- 3 mins
The phrase “pull yourself up by the bootstraps” is a favorite among some social conservatives. The message is simple: work harder, make better choices, and you’ll escape poverty. It suggests that success is purely a matter of individual effort, with little room for excuses or systemic barriers.
What confuses me, though, is how some of these same individuals regularly donate to charity—whether during the holidays or as part of their weekly church routine. Isn’t this inconsistent with the bootstraps philosophy? If people are supposed to work their way out of hardship, why offer financial support at all?
This tension raises questions about the reasoning behind charitable giving among social conservatives. Let’s break down some of the most common justifications:
1. Government Handouts Are Ineffective, So I’ll Give to Charity
Some argue that government welfare programs are inefficient or wasteful, preferring to donate to charities where they have more control over how their money is spent. While this might seem logical, it doesn’t escape the fact that they’re still providing a “handout”—just through a different channel.
Charities, like government programs, are subject to overhead costs and operational inefficiencies. What makes a private handout more acceptable than a public one? Is it just the sense of personal control? If the issue is with the principle of assistance itself, shouldn’t both forms of aid be equally objectionable?
2. It’s Not a Handout, It’s a Hand-Up
Another common justification is that charitable giving isn’t about creating dependency but offering temporary relief—a “hand-up” rather than a handout. But this feels like a game of semantics. Where is the line drawn between temporary and long-term assistance?
For instance, when the government provides child benefit payments or EI, these are often temporary measures. So why is it acceptable for a church donation to help someone in need but unacceptable for public funds to do the same? It starts to feel less like a consistent principle and more like a way to maintain control over who gets to suffer and who gets a reprieve.
3. It’s a Moral Obligation
Some social conservatives frame charitable giving as a personal or religious duty. This perspective is fascinating because it introduces a moral dimension that seems to override their broader social beliefs.
If personal responsibility is paramount, and people should live with the consequences of their choices, why does morality suddenly demand intervention? Does the existence of a higher moral obligation create an unacknowledged contradiction? It’s almost as if there’s a gap in empathy—an ability to say, “Socially, I don’t think you deserve help, but morally, I feel compelled to offer it anyway.”
4. A Desire to Feel Virtuous
For some, charitable giving seems less about helping others and more about boosting their own sense of virtue. It’s a way to signal morality, whether to themselves or others—a performative act to enhance their social status or affirm their identity as a “good person.”
This approach often feels hollow. It reduces compassion to a switch that gets flipped on and off for convenience, turning generosity into little more than a performative gesture rather than a genuine commitment to addressing the root causes of poverty.
Donating inherently acknowledges that recipients need help. Among social conservatives, some donate for the social status boost—wanting their name on a plaque or in the credits of a theatre play—while others grapple with cognitive dissonance. They preach personal responsibility but feel compelled to help others, compartmentalizing their beliefs to justify their actions.
I’m not against donations. The more, the better. But it’s worth reflecting on the deeper truth: inequity isn’t caused by a lack of personal responsibility. Accepting this would lead to smarter investments in early interventions.
This is why I believe you can’t support both conservatism and fiscal responsibility. Letting poverty persist costs far more than addressing it early. In public health, every dollar invested yields a $46 return. Even if you disregard human dignity, the math alone justifies intervention.
Unfortunately, identity politics and opposition to “woke culture” have overshadowed facts, allowing ideology to perpetuate cycles of poverty and inequity.
