The Molecule of More

THE MOLECULE OF MORE

These results don’t mean that conservatives care about the poor
more than liberals do. Instead, it may be that, like Albert Einstein, lib-
erals are more comfortable focusing on humanity rather than humans.
Liberals advocate for laws that provide assistance to the poor. Com-
pared to  charitable giving, legislation is  a  more hands-off approach to 
the  problem of poverty. This reflects our  often-observed difference in 
focus: dopaminergic people are more interested in action at a distance
and planning, while people with high H&N levels tend to focus on things
close at hand. In this case, the government acts as the agent of liberal
compassion and  also  serves as  a  buffer between the  benefactor and  the 
beneficiary. Resources for  the  poor are  provided by  bureaucracies that 
are funded collectively by millions of individual taxpayers.
Which is better: policy or charity? It depends on how you look at
it.  As  one  would expect, the  dopaminergic approach, policy, maximizes 
resources that  are  made available to  the  poor. Maximizing resources 
is what dopamine does best. In 2012, federal, state, and local govern-
ments spent about $1 trillion on antipoverty programs. That’s approx-
imately $20,000 for every poor person in America. Charitable giving,
on the other hand, was only $360 billion. The dopaminergic approach
provided almost three times as much money.
On the other hand, the value of help is more than dollars and
cents. The here-and-now emotional impact of impersonal government
assistance is  different from a  personal connection with a  church or 
charity. Charity is  more flexible than law,  so  it’s  better able  to  focus on 
the  unique needs of real  individuals as  opposed to  abstractly defined 
groups. People who work for private charities typically come in close
contact with the people they help, often actual physical contact. This
intimate relationship allows them to get to know the people they help,
and  individualize the  assistance that’s provided. In  this  way, material 
resources can be augmented with emotional support, such as helping
the able-bodied move toward employment or, more generally, show-
ing the underserved that another person really does care about them
as individuals. Many charities stress personal responsibility and good
character as  the  most effective combatants of poverty. This approach