The reactionary twists and turns of the GOP presidential hopefuls recent comments suggest that they would like to take us back to the social life of The Gilded Age, when an exceedingly small percentage of the population controlled American economic, social and political life, the social era of what Herbert Spencer first called "survival of the fittest." With a dash of swagger and a measure of emotionless realism, the Republican presidential candidates have made statements, mostly about economics and personal responsibility, that make you wonder if you' really living in the contemporary United States.
Consider the likely GOP presidential nominee, Mitt Romney. Although it is quite difficult to know what Romney, the slippery master of the expedient flip-flop, actually believes, he has taken a clear, concrete and heartless view on home foreclosures. During an interview with the Las Vegas Review Journal's editorial board he said the best way out of the foreclosure crisis would be to let the banks take action against homeowners who have defaulted on their mortgages. Romney, who often appears to be clueless about how average people live in the US, made the following statement in Nevada, the state with the highest number of foreclosures:
As to what do to for the housing industry specifically and are there things that you can do to encourage housing: One is, don't try to stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom, allow investors to buy up homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up and let it turn around and come back up.
Based on this statement, Romney has not thought about the poor souls who would be efficiently thrown out of their homes. Has Romney ever wondered if these "defaulting debtors" had been laid off, had fallen ill with debilitating disease, or had suffered a work-ending accident? Has he been concerned about what might happen to those people -- millions of our fellow citizens -- whose economic status has suddenly made them "unfit" to be homeowners. The impersonal forces of Romney's market, you see, are cold and analytic. Romney's market forces don't account for the personal, emotional or moral dimensions of social and economic processes. After all, there was a time when creditors threw debtors into jail -- a good place for the "unfit" to wallow.
Governor Romney presents his 19th century ideology in a cool, polished and authoritative way that hides the deep intent of his reactionary ideas. Herman Cain, who is currently a front runner for the GOP presidential nomination, is much more blunt about his Social Darwinism. He weaves his reactionary ideology into the tapestry of personal responsibility. Speaking about the Occupy Wall Street protesters, Cain famously said: "Don't blame Wall Street. Don't blame big banks. If you're don't have a job and you're not rich, blame yourself." When Mr. Cain repeated the same mantra at the GOP presidential debates on October 18th, the audience cheered. Put into the blunt language that Mr. Cain seems to prefer, if you're poor or unemployed, you must be lazy or "unfit." Don't blame your misery on the rich or on the structural forces that have created and reinforced social inequality. If you work hard, you can be rich. If you don't, then you'll be poor and it's your fault. Here Cain seems to be channeling Lionel Barrymore's Mr. Potter in Frank Capra's classic film, It's a Wonderful Life.
Beneath the surface of this reactionary rhetoric lies a troubling pattern that underscores the Social Darwinist notion that the rich -- or the strongest and fittest -- should be socially viable, while the poor -- or the weakest and least fit -- should be allowed to wither and die. Loosely based upon Darwin's theory of natural selection, Social Darwinists always want nature to take its rightful course in society. In the past the rich and powerful used Social Darwinism to deny workers a decent wage, bash labor unions, and justify the refusal of the economic elite to help the poor. The poor were "unfit" and not worthy of help.
Let the market do its work. Don't blame the rich for your problems! Blame yourselves for being unemployed. Let nature take its course.
That's Social Darwinism. Doesn't it sound familiar?
The comments of Romney on foreclosure, Cain on unemployment, and all the GOP presidential hopefuls on taxing the rich unequivocally reflect Social Darwinist beliefs. Before the Great Depression, Social Darwinist beliefs not only expanded American social inequality but also prompted the eugenics movement, which inspired programs in which the genes of the "unfit" were "cleansed" from society. Beliefs in eugenics compelled many American state legislatures to pass laws that sterilized "unfit" people. Inspired by eugenic theories, the US Congress passed a series of Immigration Restriction Acts in the 1920s. These laws severely limited or barred the immigration of peoples deemed "unit." Fit people came from Northern Europe. Unfit people came from Asia and Southern Europe.
That was in the past. In the present, a moment of great social, economic and technological fluidity, it is unthinkable to ponder a return to a past of scientific racism, anti-immigrant prejudice, and severe social inequality.
Or is it? The choice is ours to make. With the narrow-minded and heartless ideas of Romney and Cain we will not only drift back to a reconfigured form of 19th century economic royalism, but also return to the ideology of Social Darwinism. Such a return will tear our society apart.
Follow Paul Stoller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stol1
Brinker: Lack of experience hurts Herman Cain
Cain, Romney under fire at Republican debate
In a word, Americans describe Romney, Cain, Perry
Web verdict: Cain Romney stole the show
Perry, Cain, Romney Compete for Debate Advantage on Economy
Cain: Romney not a 'staunch conservative'
Bangkok Post : Sparks fly at fiery US Republican debate
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
What presidential hopefuls should say is "the USA was never governed constitutionally, it's time the Preamble become our platform obtained using the Articles and Amendments." Hopefuls haven't considered their oath taken protecting the constitution not fulfilled makes them "Domestic Enemies" of it, meaning everyone in government, except maybe the last 3 appointed Justices, are committing Treason and not entitled to retirement benefits. Don't they care that they have the constitution determining how this nation is governed? Genesis 49:8-12 said that about this nation as seen at http://prop1.org/protest/elijah/usa.htm .
It's time hopefuls say "since I'm responsible for 'faithful execution of the laws' I must be elected constitutionally, without parties, without naming myself as a candidate, without campaigning, contributions or conventions preventing corporations' control of government." Since they don't we citizens, per Amendment 10, has the duty to ensure that happens.
It ends with the poor or "weak" folk banding together to be "stronger" and thus overpower the ones who thought they were strong.
So one day, the "weak" like those protesting will get big enough to enact change that will be Darwinistic, but not favorable to those who believe they are the "strong". Suddenly they'll tax the rich very high, and let them leave, and close up the borders as well as kill free trade agreements.
The "strong" will claim this is the downfall of the US, but it's really that the "strong" have now become the "weak". This is their downfall, and thus a new "strong" has arisen.
Face it, a millionaire with a big fancy mansion even surrounded with gates and armed guards won't be able to do much if thousands siege his "castle" and kill him for his wealth. That's really what Darwinism is.
The misguided thinking is the supposed "strong" think the "weak" will just find a nice quiet place to die. Not in this world. They'll simply unite and overpower. Look at history.
I do give a hoot whom among them is a Christian; claims to be a Christian -- yet has less compassion than most of us would have for washing a spider down the drain. Tracing the theological differences stemming from disputes dividing Paul from the home Church in Jerusalem is more difficult than trying to follow a whole piece of fruit in a Cuisinart bowl set on high.
A person may claim to be a Christian; but you're known by your conduct, not what you say about your conduct or how it is you're self-labeled. Do you follow the teachings of the Sermon-on-the-Mount or Gospels or someone else's interpretation of scripture?
I see none among the 8 on the stage or those cheering for the imposition of the death penalty -- be it after a horrific crime and all the appeals over or sick as a dog an unable to afford insurance -- able to find the Beatitudes on a placemat at the Cracker Barrel and less so the spirit of them in aspects of their public endorsement of Social Darwinism -- notwithstanding they may not have a clue about what it represents or the way life was in America during the 19th/early 20th centuries prior to the New Deal and post-WWII years prior to conservatism triumping with the election of Ronald Reagan.
Our Founding Father's proclaimed in our Constitution their should be NO TAX ON LABOR. The Left Progressive's demands NOT only a paid salary for the privilege of working for us, but NOW also demand half of the company, for doing that paid labor. Thankfully Today Modern Machinery, and Robots have eliminated Much need for unionized labors psychosis
I relish the idea's of attacking Conservative values, and business/investments. I actually live in the Weiner State where all inheritances, were nothing more than lottery tickets. I did close a business office and laid off hundreds of lottery tickets in alleged retaliation. I thankfully just won the last of three attempted lawsuits, and reopened elsewhere. They screamed, yelled, and protested to no avail, and we' re checking other locations for expansion. It's just better protections/precaution
Sadly If parents can't leave businesses/investments reasonably tax free for their children, their aren't any good reasons expanding toward helping others Children. America sadly fosters Deadbeats for a lifetime, NOT future Generation's successfulness
I'm not aware of the word "should" in the Constitution anywhere.
The word shall is the more forceful word of should.
The 16th Amendment allowed our Government income taxes. Until that time SCOTUS turned them back repeatedly every time as unconstitutional practices
The taxing of labor makes We the People Servants of our Government, rather than rulers above our Government. If they can tax labor, they own you both NOW, and all you can be in your future
If you tax my products you legally restrict, and or regulate my labor: Once you tax my labor you now own all my products before production. You NOW OWN ME
ALL our Founding Fathers came from places that taxed labor, and Oddly that was the second item of unanimous agreement. Taxing labors empowers Governments, NOT we the People
I see and observe many problems in ALL societies, past and present, and actually used my doctorates to obtain and create wealth, as America keeps failing, and loses her super status via Social Justice economics
I define progressives as persons who demand ALL progress must personally benefits them first, at the personal expenses of all others successful society progress toward better economic futures, and Technological advances,
I profoundly understand the wealth disparages throughout the world: I wisely refuse however to embrace redistributions create more growth and better Societies
Preserving Parasites forever, eventually will kill all that embrace their cultures.
You can't gain wealth or freedoms, unless you spend less than you earn.
1% of the population holds MOST of the wealth of our country.
1% = 3, 000, 000 people.
Out of that 1%, a handful relatively speaking, own "certain" Big Corporations...Banks, Lending Institutions, Oil/Energy Corporations etc. that have the power to threaten and literally destroy our Nation's Economy.
I'll just make up a number for the purpose of my point. Let's just say there are 100,000 of them in America.
One hundred thousand people out of three hundred million, have so much power that they can literally destroy our Entire Nation's Economic Security.
In 2008, they came within a hair of doing just that.
If you go anywhere in this country and pick out a group of 100,000 main street Americans, do they have the power to destroy the entire Nations Economic Security?
How about one million main street Americans?
How about an entire big city of main street Americans, or an entire State of people for that matter. Could one STATE of main street people destroy the entire NATION'S Economy?
Is your answer NO?
This is about the Concentration of POWER into the hands of "certain" few Americans/Corporations. So much power OUR entire National Economic Security, my economic security and yours...
DEPENDS on this handful of people and the way THEY conduct their business transactions.
They have POWER, NONE of us have.
Conservatives refuse to regulate them.
Wrap your mind around that.
How did the "certain" few Armericans/Corporations gain that Consentration of POWER?
Through Lobbyists sent from Corporations with promises and $ to wine and dine our Representatives "Lobby" for legislation to be passed in their favor and interest.
Like Free not 'Fair" Foreign Market trade deals, that hurts American workers, while making Corporations more profitable,
like Deregulation=eliminating the laws and rules for Corporations that would keep Corporations more honest and not have allowed the corrupt practices that drove our Economy into the toilet in 2008,
like 2 trillion dollars in "tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans only" (meaning 2 trillion dollars less revenues for the Government during WAR TIME) who btw also own certain Corporations who pay ZERO taxes in America.
Tax Cuts that were sold to the people as "JOB creating Incentives" to the "Job Creators" Corporations, that didn't didn't create any jobs...and so, our Government had to borrow the money from China and add it to the deficit to pay for the WARS due to REVENUE shortfalls.
Like the "legal" tax avoiding loopholes for the wealthy only, that main street Americans do not have, Government subsidies for wealthy Corporations.
How about Government bailouts for Corporations who were failing due to their own corrupt practices? Anyone going to prison for nearly destroying our entire Nation's economy?
Do you see our Government bailing out main street Americans who are going bankrupt, or whose homes are being foreclosed?
just for starters...
Banking and Lending Corporations did...with the help of the Government due to no Government oversight or regulations in place to prevent it. Maybe it doesn't bother you that those few Corporations had the power to, were able to, almost destroy, our entire Nation's Economy. It scares the hell out of me.
President Bush stood before the Camera and told us IF our Government did not bail out those "Corporations" our Country, in fact the world would have a TOTAL ECONOMIC COLLAPSE. The Corporations did it. We had to bailout those "Corporations" to save our Nation's economy.
That is too much power concentrated in the hands of a few Corporations. A few Corporations should not be so powerful that they can bring down the world's economic security.
President Obama had nothing to do with the Regulations that were "removed" in 1999 by Congress and signed by President Clinton that was "part" of the reason for 2008 Economic meltdown. Although many thing has happened over the years that led up to contributing to that Crisis.
If Corporations do not have to play by the rules because they "don't have rules" they won't, they DIDN'T
This Economic Crisis did not start 3 years ago when Obama took office. That's completely and utterly false.
If you don't understand any of that I don't know what else to say to you.
My premise is correct.
Only our access to fossil fuel energy helped to smooth this out for a while. As the industrial age kicked in, suddenly we could all have warm homes, travel at will and eat as much as we wanted, something that had been the prerogative of the very wealthy in preceding ages.
Only they didn’t call it Social Darwinism, it was just haves and have nots. There’s only so much wealth around, and those who could, grabbed it. Just like they do today.
You might be a medieval king, a Spanish Conquistador, an oil or steel magnate or a modern financier, but the disparity of wealth has always been the inevitable consequence of the system in which we find ourselves. No form of revolution has changed that.
Throughout history, the ‘haves’ have never brought themselves to the median level of the ‘have nots’ willingly, our era will be no different
http://www.yourmedievalfuture.com/
No wonder this tired concept can never grow so old as to die. It compliments its beneficiaries and cloaks them in inevitability, while the victims of predation must suffer because they are made badly and out of weak stuff.
Having gamed then bought American politics, it's only natural that those who have become rich beyond the dreams of avarice today should fund and favor spokesmodels who would defend their wealth from clawback, and their actions from prosecution, while clothing their portfolios in the trappings of natural law.