4 Chapter 1
forthabbreviatethis workasSDAT(pronouncingit “ESS-dât”), alternatingthat abbrevia-
tionwithAmericanThought. Originallywrittenin 1938as the author’s Ph.D.dissertation,^1
Hofstadterhadthis publishedas a popularworkin 1944.It is this book,morethanany
other,whichis culpablefor the pervasivebeliefamongthe university-educatedthat twen-
ty-firstcenturysupportfor a laissezfaireeconomycan be tracedto a nineteenth-century
ideologyknownas socialDarwinism.
SDATquotes a 1905predictionby business-bashing^2 politicianWilliam Jennings
Bryan.BryanproclaimsthatCharlesDarwin’s discoverieswill“weakenthe causeof
democracyandstrengthenclassprideandthe powerof wealth.” AfterwardHofstadter
comments,“Here,as in othermatters,Bryanhadsoundintuitions... .”^3 TheColumbia
historianconcludesas muchfor a veryspecificreason.His entirebookis a purported
surveyof howvariousindividuals—everyone of whomthe authordesignates“conserva-
tive”—haveexploitedDarwin’s discoveriesfor theirownnefariousagendas.Thetwo
individualswhomthe Columbiahistorianmostfamouslyindictson this countare Her-
bertSpencerandWilliam GrahamSumner.Subsequent to the publicationofSDAT,
governistson the politicalLeft havehadcarteblancheon denouncingSumnerand Spencer
on the mostperniciousof terms,repeatedlygoingas far as puttingwordsintotheir
mouths.The“doctrinesof HerbertSpencerandWilliamGrahamSumner,” writesYale
UniversityhistorianGabrielKolko,werethoseof a “conservativeSocialDarwinism.. .”
ConservativeDarwinism,hissesKolko,conjuredup “a justificationof the existingdistri-
butionof economicpowerand laissezfaire.”^4 As of this writing,the disreputeof Spencer
and Sumneras laissez-fairesocialDarwinists—whowantedthe underprivilegedto com-
mit suicide—is a weaponthatleft-winggovernistseffectivelywieldto ruinthe public
imageof free-marketproponentsper se. Hereis anotherexampleof the infamyof Spencer
andSumnerbeingexploitedto hurtanyandeveryfree-enterpriser.In 1982The New
RepublicmagazinerebukedPresidentRonaldReaganas a socialDarwiniston accountof
his pro-capitalismrhetoricandhis desirefor cutsin the personalincometax.^5 A more
recentincidentwasin April2012,whenDemocratsandRepublicanswerearguingover
the size of the federalbudget,particularlywithrespectto spendingon welfareprograms.
PresidentBarackObamacharacterizedRepublicanCongressionaleffortsto limitfederal
spendingas “thinly-veiledsocialDarwinism.”^6
Oneof the implicittargetsof Obama’s slur wasU.S.Rep.PaulRyan,then-chairof the
U.S.Houseof RepresentativesBudgetCommittee.Ryanhad proposedan alternatebud-
get intendingto slowthe growthof federalspending.In response,GeorgetownUniver-
sitytheologianThomasJ. ReesepubliclydenouncedRyan’s proposedcutsto welfare
spendingas beinginimicaltowardRyan’s self-professedCatholicfaith.“I am afraid,”
Reeseproclaimed,“that ChairmanRyan’s budgetreflectsthe valuesof his favoritephilos-
opherAynRandratherthanthe gospelof JesusChrist.Survivalof the fittestmaybe okay
for SocialDarwinistsbut not for followersof the gospelof compassionand love.”^7
Comparably,GriffithsUniversityhumanitiesprofessorHiramCatontakesoffenseat
ThomasJefferson’s espousalof Lockeanpoliticalphilosophy.In particularis Jefferson’s
approvinginferencethata “naturalaristocracy” willdevelopin a marketeconomy.On
thatbasis,Dr. Catoncursesthe Declarationof Independence’s principalauthoras a prac-
titionerof “socialDarwinisma centurybeforeDarwin.. .”^8 Noris the antislaverycam-
paignerFrederickDouglassimmuneto thisputdown.Douglassproclaimedthatevery
person“is the rightfulownerof his ownbody.”^9 On accountof suchrhetoric,YaleUni-
versityhistoryprofessorDavidBlightderidesDouglassfor extolling“a laissez-faireindi-
vidualismthatechoedthe reigningSocialDarwinismof the day.”^10 ProfessorDavid’s
inaccuratepronouncementblightsthisdebate.Andin a stylesimilarto Blight’s and
Caton’s, governistjournalistPaulinaBorsookcriticizessocialDarwinismas the “philoso-