I return to the theme of 'do-gooders' as so many people signally fail to grasp that this term is heavily ironic. The Letters Pages seem filled with those who do not understand the concept and naively ask "Well, would we prefer to have do-badders then?" Personally, I would need to think very deeply about that one!Charles Dickens had an excellent overview of society. The Brownlows of his world are genuine, caring warm, risk-takers. They make a positive difference to the world they inhabit - a society which, as philanthropists, they manage to improve.
Contrast these sort of characters with the lady in Bleak House whose children are grievously neglected because of her obsession with poverty in a distant country. She is the do-gooder.
A do-gooder is customarily meddlesome, overweening, always right, simplistic. They will happily spend your money on their fixations. The trouble is, when they have finished, the situation either remains unchanged or may even have worsened.
Americans have begun to distinguish. They now refer to real do-gooders where somebody's actions actually produce a positive outcome.
LINKS: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/25/dogood.html
http://www.amazon.com/Do-Gooders-Liberals-Those-They-Claim/dp/1595230033
http://home.earthlink.net/~rdmadden/webdocs/When_Do-Gooders_Do_Bad.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16901
.jpeg)