Social Darwinism is a philosophy that has been popular among the 1% since its beginnings in the 19th century. Today, most in the 1% deny it, because they prefer not to be associated with where it can lead and has led, but it is easy to identify in their day-to-day activities and attitudes. Robert Reich has written a fascinating piece on how Mitt Romney represents this view.
…We’ve entered a new Gilded Age, of which Mitt Romney is the perfect reflection. The original Gilded Age was a time of buoyant rich men with flashy white teeth, raging wealth and a measured disdain for anyone lacking those attributes, which was just about everyone else. Romney looks and acts the part perfectly, offhandedly challenging a GOP primary opponent to a $10,000 bet and referring to his wife’s several Cadillacs. Four years ago he paid $12 million for his fourth home, a 3,000-square-foot villa in La Jolla, California, with vaulted ceilings, five bathrooms, a pool, a Jacuzzi and unobstructed views of the Pacific. Romney has filed plans to tear it down and replace it with a home four times bigger.
We’ve had wealthy presidents before, but they have been traitors to their class—Teddy Roosevelt storming against the “malefactors of great wealth” and busting up the trusts, Franklin Roosevelt railing against the “economic royalists” and raising their taxes, John F. Kennedy appealing to the conscience of the nation to conquer poverty. Romney is the opposite: he wants to do everything he can to make the superwealthy even wealthier and the poor even poorer, and he justifies it all with a thinly veiled social Darwinism.
Not incidentally, social Darwinism was also the reigning philosophy of the original Gilded Age, propounded in America more than a century ago by William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, who twisted Charles Darwin’s insights into a theory to justify the brazen inequality of that era: survival of the fittest. Romney uses the same logic when he accuses President Obama of creating an “entitlement society” simply because millions of desperate Americans have been forced to accept food stamps and unemployment insurance, or when he opines that government should not help distressed homeowners but instead let the market “hit the bottom,” or enthuses over a House Republican budget that would cut $3.3 trillion from low-income programs over the next decade. It’s survival of the fittest all over again. Sumner, too, warned against handouts to people he termed “negligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent.”
When Romney simultaneously proposes to cut the taxes of households earning over $1 million by an average of $295,874 a year (according to an analysis of his proposals by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center) because the rich are, allegedly, “job creators,” he mimics Sumner’s view that “millionaires are a product of natural selection, acting on the whole body of men to pick out those who can meet the requirement of certain work to be done.” In truth, the whole of Republican trickle-down economics is nothing but repotted social Darwinism… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Christian Science Monitor>
I have plucked a very small excerpt from the midst of a very large article, one so profound and so important that you owe it to yourself to click through and read it in its entirety.
To provide perspective, here is some more information on Sumner Social Darwinism.
According to Social Darwinism the sole objective of a race is its physical, economic and political development. Individuals’ happiness, well-being, peace and security appear unimportant. No compassion at all is felt for those who suffer and cry out for help, for those unable to provide their children, families and aged parents food, medicine or shelter, or for the poor and powerless. According to this twisted concept, someone poor but morally upright is regarded as worthless, and that person’s death will actually benefit society. In addition, someone rich but morally corrupt is regarded as “most important" for the “progress of the race" and, no matter what the conditions, that individual is seen as very valuable. This twisted logic propels Social Darwinism’s proponents towards moral and spiritual collapse. In 1879, another Social Darwinist, William Graham Sumner, expressed this perverted trend’s deceptions:
… we cannot go outside of this alternative: liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; non-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.
The most savage adherents of Social Darwinism were racists, the most dangerous, of course, being the Nazi ideologists and their leader, Adolf Hitler… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <AntiDarwinism.com>
Now, I’m not saying that Romney is about to open concentration camps or exterminate minorities, nor do I believe that such is his intent. However, what allows him to pander to the extreme hatemongers, who would love to establish a Nazi-like regime here in the US, is that the only difference between their philosophy and his is a matter of degree. Romney will never care about the 99%, because he considers us inferior.
19 Responses to “Romney and Social Darwinism”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
" In truth, the whole of Republican trickle-down economics is nothing but repotted social Darwinism…"
I want to see his tax returns for the last 30 years….
Me too!
I wanted to get a better feel for Social Darwinism so I clarified my thoughts by reading about Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. From Wikipedia:
“He established that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors, and proposed the scientific theory that this branching pattern of evolution resulted from a process that he called natural selection.”
Upon reading this one sentence, I was thoroughly amused that this Republican/Teabagger’s philosophy was actually based on science and evolution, quite contrary to many of the fanatical evangelical Christians that make up the party who think natural science (ie climate change etc) is bunk and that God created the world, period, (dominionists) no evolution.
So, as Robert Reich writes “…William Graham Sumner, a professor of political and social science at Yale, who twisted Charles Darwin’s insights into a theory to justify the brazen inequality of that era: survival of the fittest. … It’s survival of the fittest all over again.”
And these “fittest” (in their own minds only) have put in place “…a system that has turned much of the economy into a betting parlor [casino capitalism] that nearly imploded in 2008, destroying millions of jobs and devastating household incomes. The winners in this system are top Wall Street executives and traders, private-equity managers and hedge-fund moguls, and the losers are most of the rest of us. …” The system is largely responsible for the greatest concentration of the nation’s income and wealth at the very top since the Gilded Age of the nineteenth century, with the richest 400 Americans owning as much as the bottom 150 million put together. And these multimillionaires and billionaires are now actively buying the 2012 election—and with it, American democracy.”
These “fittest” include the Kock brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Foster “Aspirin between the knees” Friess, Rmoney of course and many more — you know, the dudes and dudettes of money and power. And that they want more money, more power is quite obvious and they will take power away from the 99% with their money. They want a plutocracy which by its very definition is exclusive of democracy.
As I recall, this was the same problem that felled Rome — wealth and power concentrated in just a few hands until the excesses rotted Rome from the inside out.
A few random thoughts:
Rmoney and the rest of the Republican/Teabaggers are a prime example of Darwinism run amuck!
When I first saw this picture of Rmoney with his mouth open, I immediately thought of the line from Avatar, the movie — "Shut your pie-hole!"
And what’s with Rmoney wearing the Confederate flag in his lapel? If that isn’t seditious, then it should be! Or is that 'free speech'?
Romney and his ilk add a whole new dimension to the term "obscenely wealthy." With a few notable exceptions (most of the Kennedys, for example) there aren't many who can equal the spoiled, entitled offspring of the very rich for casual, unthinking cruelty and a callous indifference to the condition of any they consider their social and/or economic inferiors.
Your example of the ancient Roman empire rotting from within is well taken. I would add that another contributing factor to Rome's decline was military adventurism – they did, after all, have the finest military machine of their time. I also offer for your consideration, the social stratification that led to the French Revolution
John, absolutely agree with Roman militarism — after all, that was their prime means of making the world Roman, whether the world wanted it or not. It was an arrogance very much in keeping with social Darwinism even though that philosophy was yet unknown. And that is also part of the reason for the collapse because the military was so far a field, spread thinly, that it did not easily maintain its connection with the political Rome. This attitude also pervades the Republican/Teabagger thought on a strong military able to go in and take what the US wants AND, quiet things on the home front, even thought, right now, the military is precluded from acting on US soil. I remember reading some articles on Rmoney many months ago now, where he openly said that he sees the world as his oyster (my words), and I commented at the time that this was Manifest destiny, and very scary in my book. Imperial US, as Imperial Rome!
Absolutely French society was stratified, so much so that it led to the French Revolution. Just look at Marie Antoinette's arrogant attitude as she was led to the guillotine — "Let them eat cake!" Interesting too is how this was around the same time as the American Revolution. There were reactions in many quarters to the stratification of societies and the economic inequalities of the "nobility" and the ordinary citizens. I definitely see a modern Republican/Teabagger US in this light. I just wonder what form this "new revolution" will take? And, with the global economies etc, how far afield will the revolution spread? As a result of the French Revolution, the motto Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité was born and Françoise Hollande is trying to return to those ideals after too much Sarkozy.
Lynn, Roman military history has long been a hobby of mine. The parallels between the evolution of the Roman legions and the contemporary American military are so close as to be frightening. Originally, the legions were composed entirely of Roman citizens, then service in the legions became a path to citizenship for non-Romans and freed slaves. Service with the legions was also considered essential for political advancement. The political posts were usually purchased, either outright or through influence and connections, and offered little risk of actual combat (sound familiar?) As the territories controlled by Rome expanded, more and more non-Romans were incorporated into the legions, either as conscripted auxiliaries or as mercenaries. Towards the end of the Republic it was axiomatic that "he who controls the legions controls Rome" It was the increased dependence on mercenaries (think Blackwater, et. al.) that signified the beginning of the end. The legions were still a formidable force, but they were now more a political tool than an instrument of defense, and the loyalty of the legionaries was more to their commanders than to Rome itself. What the commanders were loyal to was dependent on their wealth, personal ambitions and political affiliations. I'd say that the current conservative rush to privatize everything in sight is a pretty good indication of the direction things will take if they aren't stopped.
As for how far the revolution will spread, my guess is we are entering a period of global unrest that may become the modern-day equivalent of the Dark Ages. I hope I'm wrong.
John, if Roman military history etc is your hobby, do you read historical fiction at all? There is an excellent series of books by a Canadian Scot named Jack Whyte which are rich in story and history. Of course some leeway is taken but . . . You have to read them in order because there are things that follow from one book to the next. The scene is Roman Britain starting not too long before the Romans left Britain. Here are the names in order:The Skystone; The Singing Sword; The Eagles' Brood; The Saxon Shore;The Sorcerer Vol 1 The Fort at River's Bend; The Sorcerer Vol 2 Metamorphisis; Uther; Clothar the Frank; The Eagle. He also wrote The Templar Trilogy and Forest Laird (which is the story of William Wallace). All very good books in my mind. Although long (650-900 pages), I found that they were compelling reads and went quickly.
Lynn, I'm pretty much an omnivorous reader, but I'm not familiar with Jack Whyte's work, so thanks for the recommendation. I see that most of the books you mention are available from Amazon, so I will be making his acquaintance very soon. One of my favorite writers of military fiction is David Drake. His home genre is science fiction, but he wanders all over the map for settings from Imperial Rome to the far reaches of unknown galaxies. His writing is a bit inconsistent – when he's good, he's very, very good, but he's published a few turkeys along the way. You might enjoy some of his work.
Thanks again for the information, I always like to find a new author.
When it comes to Roman military history, all I have to say is. Gallia est divisa en partes tres."
Urk! That brings back horrific memories of 9th grade Latin class.
My teacher was perceptive enough to realize that while my language aptitude might leave much to be desired, I could be enticed into learning something about ancient Rome besides the language. She's the one that got me interested in military history.
Yep! Remember 9th grade Latin all too well! Marcus Aurelius . . . everything was about Marcus Aurelius. No military history, just a kid raising goats! That and a Latin teacher that popped jellybeans continuously and had the smelliest lunches in the cupboard. I swear they were rotting sardine sandwiches. He was 30ish and spent every lunch hour with the 60ish 4 ft 6 in female bundle of dynamite head of the classics dept.
LOL! It was my 7th grade Latin teacher that piqued my interest in military history as well!
John, you could also look at Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century. There was a great stratification of people and an arrogance by the nobility to the plight of the working and poor classes. The divide was so great that the Bolsheviks decided to change things. For the Russians, they centred on Marx and Engels philosophically. Darwin was formulating his theories about the same time as Marx and Engels, if I remember my dates correctly. Of course there are other factors in each situation but I guess you could say, 'timing is everything'.
Excellent analysis. I'd call it free speech.
About all I feel right now is fear. Fear for our country and the path it is following. I read about our current president having meetings every Tuesday to decide who will be killed by drones. Then I read about Romney and his total disregard for anyone who isn't a millionaire. Our congress is owned by huge corporations, their decisions are made on the basis of the needs of the wealthy, they are intent on doing away with any program that helps anyone who is poor or middle class. This is not the country I grew up in and have always been proud of, and I wonder what course we will take.
I understand your fear. I replaced mine with determination to stop it.
Evidence of Teahadist Social Darwinists:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/tea-party-protesters-bera_n_504183.html
I so remember that vid! Thanks Angie!
I so totally agree with you, Angelica. Thanks for the link.
This just goes to show how cruelly judgemental, non thinking and totally without compassion these idiots are. Not that it should matter, but I wonder what they would say if they knew his background of a well educated, contributing member of society before being struck by parkinson's? I have a friend with parkinson's probably a little more advanced than Bob's. John had a wonderful tenor voice — we used to sing tenor together only he sang those beautiful higher notes that I could not — but all that is gone now. You bearly hear him, his voice trembles so, and it is hard to make out the words.
Here's to Bob, and all the other Bob's who dare to speak up, NO, who courageously speak up against barbarity, ignorance, and uncaring individuals.
It is said that a really good pot of tea is properly steeped. I'd say that this pot of InsaniTea has been steeped way too long! Time to break the InsaniTea teapot!