American
Politics: Is Social Darwinism Once Again Prevalent?
Charles Darwin
by Aaron Thomas
(email: ztat11@goldmail.etsu.edu)
for Advanced
Composition, East TN State U, December 2011
-About
the Author: Aaron Thomas is an English/History double-major undergraduate at East
Tennessee State University. He plans to
graduate this December (2011) and pursue a Master’s degree of History with a
primary focus on Gilded Age America.-
It’s a time of dramatic change in
America. “Progress,” is going ahead full
steam, with new inventions, political philosophies, and scientific advancements
abounding. Industrialization appears to
reinforce the benefits of capitalism as the United States first appears on the
world stage as a dominant force. Later
historians, however, exercising a nuanced perspective, notice some flaws in
this Gilded Age of American history (1877-1893 is the general consensus,
although these dates are flexible). The
disparity between rich and poor was phenomenal, as “robber barons”[1]
built massive empires by implementing both horizontal and vertical integration,[2]
often paying their employees the least amount possible. Laissez-faire dominated politics as speculation
ran rampant on Wall Street. (Sound familiar?) Regulation was so lax on businesses
that railroad employees routinely fell off trains without so much as an afterthought
to safety and the meatpacking industry allowed fingers to find their way into
processed meats.[3] It’s a time of great conservatism in our
nation, clearly displayed by the absence of almost any governmental regulation.
Social Darwinism:
a Brief Background
As the name suggests, Social Darwinism
is a theory based on Charles Darwin’s scientific findings in On the Origins of Species. Herbert Spencer, an English intellectual and
Social Darwinist, applied the study to economic life and actually coined the
phrase “survival of the fittest.” The theory
basically transplants the struggle of a species onto society, arguing that
social reforms are useless and only impede the natural process of life. Truly a conservative movement, the ideology
gained widespread vogue in the United States throughout 1870-1890. These years represent the height of Social
Darwinism, but in no way suggest the movement became completely stagnant after
1890. Only until the Great Depression
when the ill effects of un-regulation were felt and FDR’s presidency did the dogma
truly fall by the wayside.
Unsurprisingly, many of those who benefited the most from the status quo
greatly heralded Social Darwinism. John
D. Rockefeller told his Sunday school class:
The growth of a large business is merely
the survival of the fittest… It is merely the working-out of a law of nature
and a law of God.[4]
Not
only did those vastly successful in business support the validity of such a perception;
the individuals wanting to suppress radical movements (such as Populism, or
even worse, Socialism) used the theory, as Vincent De Santis, a respected
authority on the Gilded Age argues, “to give capitalism the backing of ‘science’.”[5] Ultimately, Social Darwinism created an
amalgamation of new thought[6]
not only in politics and economics, but also religion.
A vivid example of this new
philosophy impacting religious thought is presented by Russell Conwell, a
Baptist minister who founded Temple University. During the late 19th
century he is said to have given his “Acres of Diamonds” speech over 5,000
times, in which he famously exclaims, “There is not a poor person in the United
States who was not made poor by his own shortcomings.”[7] What is important to keep in mind, throughout
this discussion, is that Social Darwinism was not simply a benign
philosophy. The theory had a concrete
impact on governmental inaction and how society perceived the lower
classes. De Santis argues:
The new doctrine crippled reform
movements by justifying poverty and slums.
Poverty and slums were natural for the unfit who had not survived the
economic struggle; and any governmental effort to relieve poverty amounted to a
perversion of the natural law.[8]
Thus,
the proletariat of America was stigmatized as inferior and simply a
manifestation of a universal and natural law.
Social Darwinism and the Gilded Age in
general championed laissez-fare economic philosophy. They believed the government’s role in the
daily lives of citizens should be negligible and should honor free trade and
competition, often seen as core values of capitalism. This perception was heralded by many during
the time, especially those who benefitted from the system. As De Santis explains, Social Darwinism “justified
free competition and made successful businessmen[9]
feel that they themselves were the finest flower of evolution.”[10] Not only did Social Darwinism provide a
newfound legitimacy for free competition, but it also reinforced laissez-faire
principles. The capitalistic system was
seen as self-regulatory, rewarding the wise and laborious while punishing the
lazy and unintelligent. This perception
created an environment where the prevailing thought was that “the government
was not to interfere in the conduct of business or in personal matters.”[11] Thus, the time period is often viewed as one
of the most stagnant in terms of governmental action in United States history.
So widespread and accepted was Social
Darwinism that Yale, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins all maintained courses on
religion, biology, and social science that implemented the ideology into the
particular course.[12] William Graham Sumner, a Harvard sociologist,
held deep-seated Social Darwinist views.
He argued that “humans must stop ‘sentimentalists’ and allow unfit
people to die, or at the very least not reproduce.”[13] Such a pessimistic view of society and
distorted perception of the lower classes seems hard to fathom by many
today. Most 21st century
Americans would dismiss the theory as nothing more than an outdated explanation
of the world, an attempt to justify capitalism that simply went too far. As Americans we progress, learn from our
mistakes and try to avoid making the same ones twice.
Is Social
Darwinism Coming Back?
Roughly a hundred years later, are we
destined to fall into the pitfalls of Social Darwinism once again? The rhetoric thrown around by Republican
candidates this 2011 political season seems eerily reminiscent of the age that
turned a blind eye to the poor, neglected the lower classes as simply unfit for
the game of capitalism. Is it time to
regress so far? Certainly, many
politicians adhere to some aspects of Social Darwinism. Herman Cain proclaimed recently:
Don't blame Wall Street, don't blame the
big banks’, if you don't have a job and you are not rich, blame yourself![14]
This
statement exudes typical Social Darwinist philosophy, placing the blame of any
inadequacy in capitalism solely on the individual, negating any critique on the
system itself. It’s a view that places
the lower class as “deserving” of their plight, again, simply the working out
of a natural law. Cain echoes the
belief, quite clearly, of Russell Conwell (the Baptist minister), blaming the
poor as creating their individual situation by their own “shortcomings.”
Harboring a similar ideology is Michele
Bachmann, winner of the Iowa straw poll earlier this year. In 2005, at a Minnesota State Senate hearing
she said:
Literally, if we took away the minimum
wage—if conceivably it was gone—we could potentially virtually wipe out
unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever
level.[15]
This
statement unabashedly embraces the invisible free hand of the market, central
to any laudation of an ultra-conservative capitalistic viewpoint. Because Social Darwinists believe capitalism
facilitates the working out of a natural law the less regulation, the better. An
end to the minimum wage, for Bachmann, would allow those competent to succeed
while further suppressing the lower class. Such a principle strikes at the very core of
Social Darwinism dogma. Realistically, an
end to the minimum wage would plunge American economic society back to the
Gilded Age where unskilled laborers were at the mercy of their employer, often
earning deplorable wages.[16] Bachmann’s statement is clearly analogous
with Social Darwinism because she favors, at least at the time she gave this
particular statement, drastically extending the rights of businesses while
limiting those of the employee.
No discussion would be complete on
the corollaries between Social Darwinism and today’s political climate without
mentioning the political figure that is often praised as the founder of the
influential Tea Party movement, Ron Paul.
Recently, Paul has unveiled his plan to balance America’s staggering deficit,
proposing to cut 1 trillion dollars in governmental spending in one year. If elected president, Paul would achieve this
astronomical goal by entirely cutting the federal departments of Education,
Energy, Commerce, Interior, and Housing and Urban Development.[17] Such a radical alteration showcases how Paul
retains a similar ideology compared to the laissez-faire and Social Darwinist
beliefs that dominated the Gilded Age.
Paul desires an extremely weak central government that lacks many
regulatory powers, similar to America’s greatest un-regulation era where
consumers depended upon all-powerful monopolies for goods and low paying
jobs. Not only does Paul wish to create
a castrated central government, he emanates apathy for entitlement programs
(such as Welfare), giving him many of the essential characteristics of a true
Social Darwinist.[18]
Realistically, only time will tell
if the United States will once again warm up to Social Darwinism as a dominant
and acceptable ideology. What remains
unquestionable, however, is that the theory is becoming more acceptable in
American politics. Hopefully, today’s “survival
of the fittest” ideological battles will induce the United States towards
progress, rather than creating a renewed prejudice and flawed policies towards the
less fortunate in our society.
Works Cited
Camia,
Catalina. “Ron Paul Proposes $1 Trillion
in Spending Cuts.” USA Today (Oct. 17, 2011). <http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/10/ron-paul-spending-cuts-/1> (accessed
Oct. 24, 2011).
Condon, Stephanie. “Herman Cain to “Occupy Wall Street”
protesters: Don’t Blame Wall St., blame yourself.” CBS
News (Oct. 5 2011). <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20116087-503544.html>
(accessed Oct. 24, 2011).
De Santis,
Vincent P. The Shaping of Modern America: 1877-1920 Revised Ed.. Wheeling, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc.,
2000 [1973].
De
Santis’ book is often cited as a leading authority of Gilded Age American
history, although it was published in 1973, nothing more comprehensive and well
written has surpassed the work. In the
book, De Santis traces the development and industrialization of America,
focusing on vital movements and adding beneficial commentary that develops a
deeper understanding of the time. De
Santis was a professor of American history at the University of Notre Dame and
just recently passed away.
Edwards,
Rebecca. New Spirits: Americans in the “Gilded Age.” Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
This
is a social history of the Gilded Age, a term Edwards would like to replace
with “the Early Modern Era,” disliking the connotation of “gilded.” The book focuses more on how life functioned
on the individual and class level instead of a sweeping history of the time
period, as De Santis’ work does. Edwards
discusses many historical aspects of popular culture, such as clothing
fashions, new ideological movements, and trends in music, to only name a
few. Rebecca Edwards is a professor of
American history at Vassar College.
Gara,
Antoine. “Would Killing the Minimum Wage
Help?: Michele Bachmann Seems to Think So. Many Economists, Though, See Little Job
Creation from Abolishing the Law.” Bloomberg Business Week (June 30, 2011).
< http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/would-killing-the-minimum-wage-help-07012011.htmlhttp://www.businessweek.com/magazine/would-killing-the-minimum-wage-help-07012011.htm>
(accessed Oct. 24, 2011).
Gara’s
article discusses whether ending the minimum wage would help the economy,
implementing advice from economists. (Most argue it wouldn’t.) Gara suggests that lower paying jobs, such as
those performed by high school students and other part time employees might see
a boost, but a reliable forecast is unachievable, as is so often the case in
economics.
Sinclair,
Upton. The Jungle. New York: Barnes
and Noble Classics, 2003. (Originally
published in 1906).
Suggested further Reading about the Gilded Age
Allen, Frederick.
Only Yesterday: An Informal History of the 1920’s. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc.,
2000. (Originally published in 1931).
This
is a social history of the 1920s, towards the very end of what could be labeled
Gilded Age America (It’s more realistically the Progressive Era). Allen’s work is unique because he lived
during the decade, actually experiencing the movements and popular aspects of
the time. Particularly interesting is
the discussion of gangsters and the corruption in the White House, the scandals
of President Harding. Frederick Allen
graduated from Harvard in 1912 and was editor in chief for Harper’s magazine from 1941 until his death in 1954.
Calhoun, Charles
W., ed. The Gilded Age: Perspectives on the Origins of Modern America. New York: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers, Inc., 2007.
A
collection of historical essays, each extremely detailed about a particular
aspect from the Gilded Age. Intriguing
to this work is an essay by Edmund J. Danziger Jr. on Indian policy, how
legislation created Native American dependency upon the federal government for
survival. Another well written essay by
Stacy A. Cordery outlines women’s role in industrialization and the meager
wages they labored for. Essays range
from “Cultural and Intellectual Life in the Gilded Age” to “The African
American Experience,” creating scholarship that is both well-rounded and
in-depth.
Schweikart,
Larry and Michael Allen. A Patriot’s History of the United States:
From Columbus’s Great Discovery to the War on Terror New York: Penguin
Group, 2004.
This
is a sweeping history of America, as the title suggests. I have included it here because it presents
an ultra-conservative viewpoint, (The foreword is an interview by Rush Limbaugh
with the first named author, Larry Schweikart) permitting another perception of
the Gilded Age (pgs. 457-558). The book
defends Coolidge and Hoover as not creating the Great Depression and lambasts
FDR’s New Deal (generally accepted as beneficial to American growth). Self-described as a response to “leftist”
academia, the book is not a seabed of unbiased commentary but does, at least,
present the rationale for conservative conclusions. Larry Schweikart is a professor of American
history at the University of Dayton and Michael Allen is a professor of
American history at the University of Washington, Tacoma.