Ideas spread like viruses, and are often as hard to kill. But some ideas have been tainted by historical events, and though not dead, are not discussed openly. One such idea is what came to be known as Social Darwinism. It’s a combination of ideas of social progress and laissez-faire economics that proscribes a minimal role for government in our lives. It goes something like this: For government to interfere in the natural order of things is harmful, as people less able to survive in the natural market place are allowed to survive anyway, thus weakening the human strain.
The root of modern manifestations of what we call “conservatism” is nothing more than this – the conversion (and perversion) of Darwin’s theory of natural selection to the political economy. We don’t say so openly – Social Darwinism has led to all sorts of tragedies, such as genocide, and not too long ago, the idea that an inferior race of people ought to be eliminated.
That’s why Social Darwinism is tainted, why it is no longer discussed in polite circles, why mentioning it in the context of modern conservatism is a social faux pas.
But scratch the surface and you’ll see the infection. It’s there – it expresses itself in fears that our society is being taken over by lesser mortals. It can be fear of people who depend on government assistance, or of illegal immigrants.
The original progenitor of Social Darwinism was Herbert Spencer, who lived during our Gilded Age, a time when the cream was rising. He invented the phrase “survival of the fittest,” rather than Darwin. He originally fostered the idea that government can only preserve the less fit at the expense of the more fit.
It’s an idea, a meme, and it’s hard to kill. It is, in my view, at the center of the conflict between libertarians, conservatives, liberals and progressives.
What alternative do we offer over here on the left? It’s simply a different world view. We are, by nature, nurturers. We see undeveloped potential in all people, and view modest government interference in the natural order as a means of fostering our well being, of unleashing human potential. We take ordinary people of modest means, and if necessary, give them food and shelter. But more importantly, we educate them, and then they educate others, and before you know it, you have a self-sustaining group.
Admittedly, there are among us people who can only be fed, but not nurtured. There are those who respond to nurturing with dependence. They are, fortunately, a small minority. Our social experiment is bound to fail with this in a small segment of the population. But this small group stigmatizes the great lot of people who need only education and opportunity to make a go of it. Ronald Reagan had them driving Cadillacs and collecting multiple welfare checks. For the excesses of a few, many millions suffer.
So there it is – on one side are Social Darwinists intent on preserving the fittest, on the other nurturers who want to see all of us advance. I cast my lot with the latter, but admit that any idea can be taken to extremes. Such an extreme of the right became Nazism, of the left, Bolshevism. Both unleashed frightening destructive powers.
Piece of Mindful 
Um… no.
I won’t try to speak for all conservatives, but I’ll gladly speak for myself (and I consider myself conservative).
The debate, as you frame it, sets up the traditional straw-man attack against conservative: Liberals want to help the poor, conservatives don’t. Liberals want to help children, conservatives don’t. Liberals like happiness, conservatives don’t. To see this meme repeated, look no further than Democrat press releases.
Unfortunately, in reality, it’s not this simple. You are correct to say that there is a different frame of mind, but you are wrong in your identification of it.
As a conservative, I share many of the same goals as a liberal; where I differ radically is what I think is the best vehicle to solve these problems. Where liberals tend to support centralized government solutions that effectively redistribute wealth from rich to poor, conservatives tend to prefer free-market solutions that create new wealth. Where as liberals tend to see the economy as zero-sum (the wealthy have money at the expense of the poor), conservatives tend to see it as a means for universal upward mobility.
So your premise, that I am conservative because I want to abandon Darwin’s orphans really doesn’t speak to my motives at all.
LikeLike
Interesting … pretty good rebuttal.
I see many of those who benefit most from what you call a (?)free (?) market to be those currently advantaged due to wealth of prior generations or living in families that engender higher expectations. I simply want to extend higher expectations to the disadvantaged. Government is a good vehicle to do that. I do not wish to disadvantage creative and energetic people.
The idea that you know how to create wealth, we don’t, is a fallacy. All wealth is a product of creativity and labor. Those who collect income by means of receipt of interest, dividends and capital gains are not creating anything – they are harvesting.
Take as a showcase example Mr. Bush himself – an ordinary guy, below average student, who got the best possible placement and enjoyed enormous advantages due to nothing he personally did. Is he a wealth creator? Or is he merely advantaged?
I believe in expanded advantage. I do think that Social Darwinism is part of the equation, and that you too have created a straw man.
LikeLike
You actually hit the nail on the head, although I’m not sure you meant to. I’m not saying that liberals don’t understand the wealth creation solutions; just that they don’t prefer it.
This is because – as evidenced above – liberals tend to gage economic improvement on a relative scale being more interested with wealth gaps. Using growth might yield an economic benefit of $10 for one person and only $1 for another person, which in the liberal mindset is a negative result, while the conservative sees *real* improvement for both parties and is less concerned with the fact that such growth is not split equally among all parties. Why should the recipient of $1 care that someone else got $10? Both are better off than they were if they had nothing and the wealthy person getting more does not hurt the poor person in any way.
Conservative also believe strongly in market mobility – that through hard work and brains the recipient of $1 can work their way up in to a place where they get $2 next time, and then $5 and finally $10. That process takes time though and using government to circumvent that time is actually counterproductive because it stymies the spirit of the entrepreneur.
You did completely miss the boat on your understanding of capitol gains, interest and dividends – probably because your applying the Marxist critique of capitalism which attempts to tie money exclusively to a product that has some utility (if I’m not mistaken, Marx calls it fetishism). In reality, capitol gains, interest and dividends result from providing capital for the creation of a product or service. The money is not idol, but leveraged by a third party for economic gain. Without said capital, the creation of the product or service would not be possible, so there is benefit to encouraging market investment.
LikeLike
The relative scale I totally get- no need to explain there. What we try to ameliorate are the huge discrepancies between haves and have nots, noticeable especially since 1980. Advantage accumulates exponentially. Left to its own, the market will yield huge rewards for some, moderate for most, and nothing for others. You end up with this yawning gap between rich and poor that you see in Latin and Central America. You seem to be saying that if the market does it, it is just. I say that we are free to interfere and reset the market by means of progressive taxation, labor unions, etc … and that we have a better society becuase of it. It’s called a middle class – it’s the thing that is right now, as we speak, disappearing due to the dominance of conservative ideals.
And it’s fine to beleive that Joe will make $1 now, $2 later, then $5, then $10 – what you don’t address is the fact that it is not happening. Hasn’t been in some time now – the poor are getting poorer, wokring and middle classes are not advancing. If you like it so much, and it doesn’t happen, what do you do?
I think I understand the nature of interest, dividends, capital gains and royalties and the like pretty fairly well. And I’m not against payment based on ownership. But capital appreciation doesn’t happen without accumulation of wealth that happens only due to creativity and labor. Capital by itself produces nothing. If you don’t believe that, take a stack of $100 bills and go live in the woods for a while, and see how you survive. They’re not good for much more than a fire.
We need a fair split of income between labor and capital, and we need to eliminate the disparity of taxation between the two, where capital is now taxed at moderate rates (15% maximum on CG’s and Divs). whereas labor is taxed twice at rates of 14%, 29%, 39%, etc. Tax all income alike (and progressively) for equality sake – dividends, capital gains, wages all paying the same. Who could object to that simple fairness?
LikeLike
I’ve enjoyed this conversation so far; thank you for being civil!
On the first point about the wealth gap: This is certainly a problem where there is external structural support for the maintenance of this economic disparity beyond the economic condition itself. In the United States, there are very few such barriers (one of the most significant barriers, ironically, is the tax code which penalizes new wealth as much as old and more powerfully neuters young inheritance than old).
That leads me to your second point about the poor getting poorer. This is just flat false. They may have less compared with the most wealthy, but in real terms the poor are much better off today than they were 10 years ago. This once again goes to the measure of progress – you make it relative where I am talking real dollars. Remember, we have significantly increased the “base standard of living” so that a poor family now has cable tv, a car and a job. The “poor” in America are – ironically – also among the most overweight from overeating. My point is, if you want to see real poverty, go to Niger or India.
The notion of disappearing middle class is also a fallacy, both in reality and in perception. Defining “middle class” is of course a moving target depending on if you are providing benefits (it’s wide) or increasing taxes (it’s small). But fully 95% of Americans consider themselves to be middle class (I’ll try to find that survey). I’d be interested to see what income level you consider to be middle class.
Finally, on your concern with taxing money-markets dollars at the same rate as wages. In theory that sounds great, but in practice, what you end up doing is altering the opportunity cost decisions of the capital holders so that it becomes less attractive to invest – to provide their capital – than it does to consume. All investment decisions are based on an opportunity cost: instead of spending the money on investment X, I’ll spend it on investment Y because of the rate of return. When a higher tax rate is implemented on that rate of return, it alters the attractiveness of that investment. That, in turn, favors economic stagnation (stability) at the expense of innovation (risk)and costs jobs and American competitiveness.
LikeLike
I have also enjoyed the opportunity to listen in on this conversation. Thank you both.
LikeLike
You seem surprised that I am civil. I am surprised that you are surprised. I must be missing some undercurrent.
There are barriers to crossing the bridge to financial security in this country – they are 1) low wages, 2) health care costs, and 3) tax structure that punishes wage income. Conservatives offer no solution to any of these three problems. Your saying that the opportunity simply exists is almost existential. You gone from one to ten without counting.
Weight problems among the poor has to do with carbohydrates and fat being offered for cheap. Wish it weren’t so – I wish WalMart was not such a depressing experience. Your point that the poor aren’t so poor as they were ten years ago – I doubt that to be true, but I can’t win that point – only abstain. You’ve offered nothing specific to vouch your point, I offer nothing specific except the fact that real wages have declined in this country since the 1970’s. If you’re saying that less money buys more necessities, I think it is more likely the case that there are more people working worse jobs per household that is floating the boat. But I don’t know.
On the middle class, once again, real wages in decline have been since the 1970’s. Women in the work force, child care costs, high debt levels … I’d say you’re not really in touch with that situation. My Dad worked, my mom stayed at home, they owned their home, had health insurance – they didn’t save as they should have (Thank God For Social Security) – but their lives were better than people today who are stressed, in debt, heavily taxed and lacking basic health care. The middle may have shifted – more likely, it is simply beyond reach. There’s a lot of people living a middle class life style, but they are doing it on credit.
Most working class people think they are middle class. That’s a grand illusion.
Your attitude about taxation speaks of trickle down – you seem to think that investors are providing the feed that keeps the cow alive. We could not be farther apart. Labor and creativity are the great engines that drive this economy – the function of investors is merely one of allocation decisions. The idea that they are somehow above us and therefore exempt from the taxes we have to pay is a complete disconnect. Their income, in healthier times, was called “passive” and was taxed at higher rates than wages (that changed under Jimmy Carter), and we did not hurt for it. The idea that investment income is some sacred cow that needs protection is one of the great self-serving myths of all times.
LikeLike
We can go back and forth all day on the state of poverty in the country but I don’t think we need to. We both agree that people should be able to overcome poverty – and as I originally stated we disagree on the best way to accomplish that goal.
My intention wasn’t to settle this fundamental disagreement. I’m not sure that it can be settled because more and more I’m thinking that conservatives and liberals don’t share a common frame of reference from which arguments can be derived.
My intention was to challenge your original thesis suggesting that conservatism is based on social Darwinism as an oversimplification at best and a partisan slander at worst. If your readers follow the comments, I hope they will see my point demonstrated performatively.
Regarding civility, I had no expectation that you would be uncivil (although I’ll admit I do have that expectation on many lefty sites I frequent). Instead, I merely meant to comment on the civility in order to show appreciation. Any bumbling idiot could have understood that’s what I meant. Kidding. 🙂
LikeLike
It’s been fun, and well done. You made your points very well.
LikeLike
Geez- a civil arguement of points with facts and no anger or name calling? This is something I look for and seldom find. I wish it weren’t so rare.
LikeLike