Maybe the phrase, "social Darwinism," has been around awhile, but President Obama put it in the mainstream with his recent depiction of Paul Ryan's budget proposal as "social Darwinism." Mr. Obama's choice of words most likely came from focus groups as everything is political in his universe.
He probably aimed it at two groups. The first target would be any social conservatives who believe that Charles Darwin's concept of natural selection and evolutionary development is contrary to the theory that a supreme being created mankind. So attaching Darwin's name to anything might rub some negativity onto it.
The other group would be those people who believe that it takes inherent skills to compete at the higher economic levels in a free market system. They lack those skills, and they believe, rightly or wrongly, that those skills couldn't have been developed but must have been inherent. And the result is an unfair distribution of everything humans desire -- wealth, fame, success with the opposite sex (or the same sex, not that there's anything wrong with that). And fairness can result only from a strong government willing to take from the haves and give to the have nots.
But that's an outdated application of Darwinism. The 21st century definition of "social Darwinism" would have to pertain to the social networks that have become so popular. Natural selection would pertain to "friend" or "like." So someone advanced on the social evolutionary scale would be very well liked and have lots of Facebook friends. But that wouldn't be fair. A fair system would have everyone liked and friended at an equal level. A strong government would make that happen.
Mr. Obama's social worth has declined precipitously since the Obama golden days of 2008. Therefore, it shouldn't come as a surprise that he's focused on the downside of natural selection.
Comments