The Camouflagingof Eugenicistsas Eugenicism’s Opponents 91ignorantbringsuponsociety.”^91 In otherwords,PattenandEly consideritawfulthat
technologicalprogresshas reducedthe deathrate amongthe handicapped.
RichardT. Ely continuesthat,giventhatindustrialization’s slashingof the deathrate
“is leadingto an increasingnumberof an increasinglyfeeblepopulation,shouldit not be
checked?” Ely’s answeris thatof courseit shouldbe, by forciblemeans.He determinesit
essentialthattherebe an “effort.. .to prevent” the “reproduction” of “the degenerate
classes.” He regretsnot merelythatcompetitionfor employmentbetweenthe mentally
challengedand the abler-bodiedworkforceallegedlydrivesdownwages;he is offended
by the very“existenceof thesefeeblepersons.” On the matter,he thereforeconcludes,
“Theproblemis to keepthe mostunfitfromreproduction,andto encouragethe repro-
ductionof those whoare reallythe superior membersof society.”^92 Forthe AEA’s
founder,“Thegreatwordis no longernaturalselection,but socialselection.”^93 Again
observethatthe eugenicist—in thisinstance,Ely—characterizeseugenicsnot as some
branchof socialDarwinism,but as the repudiationof someonewhowouldleavecircum-
stancesto be settledby the market’s peaceableversionof naturalselection.
SimonPattenagrees:“Socialprogressis a higherlaw thanequality,and a nationmust
chooseit at any cost.” Hencethe Stateoughtto embarkon campaignfor the “eradication
of the viciousand inefficient”—Patten’s wordsfor the handicapped.^94
A predictablyraciststrainran throughoutthisgovernisteugenicism.In 1911,Ely
opined,“The negrorace,whileendowedwitha splendidphysiqueand withgreatpower
for work,is neitherprogressivenor inclinedto submitto the regularityof toil, suchas an
industrialcivilizationdemands.”^95 On racistandeugenicistgrounds,Ely expresseddis-
mayat any voluntaryeffortin the Westto raisefundsto mitigatestarvationin Indiain
1903.He proposedthat“the faminecontinuefor the sakeof raceimprovement.. .”^96 To
the degreethat Hofstadterconsidersgovernisteugenicsto be social Darwinism,he
shouldhaveconcededthat Ely supportedsocialDarwinism.As usual,Hofstadteroffered
no suchconcession,but providedan impressionat variancewiththe truth.
Incidentally,I havesomethingto addaboutHenrySteeleCommager’s proclamation
thatEly’s derisionof freeenterpriseamountedto an overthrowof the “tyrannyof the
laissez-fairephilosophy.” Thatremarkis Orwellianon numerouscounts.Thissupposed
“tyrannyof the laissez-fairephilosophy” is an oxymoron.Tyrannyamountsto encroach-
mentsby governmentfar beyondthe scopeof the nightwatchmanstate.The laissez-faire
philosophy,insofaras that expressionalludesto the nightwatchmanstate,is the opposite
of tyranny.AndthatCommagerwouldcompareEly’s apologiafor governmentalintru-
sivenessto the “declarationof independence” is reallya slapin the faceof Thomas
Jefferson.In Ely’s call for greatergovernmentcontrol,he wasadvancingthe veryformof
intrusivegovernmentfromwhichthe Declaration’s signerssoughtindependence.
Social(ist)Darwinism:Do Left-WingEugenicistsCountAs SocialDarwinists?
It is objectionableenoughthat Hofstadtercoaxedhundredsof historiansinto bowdler-
izingeugenicsproponentsLesterWardand RichardT. Ely as eugenics’ opponents.Sadly,
Hofstadterdid somethingworse.Hofstadterwronglypeggedan anti-capitalisteugenicist
as an exponentof free-marketcompetition.Thatanti-capitalistis not simplya eugenics
proponent,but the one whocoinedthe verytermeugenics—Sir FrancisGalton.^97 To be
sure,Hofstadterlatercoughsup a minor,partialconcessionthatsomeAmericanpublic
figuresarguedfor eugenicson a basisconsistentwiththeirleft-wingprogressiveideolo-
gy. Nonetheless,Hofstadtermostlypropoundsthat,thanksto Sir Francis’s influence,
eugenicsstartedout as—andpredominantlyremained—a logicalcorollaryto Spencer’s
convictionthatsomeindividualsdisplayedmoremoralmeritthanothers.“Earlyeugeni-
cists,”SDAThistoricizes,“tacitlyacceptedthe identificationof ‘fit’ withthe upperclasses