Social Darwinism in Policy and Politics....

[GGT]

President Obama made a speech today, and compared Republican policies to social Darwinism. Does that mean the General Election has officially started? It's a decent starting point, since there are so many policies that cross-over party lines.

When it comes to "social Darwinism" in policy/politics, what's your impression about that in our globally connected world? Is it a symptom of an ideology, an ideology itself, something scalable, or something else?

Open-ended question.

[Lewkowski]

The term Social Darwinism isn't being used properly. Republicans aren't saying that poor folks are genetically inferior. Hell they aren't even saying they are poor based on their own actions. (I say it but even among folks on the right I'm sadly a minority). So really as usual Obama the great "uniter" is proving to be one of the most partisan presidents ever.

[LittleFuzzy]

President Obama made a speech today, and compared Republican policies to social Darwinism. Does that mean the General Election has officially started?

Apparently so.

When it comes to "social Darwinism" in policy/politics, what's your impression about that in our globally connected world? Is it a symptom of an ideology, an ideology itself, something scalable, or something else?

Open-ended question.

I think social darwinism is more or less dead these days. The perceptions and attitudes which led people to give it credence might not be and might find expression in other ways, but they're not being expressed through the idea of natural selection being behind social ills or some kind of "social evolution" explaining success and failure.

[CitizenCain]

I think social darwinism is more or less dead these days. The perceptions and attitudes which led people to give it credence might not be and might find expression in other ways, but they're not being expressed through the idea of natural selection being behind social ills or some kind of "social evolution" explaining success and failure.

If only that would stop it from entering the political arena, huh?

[Loki]

If Obama says something, it must be true. The end.

I do find it interesting that Obama has borrowed GGT's strategy of blatantly misusing words from the English language.

[Illusions]

Well this thread is depressing. GGT starts a thread where she states a summary of what she wanted to hear Obama say, rather than what he actually stated, that Paul Ryan's budget proposal is thinly veiled Social Darwinism, then we get others bashing this malformed telephone-game statement made by GGT as if it was actually stated by Obama. Hurray for bias! To head off any comments about how good/dumb Obama's actual comments might be once you do go and read them, you've still engaged in intellectual laziness by taking something GGT said as an actual source. This is even more depressing seeing this from Loki since he should have an extensive education in how information quality can become degraded when citing secondary and tertiary sources of information.

CitizenCain and LittleFuzzy are exempted since they are discussing GGT's second paragraph of the OP and not the first.

[Loki]

“It’s a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It’s nothing but thinly-veiled Social Darwinism,” Obama will say, according to prepared remarks released by the White House.



Last I checked, "thinly veiled x" is still "x".

[Illusions]

Last I checked, "thinly veiled x" is still "x".

So GGT's statement, which you commented on, is an accurate portrayal of the situation, in your opinion?

[Loki]

I don't care what GGT says; her ability to stay on topic for more than 3 words at a time is disastrous. I was responding to Obama's blatant misuse of the term "social Darwinism" (a term he apparently also made use of in 2008). I guess you pick up these terms when you affiliate with so many critical race theorists and Marxists.

[Aimless]

So what parts of the proposed budget does he consider to be expressions of social darwinism?

[Illusions]

I don't care what GGT says; her ability to stay on topic for more than 3 words at a time is disastrous. I was responding to Obama's blatant misuse of the term "social Darwinism" (a term he apparently also made use of in 2008). I guess you pick up these terms when you affiliate with so many critical race theorists and Marxists.

So, in your own words/opinion, how would define Social Darwinism? Then, is Paul Ryan's proposed budget plan reflective of any of these ideas?

[Loki]

So, in your own words/opinion, how would define Social Darwinism? Then, is Paul Ryan's proposed budget plan reflective of any of these ideas?

The belief that people who are rich are genetically superior to those who are poor, and the function of government is to encourage the former to make use of their talents for the benefit of the country while the latter are allowed to die off. There are levels of magnitude between privatizing Medicare and trying to get poor people to die off, and no one seriously believes that the rich are genetically superior to the poor (which is what separates social Darwinism from other ideologies).

[CitizenCain]

To head off any comments about how good/dumb Obama's actual comments might be once you do go and read them, you've still engaged in intellectual laziness by taking something GGT said as an actual source.

How depressing is that, by the way?

And, in this case, it looks like she was actually uncharacteristically accurate about what Obama said. That Obama's prepared statements sound like something GGT might say is just further proof of how utterly moronic they are.

[Aimless]

The belief that people who are rich are genetically superior to those who are poor.

Wait, isn't this one of several definitions of social Darwinism?

[Loki]

Which accepted definition of the concept is consistent with Paul Ryan's policies?

Or are we going to use the socialist definition of the concept, which is used in the same way fascist is used to refer to any right-winger?

[Aimless]

Which accepted definition of the concept is consistent with Paul Ryan's policies?

Perhaps one of the definitions that latch on to the (misinterpreted) value aspects of the "survival of the fittest" concept and ultimately endorse more laissez-faire policies and fewer safety nets? Just because the ideology is associated with eugenics or Nazism doesn't mean that it isn't also associated with more conventional movements. And just because it includes the word "Darwinism" doesn't mean that it's entirely predicated on genetics. At its heart Darwin's great idea is about evolution through natural selection. Social Darwinism in its various forms tries to translate that idea from biological evolution to social evolution (also implicitly defining "evolution" as a positive process that gradually leads to better and better societies/people). Now I may indeed be completely wrong here, but the reason I raise these points is that I've always been taught that "Social Darwinism" is a single name for a variety of different ideologies. Atm all I have easy access to is Wikipedia, where you find the following:

Social Darwinism is a term commonly used for theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, seeking to apply the principles of Darwinian evolution to sociology and politics.[1] It especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves.The most prominent form of such views stressed competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism; but it is also connected to the ideas of eugenics, scientific racism, imperialism,[2] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[3][4]

In sociology it has been defined as a theory of social evolution which asserts that "There are underlying, and largely irresistible, forces acting in societies which are like the natural forces that operate in animal and plant communities. One can therefore formulate social laws similar to natural ones. These social forces are of such a kind as to produce evolutionary progress through the natural conflicts between social groups. The best-adapted and most successful social groups survive these conflicts, raising the evolutionary level of society generally (the 'survival of the fittest')."

Not to mention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_...nd_controversy





Obama's use of the term was no doubt a dirty Godwin, and similar in spirit to the ranting about "death panels".

[Loki]

The struggle for existence mentioned above referred to some being genetically superior to others...

[GGT]

I think social darwinism is more or less dead these days. The perceptions and attitudes which led people to give it credence might not be and might find expression in other ways, but they're not being expressed through the idea of natural selection being behind social ills or some kind of "social evolution" explaining success and failure.

That perception and credence has found its way into political expressions, maybe just in one speech, but now that it's been mentioned....there's a bit of (R) and (D) chatter on the intarweb machine. Different use of the term, could it be a re-definition in politick-speak? Seems to me it was used to spark debate about ideological differences between the parties, and get voters talking about "the role of government".

The only hint at 'natural selection' isn't biological or genetic, but whether the 'evolution' of modern society works best with a hands-off government and/or one with a social contract. All the campaign slogans are thinly veiled versions of that, peppered with terms like freedom, power, patriotism, independence, unity, dream, etc. None of these words or terms just pop up randomly in political language, but are carefully chosen by speech writers and advisors, campaign coordinators and strategists.

I can't remember which Republican (Karl Rove?) sent out a list of terms to use when trying to make Democrats sound scary (crazy, job-killing, freedom-hating, socialist, unAmerican....) but it's a well known political tactic or strategy used by both sides. They even hire pollsters and use test groups to "study" these things.

~That's as far as I'm willing to go to defend my OP and this thread, regardless of the personal flak in some replies. ~

[Loki]

If Webster had control of the police, you'd be in jail.

[GGT]

If Webster had control of the police, you'd be in jail.

That's coming from our resident Political Scientist, PhD candidate, professorial TA, International Relations expert, and future Diplomat....?

[CitizenCain]

What do Loki's assorted areas of expertise have to do with your continual atrocities against the English language?

Please, stop raping words.

[LittleFuzzy]

That perception and credence has found its way into political expressions, maybe just in one speech, but now that it's been mentioned....there's a bit of (R) and (D) chatter on the intarweb machine. Different use of the term, could it be a re-definition in politick-speak? Seems to me it was used to spark debate about ideological differences between the parties, and get voters talking about "the role of government".

Seems to me that you had it pegged in the original post. The general election season has started. Nothing more to the use of the term than that. It's got nothing to do with sparking debate or about highlighting ideological differences. It's a political pejorative that plays well for the Dems. It's about as meaningful as GOP talk of socialism, or Maxine Waters alleging racism. From an analytical perspective it's white noise. From an electioneering perspective it's pretty much the equivalent of a cheerleading routine.

[GGT]

Seems to me that you had it pegged in the original post. The general election season has started. Nothing more to the use of the term than that. It's got nothing to do with sparking debate or about highlighting ideological differences. It's a political pejorative that plays well for the Dems. It's about as meaningful as GOP talk of socialism, or Maxine Waters alleging racism. From an analytical perspective it's white noise. From an electioneering perspective it's pretty much the equivalent of a cheerleading routine.

Pejoratives have highlighted the GOP primary process, though. Even those aimed at/by "fellow" Republicans. It's an interesting phenomenon, when even terms like "moderate" or "compromise" have been spun as negatives.

Beyond the term Social Darwinism, and the debate about what that might mean, or whether it's white noise or cheerleading....I do think most everything moving forward will be loosely based on that. It especially makes sense if Romney is the GOP nominee, for all the reasons guys like Gingrich or Santorum have suggested.

The campaign slogans are really interesting, as is any reference to Ronald Reagan. There's a lot of romanticism going on right now, and verbiage is a great component of that. The underlying social darwinism is nuanced by both parties. Either we're all in this together, or on our own.

[Loki]

http://news.yahoo.com/isnt-marvelous...050448171.html

Looks like Obama is adopting the Bush 2004 playbook. Can't wait for the swift-boat ads.

[Flixy]

Obama's use of the term was no doubt a dirty Godwin, and similar in spirit to the ranting about "death panels".

Sounds like it.

http://news.yahoo.com/isnt-marvelous...050448171.html

Looks like Obama is adopting the Bush 2004 playbook. Can't wait for the swift-boat ads.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but criticizing a candidate for his budget proposals (or support thereof) seems fair, and he's replying with less fierce rhetoric than they use about Obama.. I don't know how bad Bush got in 2004, but this doesn't seem bad at all (I will agree that the social darwinism comment mentioned in this thread is bad, but the thing you linked doesn't seem bad).

[Loki]

The point is about Obama attacking Romney for using the word "marvelous", because apparently only rich, out-of-touch people use that word.

[Flixy]

The point is about Obama attacking Romney for using the word "marvelous", because apparently only rich, out-of-touch people use that word.

I thought only the British used it, so Romney is obviously an agent working for the Queen to bring the colonies back.

[GGT]

The point is about Obama attacking Romney for using the word "marvelous", because apparently only rich, out-of-touch people use that word.

The writer (and you) call that an "attack"? It's just more of the class warfare that's dominated the Republican primaries, even among themselves.

Both sides are trying to appeal to swing voters and independents by claiming their policies will help the middle-class(es). Even though both Romney and Obama are Harvard educated, successful, wealthy men....they want middle-class voters to know how important they are to a vital economy, they feel their pain, and have the right prescription. (Never mind that 'middle-class' has many meanings and is bandied about loosely in politick-speak.)

Everything will be painted as a form of War. Class warfare, wars between the poor / middle-class / wealthy, Haves and Have-Nots, 99% vs 1%. Generational war between youth and elderly, students, workers and retirees. Wars against taxes, public safety nets, private enterprise.

It's even been said this election is a War for the very fiber and soul of our nation. As if one political party carries that mantle, or wears it like a Superman cape.

[Loki]

So you're equating Obama with Santorum and Gingrich?

[Flixy]

They are all the 1%?