“Generosity is not just how much you give, but how much you give in relation to how much you have.”

So goes one of the slogans of the Catalogue for Philanthropy, a non-profit group dedicated to promoting the awareness of and respect for charitable giving. Each year, the organization calculates “The Generosity Index” – an analysis of income-tax returns to determine which state residents donate the highest percentage of their annual income to charity. This year’s Index, using data from 2002, has interesting implications regarding our recent presidential election; A direct correlation can be observed between the margin by which a state went for President Bush and the average amount donated to charity by its residents.

If the 50 states are ranked in order of their average contribution to charity, the top 25 states all went for President Bush on Election Day (ranked 26 is New York). Furthermore, the bottom nine states all went to Sen. John Kerry. The average red-state resident gave 9.25 percent of his or her income to charity, while the average blue-stater donated just 6.2 percent. Based on these statistics, one might say there is indeed a much-talked-about gap in “moral values” between the red and blue states.

To be sure, one should not read too deeply into these figures. There are plenty of unknowns that might affect the interpretation of these statistics: What about charitable donations in the form of time? What about the possibility of unequal income distribution in the blue states (i.e. what if the blue states also have significant populations living below the poverty line)? Even with concerns like these aside, the statistics raise some interesting questions as to how to best fix social issues. In addition, they do little to assuage the stereotype of the liberal who only is generous with other peoples’ money, as exemplified by people such as Al Gore (who donated $353 of the $200,000 he earned in 1998) or Hillary Clinton (who claimed tax deductions of $2 for each pair of Bill’s used underwear that she donated).

Liberals typically believe the best cure to solving social problems – be they economic, educational, occupational, or health-oriented – is using the strength and mandate of government. Yet the recent election makes clear that in our democratic system, this ideal will not be so. Social problems still will exist, and it’s evident that for now, government will play little in fixing them. Indeed, judging by the small-government rhetoric that has dominated U.S. politics for two decades, the public is growing weary of expensive programs that started as cures to social ills but grew into perpetual Ponzi schemes.

All is not lost, however. As a blue-state resident who hasn’t donated much to charity, seeing the above statistics drove home a point I’ve long known subconsciously to be true: It’s up to us to make the world a better place. Just because an idea for social welfare wasn’t adopted by our republic doesn’t mean we’re no longer obligated to do our part to improve the country.

Don’t give up because Illinois’s choice for president wasn’t elected. If taxes are too low because government isn’t doing enough, then give the money yourself: Take your tax-refund check and donate it to an important cause. If you have spare time, volunteer for a service organization. If you don’t have any time, because you’re busy with school and work, then donate money to give other people the resources to do good deeds. The bottom line is: walk the walk. If you believe that help should be provided by the generosity of strangers, then make it happen.

Everyone agrees on the righteousness of charity. Why must there be a red-blue divide on an issue we all agree upon?

David Johnson is a senior in business. His column runs Thursdays. He can be reached at [email protected].