $180T
and gave $28T to charity.

The author decries the fact that liberals promote anger-
particularly on college campuses. This book may cause you
to think more carefully about differences both real and
perceived between the different political philosophies.
A word of warning is in order. Don't take the book too
seriously.

A journal of liberal hypocrisy.
Peter Schweizer has written a quick an insightful read confirming or challenging your pre-conceived notions with regard to the difference of the actual practices of giving and work habits between liberals and conservatives. The book is a fast read laden with facts, data, quotes, anecdotes and writing excerpts from a wide range of studies as well as individual liberals in the media, popular culture, politics a and academia. Schweizer uses their own quotes, studies and actions to put truth to the lie that liberals are more concerned with other people in purely altruistic terms. But rather he shows that they are largely transfixed by their jealousy of other peoples' money no matter what their own wealth. You find that all your favorite liberals are here: Nader, Clinton (both), Jackson, Edwards, Turner, Couric, Soros and many more. Each shown to be hypocrites with regard to their own espoused standards. This is not all however; the book compares the average liberal to the average conservative and finds the same dichotomy exists. Schweizer shows how the tendency toward jealousy and stinginess is not only not generally a trait of conservatives, but rather the domain of the modern liberal as it was going back to Marx. He also shows that even many liberals have recognized these failings and flaws in the liberal character. Challenge your beliefs, read it!

If you are conservative, you have to read this! "Makers and Takers" is chock full of solid research proving conservatives love more, give more, and generally are happier and better people.

When asked "Would you endure all things for the one you love? More than half--55 percent of conservatives--said yes, compared with only 26 percent of liberals" (p 31). And even worse, when asked "Is it your obligation to care for a seriously ill spouse or parent...71 percent of conservatives said it was...Less than half (46%) of liberals agreed" (p 31). This is a staggering difference in morality between the two groups.

Research shows conservatives want children more, and are more fertile. And this is not surprising, given the additional research showing how narcissistic liberals are when compared to conservatives. When 1,195 university students were studied, liberals were full of egocentrism. The same results were found in a study in Germany.

Unsurprisingly, therefore, liberals were more likely to be alienated from their families. On the other hand, conservatives were ""significantly more likely than other parents to display positive, nurturing emotions toward their children" (p 44).

And here are some really disturbing results from the respected World Values Survey:

Liberals were much more likely to agree to lie.

"More than a third of liberals (34 %) said they would cheat the restaurant out of the money" (p 118).

More likely to cheat.

Less likely to take the blame when they did something wrong.

"More than a third (35%) of progressives said 'there are some situations where adultery is understandable'. Only 3% of conservatives agreed" (p 114).

At the bottom all of this, I suspect, is religion. Those who do not believe in God have no reason to follow the 10 commandments.

But good grief, they don't even feel obligated to take care of a sick spouse or parent???

For years I have been noticing the slide of Liberals into exaggerated self righteousness - fairly equivalent to their tendency to demonize significant conservative figures.

Schweizer doesn't waste any time in framing his work as a response to the increasingly hostile assumptions of Liberals. He continues by bringing evidence to establish that in most every aspect in life conservatives are more decent, honorable people ... in general.

Liberals shouldn't get too upset because while the truth will surely hurt, the evidence shows that many Liberals are decent people - just not quite up to conservative standards.

Peter Schweizer has elevated the national debate again. Rising above the he-said/she said din of cable news debates, Peter has produced a well-researched and fascinating analysis of the psychology that is inherent in liberalism. By reviewing scores of peer-reviewed, large-scale public surveys; Peter exposes many misperceptions that are regularly promoted in the media.

The public has generally accepted many of the precepts of the liberal message: Conservatives are mean, self-centered, cheating, uncharitable, and unhappy - the facts just don't bear this out.

In a sense all of these false beliefs and constructs define factitious disorder syndrome. Better known as Munchausen syndrome, these disorders are characterized by exactly the same self-delusional and malingering traits exposed in Makers and Takers.

If Munchausen by proxy means inflicting the disorder on others, then surely the United States is the left's proxy. Those who are naturally inclined to resist personal responsibility and accountability find a happy and willing enabler in liberalism. Since the primary motive of Munchausen is to obtain sympathy, nurturance and attention; the drumbeat message of liberalism over the last 40 years is surely a sirens song and a likely motivation to perpetrate this fraudulent view of conservatives.

The question I have is this: If one man, researching publicly available data on his own can produce this work, how could the thousands of so-called political science professors and researchers have missed it all this time?

Peter Schweizer has elevated the national debate again. Rising above the he-said/she said din of cable news debates, Peter has produced a well-researched and fascinating analysis of the psychology that is inherent in liberalism. By reviewing scores of peer-reviewed, large-scale public surveys; Peter quantifies a pathology and redefines factitious disorder syndrome to include the type of liberalism practiced by the far left today. Better known as Munchausen syndrome, these disorders are characterized by exactly the same self-delusional and malingering traits exposed in Makers and Takers.

If Munchausen by proxy means infliction the disorder on others, then surely the United States is the left's proxy.

If the present lurching towards the proven failure of socialism isn't self-explanatory enough, then this research becomes self evident: Those who are naturally inclined to resist personal responsibility and accountability find a happy and willing enabler in liberalism. Since the primary motive of a Munchausen patient is to obtain sympathy, nurturance and attention; the message of liberalism is surely a sirens song.

The question I have is this: If one man, researching publically available data on his own can produce this work, how could the thousands of so-called political science professors and researchers have missed it all this time?

I recently read this book with an open mind, interested to see how a researcher could use peer-reviewed scholarly work and survey data to draw such bold conclusions about human behavior. In truth, there is very little serious psychological research on the behavioral differences between "liberals" and "conservatives" because the terms are overly broad and difficult to measure. I saw Schwiezer on BookTV and was interested to learn that he is a research fellow affiliated with Stanford University, and he quoted some of the professional literature, so I thought his research might be insightful.

However, from an objective, psychometric standpoint, Schweizer's "research" (reported throughout the book) contains conspicuous methodological errors. There are frankly too many errors to cover in a short review, but here are two of the most egregious: First, Schweizer uses several surveys to support his claims, including the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey. To define "liberal" and "conservative," Schweizer uses a single survey item in each case, which--from an objective, statistical standpoint--is insufficient. On the World Values Survey, for example, the relevant item uses a Likert response format, where the respondents rate their political views along a 10-point continuum, ranging from "left" to "right." Using one survey item in this fashion to differentiate groups is statistically problematic. Think about it: If anyone could predict the many annoying behaviors Schweizer attributes to "liberals" using this one question, personality tests (which can include over 500 questions) could be reduced down to "How liberal are you?" As a general rule of thumb, psychologists use, at the very least, 6 to 8 individual items to measure psychological constructs, and even that proves dicey in many instances. Again, think about it: If you are a pro-life, devoutly religious environmentalist who wants to see marijuana decriminalized, would your response to that one survey item be a three? A seven?? A "Don't Know"???

Second, Schweizer does not provide enough detail to replicate his work. Sure, published books meant for mass consumption are not subjected to the same academic standards as true scholarly work, but if you are as certain of your work as Schweizer, wouldn't it make sense that you would invite replication? I downloaded the survey data from the Internet and, to the degree that I could follow Schweizer's steps, I re-ran his analysis using SPSS 15.0. So far, in every instance where I've tried it, I do not come up with the same numbers. I can't claim that Schweizer has falsified his results (because I can't be sure I'm following his exact methodology), but the discrepancy between what Schweizer reports and what I find is remarkable, to say the least. In my statistical analyses, I fail to find real differences between "liberals" and "conservatives" on most of the behaviors that Schweizer discusses. Where I do, the differences are trivial. I encourage others to try to re-run Schweizer's analyses--as statistically flawed as they are--to see what they find.

One other quick criticism: Schweizer also misinterprets a "validation study" of survey respondent honesty (Kanazawa, 2005), and he uses this misinterpretation throughout the book to dismiss out-of-hand the possibility that people could be dishonest or inaccurate to a meaningful degree on surveys. In fact, Schweizer claims that, based on Kanazawa's study, the folks most likely to lie on surveys are blacks and Democrats (further supporting his point that Conservatives are accurate when they tell surveyors how great they are). However, I read the study and found that Kanazawa actually concluded that the most inaccurate reporters were blacks and Southerners. (Seriously, look it up!) Kanazawa's data came from surveys where researchers asked folks if they were registered and if they voted, and then checked these responses against the actual polling data. The data reached back to the 1940s, so (in my humble opinion) it's really no surprise that blacks and Southerners--especially in the volitile 60s--would have been less honest about voting habits when asked by a researcher. Kanazawa did find a weaker association, where Democrats were a little more likely to misrepresent themselves than Republicans, but this finding was inconsistent (specific to the claims about voting) and much weaker than the finding for Southerners. To interpret this, you have to keep in mind that given the timespan of Kanazawa's data, "Democrats" would include the anti-Civil Rights Dixie-crats and the Reagan Democrats--so it may not represent current political encampments. In any event, Kanazawa is exceedingly clear that the two strongest and most consistent predictors of survey dishonesty were race (blacks) and location (Southerners), but Schweizer misreports this conclusion (p. 27). But what's really more to the point, Kanazawa's validation study asked specifically about voting habits, NOT the myriad social issues that Schweizer tackles in his book. So I would argue that Kanazawa's findings (no matter how you interpret them) don't apply to socially charged questions such as "Do you often feel angry at home?" Also, there is a large professional literature on response biases in psychological measurement (the topic of my dissertation) that Schweizer completely ignores. Psychologists refer to the problem of dishonesty on surveys as "social desirability" (surprisingly enough, people tend to 'fake good' when describing themselves on surveys...go figure) and it is a very real concern in the field, despite what Schweizer claims.

So in short, Schweizer's research is wrought with undeniable statistical errors, his methodology is insufficiently described, and he clearly misreports previous research to support his claims. As such, this book is valuable in two ways: 1) it underscores the reason why the academic peer-review process is vital in true scholarly work, and 2) it also demonstrates the quality of "research" coming out of the Hoover Institute at Stanford.

I recently read this book with an open mind, interested to see how a researcher could use peer-reviewed scholarly work and survey data to draw such bold conclusions about human behavior. In truth, there is very little serious psychological research on the behavioral differences between "liberals" and "conservatives" because the terms are overly broad and difficult to measure. I saw Schwiezer on BookTV and was interested to learn that he is a research fellow affiliated with Stanford University, and he quoted some of the professional literature, so I thought his research might be insightful.

However, from an objective, psychometric standpoint, Schweizer's "research" (reported throughout the book) contains conspicuous methodological errors. There are frankly too many errors to cover in a short review, but here are two of the most egregious: First, Schweizer uses several surveys to support his claims, including the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey. To define "liberal" and "conservative," Schweizer uses a single survey item in each case, which--from an objective, statistical standpoint--is insufficient. On the World Values Survey, for example, the relevant item uses a Likert response format, where the respondents rate their political views along a 10-point continuum, ranging from "left" to "right." Using one survey item in this fashion to differentiate groups is statistically problematic. Think about it: If anyone could predict the many annoying behaviors Schweizer attributes to "liberals" using this one question, personality tests (which can include over 500 questions) could be reduced down to "How liberal are you?" As a general rule of thumb, psychologists use, at the very least, 6 to 8 individual items to measure psychological constructs, and even that proves dicey in many instances. Again, think about it: If you are a pro-life, devoutly religious environmentalist who wants to see marijuana decriminalized, would your response to that one survey item be a three? A seven?? A "Don't Know"???

Second, Schweizer does not provide enough detail to replicate his work. Sure, published books meant for mass consumption are not subjected to the same academic standards as true scholarly work, but if you are as certain of your work as Schweizer, wouldn't it make sense that you would invite replication? I downloaded the survey data from the Internet and, to the degree that I could follow Schweizer's steps, I re-ran his analysis using SPSS 15.0. So far, in every instance where I've tried it, I do not come up with the same numbers. I can't claim that Schweizer has falsified his results (because I can't be sure I'm following his exact methodology), but the discrepancy between what Schweizer reports and what I find is remarkable, to say the least. In my statistical analyses, I fail to find real differences between "liberals" and "conservatives" on most of the behaviors that Schweizer discusses. Where I do, the differences are trivial. I encourage others to try to re-run Schweizer's analyses--as statistically flawed as they are--to see what they find.

One other quick criticism: Schweizer also misinterprets a "validation study" of survey respondent honesty (Kanazawa, 2005), and he uses this misinterpretation throughout the book to dismiss out-of-hand the possibility that people could be dishonest or inaccurate to a meaningful degree on surveys. In fact, Schweizer claims that, based on Kanazawa's study, the folks most likely to lie on surveys are blacks and Democrats (further supporting his point that Conservatives are accurate when they tell surveyors how great they are). However, I read the study and found that Kanazawa actually concluded that the most inaccurate reporters were blacks and Southerners. (Seriously, look it up!) Kanazawa's data came from surveys where researchers asked folks if they were registered and if they voted, and then checked these responses against the actual polling data. The data reached back to the 1940s, so (in my humble opinion) it's really no surprise that blacks and Southerners--especially in the volitile 60s--would have been less honest about voting habits when asked by a researcher. Kanazawa did find a weaker association, where Democrats were a little more likely to misrepresent themselves than Republicans, but this finding was inconsistent (specific to the claims about voting) and much weaker than the finding for Southerners. To interpret this, you have to keep in mind that given the timespan of Kanazawa's data, "Democrats" would include the anti-Civil Rights Dixie-crats and the Reagan Democrats--so it may not represent current political encampments. Kanazawa is exceedingly clear that the two strongest and most consistent predictors of survey dishonesty were race (blacks) and location (Southerners), but Schweizer misreports this conclusion (p. 27). But what's really more to the point, Kanazawa's validation study asked specifically about voting habits, NOT the myriad social issues that Schweizer tackles in his book. So I would argue that Kanazawa's findings (no matter how you interpret them) don't apply to socially charged questions such as "Do you often feel angry at home?" Also, there is a large professional literature on response biases in psychological measurement (the topic of my dissertation) that Schweizer completely ignores. Psychologists refer to the problem of dishonesty on surveys as "social desirability" (surprisingly enough, people tend to 'fake good' when describing themselves on surveys...go figure) and it is a very real concern in the field, despite what Schweizer claims.

So in short, Schweizer's research is wrought with undeniable statistical errors, his methodology is insufficiently described, and he clearly misreports previous research to support his claims. As such, this book is valuable in two ways: 1) it underscores the reason why the academic peer-review process is vital in true scholarly work, and 2) it also demonstrates the quality of "research" coming out of the Hoover Institute at Stanford.

I recently read this book with an open mind, interested to see how a researcher could use peer-reviewed scholarly work and survey data to draw such bold conclusions about human behavior. In truth, there is very little serious psychological research on the behavioral differences between "liberals" and "conservatives" because the terms are overly broad and difficult to measure. I saw Schwiezer on BookTV and was interested to learn that he is a research fellow affiliated with Stanford University, and he quoted some of the professional literature, so I thought his research might be insightful.

However, from an objective, psychometric standpoint, Schweizer's "research" (reported throughout the book) contains conspicuous methodological errors. There are frankly too many errors to cover in a short review, but here are two of the most egregious: First, Schweizer uses several surveys to support his claims, including the World Values Survey and the General Social Survey. To define "liberal" and "conservative," Schweizer uses a single survey item in each case, which--from an objective, statistical standpoint--is insufficient. On the World Values Survey, for example, the relevant item uses a Likert response format, where the respondents rate their political views along a 10-point continuum, ranging from "left" to "right." Using one survey item in this fashion to differentiate groups is statistically problematic. Think about it: If anyone could predict the many annoying behaviors Schweizer attributes to "liberals" using this one question, personality tests (which can include over 500 questions) could be reduced down to "How liberal are you?" As a general rule of thumb, psychologists use, at the very least, 6 to 8 individual items to measure psychological constructs, and even that proves dicey in many instances. Again, think about it: If you are a pro-life, devoutly religious environmentalist who wants to see marijuana decriminalized, would your response to that one survey item be a six? A seven?? A "Don't Know"???

Second, Schweizer does not provide enough detail to replicate his work. Sure, published books meant for mass consumption are not subjected to the same academic standards as true scholarly work, but if you are as certain of your work as Schweizer, wouldn't it make sense that you would invite replication? I downloaded the survey data from the Internet and, to the degree that I could follow Schweizer's steps, I re-ran his analysis using SPSS 15.0. So far, in every instance where I've tried it, I do not come up with the same numbers. I can't claim that Schweizer has falsified his research (because I can't be sure I'm following his exact methodology), but the discrepancy between what Schweizer reports and what I find is remarkable, to say the least. In my statistical analyses, I fail to find real differences between "liberals" and "conservatives" on most of the behaviors that Schweizer discusses. Where I do, the differences are trivial. I encourage others to try to re-run Schweizer's analyses--as statistically flawed as they are--to see what they find.

One other quick criticism: Schweizer also misinterprets a "validation study" of survey respondent honesty (Kanazawa, 2005), and he uses this misinterpretation throughout the book to dismiss out-of-hand the possibility that people could be dishonest or inaccurate to a meaningful degree on surveys. In fact, Schweizer claims that, based on Kanazawa's study, the folks most likely to lie on surveys are blacks and Democrats (further supporting his point that Conservatives are accurate when they tell surveyors how great they are). However, I read the study and found that Kanazawa actually concluded that the most inaccurate reporters were blacks and Southerners. Seriously, look it up! Kanazawa's data came from surveys where researchers asked folks if they were registered and if they voted, and then checked these responses against the actual polling data. The data reached back to the 1940s, so (in my humble opinion) it's really no surprise that blacks and Southerners--especially in the volitile 60s--would have been less honest about voting habits when asked by a researcher. And the disproportionate number of black Democrats helps to explain an instance where Democrats appeared less truthful than Republicans (specific to claims about voting), but this finding was inconsistent and much weaker than the finding for Southerners. Kanazawa is exceedingly clear that the two strongest and most consistent predictors of survey dishonesty were race (blacks) and location (Southerners). But what's really more to the point, Kanazawa's validation study asked specifically about voting habits, NOT the myriad social issues that Schweizer tackles in his book. So I would argue that Kanazawa's findings don't apply to socially charged questions such as "Do you often feel angry at home?" Also, there is a large professional literature on response biases in psychological measurement (the topic of my dissertation) that Schweizer completely ignores. Psychologists refer to the problem of dishonesty on surveys as "social desirability" (surprisingly enough, people tend to 'fake good' when describing themselves on surveys...go figure) and it is a very real concern in the field, despite what Schweizer claims.

Overall, this book isn't worth the trees they cut down to make it, unless you're looking for a solid example of why the academic peer-review process is vital in true scholarly work. In that case, this book is amazing! I think it also demonstrates the quality of "research" coming out of the Hoover Institute at Stanford.

finally a book that explains the basis for liberal and conservative philosophies and does so in a way that shows how the left in america are a paradox of themselves...this book showcases why the left in america think the way they do, act the way they do, and go about their daily lives in a manner that is more hypocritical than anything...full of quotes, stats, and stories that explain why the left in america, from its politicians to the media to special interest groups, dont even stand for what they say they believe in and they go ahead and say it anyway...a must read for anyone who wants to understand the political ideologies of people go much farther than how they feel about certain political issues...their political ideologies are a reflection about the very foundaitons about how they view life in general...entertaining and useful because although the content does not praise the right, it does use evidence that supports the right and allows the reader to make his/her own decisions based on the reading

Makers and Takers has value in debunking particular myths about Conservatives and Liberals. The data in this book is surprising, given some popular attitudes in the media, but not so surprising when you think about it. The author sees turnabout as fair play. The left has been declaring its moral and intellectual superiority for years, and without supporting data. Here we see claims of superiority from the right, but with data.

What I don't seen in this book is a good explanation of why people hold certain beliefs. Schweizer sees much fault on the left, but why then are these beliefs as popular as they are? It is not enough to observe that people often inherit the views of their parents. Of course, no one book can answer all questions, but there is little point in discussing a problem without also discussing its fundamental causes. If some people simply believe the wrong things for reasons that are not understood, then this is not a `problem', but a reality that we must accept. How do beliefs form and change?

Makers and Takers is an interesting study of data, but it does not really tell us how this data can be used. Conservatives will enjoy it, Liberals will revile it. Perhaps I am wrong, but I doubt that this will shift the balance of public opinion significantly. The stats in this book appear fine, but there are deeper issues to sort out in trying to determine why people believe in different things and act different ways.

This title and book is a joke! Do not waste your money. No where does the Author talk about how this party is the largest group of Corrupt, Criminal and Sexually Perverted politicians ever assembled! No where does he discuss how REAL Conservatives, the Conservatives of 20-30 years ago, would never have tolerated nor condoned the Spending of this Republican administration and congress. Nor the lies which took this country into an illegal pre-emptive invasion . Nor would REAL Conservatives mortgage our country to China , causing the highest debt in history. GIVE more money? Since when? When pressed , they admit they give to Church, (about $5 per week). They may take a weekend jaunt to New Orleans with Habitat for humanity and pound a few nails and consider that their 'Giving" ! But ask them to pay Taxes, the Price of a civilized Society, and they balk. They do not understand that all of the benefits they enjoy, i.e. 8 hour work day, minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare, Head Start, Peace Corp, Workers Compensation, rural electrification, etc all came from Liberals over the Protests of Conservatives! Mr. Schweizer should not give up his day job, in anticipation of royalties from the sale of this book! Buy an issue of 'the Onion' instead.

Makers and Takers has value in debunking particular myths about Conservatives and Liberals. The data in this book is surprising, given some popular attitudes in the media, but not so surprising when you think about it.

The data explored in this book gets at issues from a direction that I find unfamiliar. As an economist I have been trained to examine how people react to changes in incentive: prices and such. Makers and Takers tends to look at differences in how people think, rather than in how incentives differ. This is not to say that I find `internal' explanations of behavior uninteresting or unimportant. I do have doubt about the extent to which we can act upon the data in this book. While our actions are shaped by our fundamental attitudes and beliefs, these factors form in ways that are not well understood and do not change easily. Schweizer paints a picture that liberal democrats will not like, but how many of them will change their beliefs after seeing or hearing of the evidence in this book?

Makers and Takers is an interesting study of questionable practical value. Conservatives will enjoy it, Liberals will revile it. Perhaps I am wrong, but I doubt that this will shift the balance of public opinion significantly. The stats in this book appear fine, but there are deeper issues to sort out in trying to determine why people believe in different things and act different ways.

Want to be happy? Want to feel good about your place in the world? Want to make a positive difference?

Become conservative! Read this book to see why.

A well-documented book - as far as it goes. But Schweizer fails to address the fundamental cause & effect question: Does a person's "conservatism" result in social cohesion and contentment? Or does social cohesion and contentment result in conservatism?

For example, is it surprising to learn that those who identify with people who benefit from public programs are more likely to support such programs, while people who don't are less likely? In this respect, circumstance would appear to cause attitude, not vice versa. Well-designed attitudinal studies should control for such self-interested variables.

Similarly, when studying a person's willingness to call in sick, would it be important to control for variables such as the type of work, or the payment terms? And when studying the extent of a person's envy, would it make sense to control for variables regarding the person's life's circumstances?

Schweizer places much reliance on surveys that ask people to self-report their attitudes. These surveys identify statistically significant differences - but are these differences of behavior, or of self-awareness? If you've ever had to confront the fact that you lack the resources to care for a violent spouse with dementia, you might come to have a different attitude about statements regarding "obligations," as well as a different attitude about government programs. Any two people might express diametrically different views on an opinion survey, but might later engage in similar behavior when confronted with similar circumstances.

Even when dealing with data regarding behavior rather than opinion, the analysis is tricky. Schweizer notes that conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to charities - including charities that promote health, education, safety, marriage, etc. Yet the analysis focuses entirely on the giver, not the receiver. Schweizer makes no mention of data regarding where we find the best outcomes regarding health, education, safety, etc. These outcomes tend to be found in states with high PUBLIC per-capita spending on social programs, not high private giving per se. This prompts a fundamental question: Is the purpose of social spending to promote the welfare of the recipient, or to demonstrate the virtue of the giver?

Finally, much of the analysis - even if accurate - seems patently one-sided. Thus Schweizer reports on the percentage of people who acknowledge that they'd be willing to cheat government out of "welfare money," but offers no corresponding analysis of people's attitudes about cheating on tax returns, accepting farm subsidies and the like.

After reading the book, I'm left with the impression I had when I started: While there are many exceptions to the rule, in general people's circumstances drive their attitudes more than attitudes drive circumstances. So if I want to change people's attitude in the long run, I need to change their circumstances.