Those who deploy the charge are, first, falsely implying that Republicans support radically smaller government, which neither Ryan’s budget nor any other Republican plan actually proposes. And second, they are accusing both Republicans and actual supporters of free markets of believing in “the survival of the fittest” and, as Wikipedia puts it, “the ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism, fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.” “Social Darwinism” is nothing more than a nasty smear.
Eugenics was a big idea in the early 20th century. It was very popular with people like Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and others on the left side of the political spectrum.
As with “neo-con” and “trickle-down” economics, use of the term “Social Darwinism” is like a sign atop the user’s head, with a downward pointing arrow and the words “NO REAL THINKING GOING ON IN HERE.”
I’d like to hear President Obama explain how “social justice” is a more desirable thing than justice alone, like “social welfare” is better than just “welfare” and “social services” are more important than just “services” — but somehow “social Darwinism” is worse than simple Darwinism. I mean, Darwinism is about how organisms adapt and change and survive trouble, right? That’s a good thing, right? And so if “Social ‘X’ ” is generally an even better thing than ” (unmodified) ‘X’ “, then “Social Darwinism” is about how societies learn and adapt and change and grow and survive and thrive ….
Exactly why is that bad, and why is it bad for Republicans to want such a process to work?
Unless the term is like “Nazi” and just means one’s opponents are evil and stupid…
Cato rediscovers the Overton Window.
Those who deploy the charge are, first, falsely implying that Republicans support radically smaller government, which neither Ryan’s budget nor any other Republican plan actually proposes. And second, they are accusing both Republicans and actual supporters of free markets of believing in “the survival of the fittest” and, as Wikipedia puts it, “the ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism, fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.” “Social Darwinism” is nothing more than a nasty smear.
Eugenics was a big idea in the early 20th century. It was very popular with people like Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) and others on the left side of the political spectrum.
As with “neo-con” and “trickle-down” economics, use of the term “Social Darwinism” is like a sign atop the user’s head, with a downward pointing arrow and the words “NO REAL THINKING GOING ON IN HERE.”
I’d like to hear President Obama explain how “social justice” is a more desirable thing than justice alone, like “social welfare” is better than just “welfare” and “social services” are more important than just “services” — but somehow “social Darwinism” is worse than simple Darwinism. I mean, Darwinism is about how organisms adapt and change and survive trouble, right? That’s a good thing, right? And so if “Social ‘X’ ” is generally an even better thing than ” (unmodified) ‘X’ “, then “Social Darwinism” is about how societies learn and adapt and change and grow and survive and thrive ….
Exactly why is that bad, and why is it bad for Republicans to want such a process to work?
Unless the term is like “Nazi” and just means one’s opponents are evil and stupid…