Did Nineteenth-CenturyCapitalistsWantthe Poorto Die? 5phyof that-which-governs-best-governs-least” and a “love” for “laissez-fairefree-market
economics.. .”^11
The simplisticsyllogismcan be summarizedas:
- Spencerand Sumnerwerefree-marketadvocates.
- Spencerand SumnerweresocialDarwinistswhowantedthe poorto die.
- Therefore,everyfree-marketadvocateis a socialDarwinistwhowantsthe poorto
die.
Thissyllogismis implicitin the denigrationof NobelPrize-winningeconomistFriedrich
Augustvon Hayekand otherfree-marketersin an April 2004 op-edby advertising-execu-
tive-turned-journalistRobertM. Rees.Rees’s op-edfirststatesthatSpencerandSumner
“worked to establishSocialDarwinismand the survival-of-the-fittestdoctrineupon
whichLibertarianthought... restsits caseagainstgovernmentpursuitof socialjustice.”
ThisLibertariandogmais noneotherthan“the SocialDarwinistviewthat any individual
whocan’t get alongshouldbe ignored.. .” Reesimputesintofree-marketersthe belief
that“the sufferingof the poorandoppressed” is merely“the weedingout of the unfit.”
ReesthenpegsSpencerandSumneras ProfessorHayek’s “intellectualprecursors” and
intones,“To understandthemis to understandHayek.”^12 Here,the syllogismgoes:
- Spencerand Sumnerchampionedlaissez-faireeconomics,and eagerlyawaitedthe
collectivedemiseof the needy. - F. A. Hayekalso championedlaissez-faireeconomics.
- Therefore,Hayeklikewiseeagerlyawaitedthe collectivedemiseof the needy.
Yes,ReesassociatesSpencerandSumnerwithHayek,hopingthatthe unsavoryreputa-
tionsof the firsttwomencan tarnishthe third’s. So, too,doesJohnKennethGalbraith
invokeSpencer’s nameto casta palluponanyonewhoexpressessomeobjectionto
welfareprograms.“The poor... in the Spencerianviewwerethe weaklings;theireutha-
nasiawasnature’s wayof improvingthe species.” Galbraithcursesthatthe “voiceof
HerbertSpenceris alsostill heardin powerfulresistanceto the moregenerallyprotective
role of the state.” He furtherpromulgatesthatWilliamGrahamSumnerwantedthe USA
dividedintotwoclasses—”the richandself-reliantandbelowthemthe raggedfringe.
Therecouldbe a Darwinianselectionof individuals,a Darwinianeuthanasiaof the
fringe.. .”^13
To my sorrow,Galbraith’s misrepresentationsof free-marketadvocatesstronglyinflu-
encethe popularculture,gainingcontroloverthe opinionsof non-academicians.Take,for
instance,ostensiblyeducationalvideosput out by internetcelebrityJohnGreen(b. 1977).
Mostfamousfor havingwrittenthe best-sellingnovel-to-motion-pictureThe Faultin Our
Stars, Greenalsoputsout left-wingpropagandavideoson YouTubein praiseof Keyne-
sianfiscalstimulusandsocializedmedicine.He alsoputsout a putativelyapolitical
“educational” seriestitledCrashCoursein History, whichis shownin highschools.Not
surprisingly,hisCrashCoursevideosrepeatthe usualclichés aboutthe evilnessof capital-
ismandindustrializationandof the needfor Progressivism.One of Green’s videos
smearsSpenceras an apologistwhoequated“corporations” with“people,” and whosaid
the poordeserveto get “poorer” on accountof theirhavingan “inherentflaw” in their
genes.Failingto examinethe contextbehindit, Greenhas his videoexhibita newspaper
editorialcartoonof HerbertSpencerbeinglabeledwiththe banner“Science” andbeing
depictedas havingthe bodyof a lion.Thislion-bodiedSpenceris muzzled,as Spencer’s
criticsare attemptingto silencehim.Greenhas thiscartoonlabeledwiththe caption
“persecutioncomplex” andimpliesthatthe cartoonwasdrawnby a thin-skinnedsup-
porterof consensualisteconomics.Greenwouldhaveus believethatthis editorialcar-
toonist,havingsidedwithSpencer,resentsanyonewhoquestionsSpencer’s free-market