NEW CASTLE —
If Barack Obama wanted to insult the political right in America, he picked an unusual way to do it.
And I’m pretty sure his use of the term “social Darwinism” was a deliberate insult.
While such conduct doesn’t quite match the rhetoric of a man who pledged to restore civility to Washington upon taking office, it fits into the general scheme of things these days.
As this year’s political campaign unfolds, all manner of name calling is employed. We hear terms such as “socialist” and “radical” bandied about with ease. So why shouldn’t Obama pull out “thinly veiled social Darwinism” to describe Republican policies?
Well, I suppose one reason is because the term is a bit of a head scratcher for most Americans. People are probably familiar with Charles Darwin and his groundbreaking work on evolution. But what’s social Darwinism? Is an insult effective when the audience doesn’t get it?
It turns out, however, the term is ruffling the feathers of those whom Obama intended to target. Some are even claiming the president is calling them racist.
Specifically, Obama was referring to a GOP budget proposal and its focus on cutting programs that benefit the poor when he played the social Darwinism card. Technically, the term isn’t about racism, but it is about superiority — or at least the belief in superiority.
In the United States, the term social Darwinism appears to have been used first by political scientist Richard Hofstadter in a 1944 book that examined the political right in America. He cited assorted examples of people who took Darwin’s theories and tried to equate them to human social conditions. For instance, Darwin’s depiction of “survival of the fittest” was used to justify aggressive means of accumulating wealth and power. It was simply the way the world was intended to work.
It’s worth noting that Darwin was not a social Darwinist. He was too much a scientist for that. Instead, he limited his findings to nature and biology. (His term “survival of the fittest,” by the way, referred to the ability of species to reproduce themselves in sufficient quantities to ensure future generations.)
But social Darwinists twisted evolutionary science to rationalize social inequities. In a hard and cruel world, those individuals who are willing to act aggressively to achieve success will outpace those who merely muddle through. And in such a world, social Darwinists would argue, sharing the wealth is, well, contrary to nature.
Obviously, there is a fair amount of truth to the notion that some people are more driven to accomplish certain things than others. How much of that is genetic and how much is psychological can be a matter of opinion. Also open to debate is what, exactly, constitutes success. And then there’s the matter of what responsibility should we have for one another in a supposedly civilized society.
These are deep philosophical matters. But they have nothing to do with Washington’s name-calling exercises. A big part of that game is employing different derogatory terms to see which ones stick in the public psyche.
Will social Darwinism achieve its goal? It’s too early to tell if it will resonate with the American people. But at least Obama got under the skin of some conservatives, so I’m guessing it has legs.
Mitchel Olszak
Related Photos
-
Mitchel Olszak, Dear Reader
Discussion
Mitchel Olszak: Is ‘social Darwinism’ a new species of insult?
- Mitchel Olszak
-
-
Mitchel Olszak: Toomey takes a chance on guns
How does a conservative Republican senator representing a state with a Democratic majority protect himself politically? One way is to take positions that tend to straddle the nation’s ideological fence.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Terrorists strive to create fear
The finish line of a road race serves as the division between one world and another. Ahead of the finish line, there is structure and discipline, with attention paid to the runners as they cross over. Spectators are kept back, mainly to avoid interfering with the participants — and perhaps to keep them from being trampled.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Kelly, allies battle arms treaty
Supporters of the right to bear arms have a champion in Congressman Mike Kelly. The federal lawmaker, whose district includes most of Lawrence County, has been making waves with his criticism of the Obama administration and its support for the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.
-
Mitchel Olszak: I like beer, so I’m watching our state closely
I like beer. More to the point, I like good beer. In my younger days, just about any swill would do. But with the passage of time, sophistication and exposure to the possibilities, my interests in beer have sharpened and matured.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Political lessons from distant past hold value today
If you want to gain an appreciation for great thinkers, read some of history’s major political philosophies. Here you will find the works of Plato, Machiavelli, Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, St. Augustine and many others. They explored difficult social issues and offered serious insight.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Do the emotional centers of the brain guide our politics?
People who hold specific political points of view like to think their positions are based on serious analysis. They view their given ideologies as careful conclusions reached through assessing the world around them and examining how things work. Thus, liberals and conservatives both manage to claim the intellectual and ethical high ground.
-
Mitchel Olszak: Will GOP survive current divisions?
Somebody asked me the other day if I thought the Republican Party was about to split apart. I said no. It was an assessment based on history. Creating a new political party in America is a challenging process. They occasionally crop up, but they don’t last.
-
Mitchel Olszak: History as a matter of chance
History is full of pivotal moments. What if Socrates had decided against drinking that hemlock? What if Gutenberg hadn’t developed his printing press? What if Washington’s army failed to survive the winter at Valley Forge? What if Edison gave up on inventing the light bulb?
-
Mitchel Olszak: Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be fooled by electoral hijinks
Back in the 2000 presidential election, Americans received a civics lesson of sorts. Much of it involved obscure terms such as hanging and dimpled chads, as well as butterfly ballots. All of this, of course, came courtesy of Florida, whose clumsy election efforts produced an extended period of uncertainty in the presidential contest between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
-
Mitchel Olszak: CBS practices censorship to protect its interests
When it comes to integrity in the field of broadcasting, few can challenge the standing of CBS. Since the days of radio, this organization has stood out in its commitment to tough-minded, serious journalism. From Edward R. Murrow to Walter Cronkite to the current crop of reporters on “60 Minutes,” CBS has built a reputation no entity can match.
- More Mitchel Olszak Headlines
-
