Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
“Social Darwinism”
Share: 
by YankeeJim | April 3, 2012 at 12:26 pm
335 views | 0 Recommendations | 25 comments
Photos
President Obama used the term to describe Republican’s vision. First, “Republican vision” is an oxymoron because vision implies imagination. One does not have to imagine grasping the meaning of standing still at best or drifting into poverty.
Let me explain the concept, “social Darwinism.”
For some this may sound like an old record, though we have a new context, a new term in which ideas are encapsulated.
First, all persons are created equal, meaning that they have certain inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The concept of social Darwinism begins at birth. Republicans will fight tooth and nail for life in the womb, but when life lands on Earth, there may not be room. So life after womb may be without a room and Mother and baby won’t be happy.
However, Republicans will argue that a Mother has no right to be happy, but only to pursue being happy so Republicans can be happy too.
Mother and baby need a Daddy to be working; or Mother needs a job and somebody must care for baby. Republicans don’t care about that but if you come to the back door of the church maybe some kind Christian Republican will take you in. Don’t count on that.
Republicans believe Daddies should be working. If Daddy has a problem and can’t work, that’s too bad for Daddy and Mommy and Baby because those are the breaks in life. Some people have and some people have less and others have nothing at all or less than nothing. For them, they can think about being happy and value their liberty and keep trying.
Republicans believe that their inheritance is something they deserve. People without inheritance get what they deserve too.
That is social Darwinism.
A society won’t last long under those circumstances.
Advertisement
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (25)
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 14:27 on April 3rd, 2012
That rant isn't explaining social Darwinism. It's maligning Republicans for not embracing social government idealism. In sociology social Darwinism explains 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. It's all very natural to the human experience. It's evolutionary. Social evolution and nothing Republican, Democrat or conservative or even liberal about it. It is simply extending Darwin's theory of evolution into the realm of human social interaction. Natural social evolution and not the forced, enforced social ideology we must endure the negative effects of today.
at 15:09 on April 3rd, 2012
“Definition for darwinism:
Web definitions:
a theory of organic evolution claiming that new species arise and are perpetuated by natural selection.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn”
You are correct. By the time Republicans are finished with us, there will be no new species, just drones.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 15:46 on April 3rd, 2012
Ya. Those awful Republicans fighting for individual rights and freedoms that will turn us all into drones. Better look up the definition of drone while you're at it. LOL.
at 17:26 on April 3rd, 2012
I am aiming at this
a person who lives on the labor of others; parasitic loafer.
at 17:48 on April 3rd, 2012
YJ,
Then stop pussyfooting around and write your opinion: euthanize the mentally ill, disabled, pensioners....
at 01:58 on April 4th, 2012
Is there a pill?
at 16:24 on April 3rd, 2012
30.6,
The best-adapted and most successful social groups survive these conflicts, raising the evolutionary level of society generally. It's all very natural to the human experience.
Then if 80 million Germans did in fact win WW11 (they came close by all accounts) this would have been social evolution. Also, Eugenics, abandoned in America only after the excesses of the Third Reich, is also right. Sir Francis Crick believed successful breeding could be advanced through selective sterilization of the food supply. He said it on 60 Minutes.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 18:18 on April 3rd, 2012
Sorry but ethnic purges, eugenics or any "breeding" program is NOT by any definition evolutionary. Or natural. These things you want included as human biological or social evolution lie outside the norms of the human experience and like all forced stimulus retard social evolution. A law of physics, Newton's Law: For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This natural law affects all our social dictates.
at 18:33 on April 3rd, 2012
I agree with Obama's statement today that the Republican proposed cuts to social services to preserve the feifdoms of the ruling class is "social Darwinism". If only Obama could walk the walk the way he talks the talk, the average American would fair well.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 20:03 on April 3rd, 2012
If you used objectivity and actually look at what is being proposed you wouldn't be using the language you use. The Republicans don't want to cut social services. They want to cut some of the program duplication and bring those programs under single management so we aren't paying three times in administration costs for one real service. Then again if you were objective you'd know Obama is playing word games with you as usual so you don't twig to the fact that government mandated private health care coverage isn't in any way a public option or going to do a damn thing for the 30 million people who Obama says can't afford health plans today. But hey, if you want to jump on the Obama/Democrat misrepresentation of what defines social Darwinism and a national heath care system...enjoy. Rock your branding.....Mooooo bleats the herd on the way to the milking station.
at 02:01 on April 4th, 2012
I would like to see the ledger for both Republican and Democrats solutions to measure the outcomes and performance metrics, but that is lost in the muddle.
Asking for objective analysis isn't too much.
You speak better for the Republican politicians than they do for themselves.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 06:02 on April 4th, 2012
What is needed is an apolitical discussion from both sides based on facts. All the facts. And the media needs to step back from the partisan rail and start publishing more than infotainment and government propaganda. Stupid is becoming pandemic.
at 05:01 on April 4th, 2012
If you used objectivity and actually look at what is being proposed
Hundreds of billions of cuts to Medicaid and Medicare that's objective enough for me. Ask the average working class white collar and non-union blue collar worker about how much their co-pays and deductibles have skyrocketed in the past 10 years and you will get a sense of the economic rape Republicans are seeking to impose with new cuts to government health benefits.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 05:47 on April 4th, 2012
" Hundreds of billions of cuts to Medicaid and Medicare". Somewhere along the line objective became hysterical.
at 06:07 on April 4th, 2012
Are you saying that the New York Times and other MSM, as well as the Democratic Senate website, are all lying about the proposed cuts?:
http://democrats.senate.gov/2012/03/29/gop-budget-would-cut-billions-in-health-benefits-for-seniors-families-and-nursing-home-residents-would-place-huge-cost-burden-on-cash-strapped-states-pressuring-governors-to-raise-taxes/
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 07:53 on April 4th, 2012
Yes!!! Because what the Democrats are BLAMING on the Republicans is exactly what Obama and the Democrats are doing with their legislation plans. Increasing taxes, increasing health care costs, increasing number of people who will not be able to afford a private health care insurance plan, increasing the taxes and insurance costs on small and medium business, increasing the medicare age requirement and increasing both the governments and the national deficit to fund medicaid/medicare as the projected fifty million aging babyboomers come into the system from now through 2040. The fact of the matter underlying all of this debate is that the spending must be brought down if the system is ever going to have a chance to work as it should and Medicaid/medicare be viable for the future. Especially in light of the onslaught of the grey tsunami. Use your own brain and stop depending on partisan liberal attacks of anything conservative. That is all that the link you provided is. There are no facts in support of the Democrat senate position or any PLAN in the link you provided. Pure propaganda for the herd. This country is in dire need of some fiscal conservatism before it's too late and we end up with nothing and crash systemically from the debt load.
at 17:22 on April 4th, 2012
http://dqydj.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/500px-MarginalIncomeTax.svg_.png
Explain this tax graph. From 1950 to 1981 the marginal tax rate was between 70 and 90 percent. The economy was better and there was a strong middle class. Reagan took the helm in 1981 and slashed taxes, followed by Bush 1. They decimated the middle class in this country.Explain how this squares with your economic conservatism 30.6?
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 17:53 on April 4th, 2012
I'm afraid I don't understand you. Is it that I'm not allowed to express any fiscal concern because Reagan and Bush were elected Republican Presidents who cut taxes while Obama a elected Democratic President has cut taxes, and quadrupled our national debt with his spending policies? Keep digging. Eventually you'll have to find something that proves I'm the inconsistent one. LOL.
at 17:26 on April 5th, 2012
The point is that when the top tax rate was high (70-90%) between 1950-1981 everyone prospered including the middle class. The decimation of the middle class was, in part, a function of allowing the top 1% (who earn about half of the national income) to skirt paying their fair share of taxes. David Stockman, Reagan's former economic adviser, proposes a one time 15% wealth tax on multimillionaires to cut the national debt in half, and revive the economy.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
saintjohn (not verified)at 02:55 on April 4th, 2012
Wikepedia does a much better job in describing social Darwinism. To truly understand Darwinism one must submit to the Darwin "theory" which is an extreme liberal viewpoint. Thus to be involved with social Darwinism one must obviously be a Socialist also...now who does that really sound like? Talk about words coming back to bite you! I'm in agreement with "thirty-aught-six" and nominate him for the conservative V.P. (or maybe the Executive position coming up in November).
at 03:37 on April 4th, 2012
OMG StJohn, what an extremist you must be. I once knew and worked with StJohn. He was conservative but not extreme.
When you push enough people to the bottom of the pit, sooner than later, it will overflow.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 05:48 on April 4th, 2012
Thanks but, I'm actually old school liberal. We're not terrified by a little conservatism.
at 03:39 on April 4th, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
- Sign In or Join to post comments
sainjohn (not verified)at 08:20 on April 4th, 2012
Actually I'm a Registered Independent. I don't go the way the wind is blowing politically and I do listen hard to all sides. My friends tell me I should become an Evangelical Quaker because of my pacifistic outlook and compassion for others (I do a lot of charity work since I retired) but fervently believe in the 2nd., 4th., and 10th. amendments and I'm a Vietnam Vet. I may be extreme to some and crazy to others :).Back in the 1950's my dad was a strong Registered Democrat and 20 year union Steward. If he were alive today he would still hold onto his concepts but with those old views he would be called a conservative today. Things do change.I have a hard time following the politics of today. Like my dad I must be stuck in an earlier time period. And "thirty-aught-six" I would still vote for you because your views demonstrate maturity and wisdom.
- Sign In or Join to post comments
"thirty-aught-six" (not verified)at 09:20 on April 4th, 2012
I thank you for your generous comment. I'm blushing. It seems that more and more people are describing themselves as Independent voters. I like that. Far too many in my opinion are allowing the partisan dogma to control their political thinking. That has left the political center vacant and the electorate unbalanced, polarized along left/right positioning. As one of the crazies IMO either/or propositions in determining policy leads to bad policy for everyone. We need to work together for everyone's future benefit and not simply to produce a political policy winner today so we can call the other a looser like some myopic and juvenile school game. Time is a precious commodity. The national debt is growing at 4 billion per day.