32 Chapter 2
Further,ThomasC. Leonardadds,the passageof time“did not muchsoftenHofstad-
ter’s hostilityto free markets.”^51 As late as 1964,Hofstadterwasstill wontto exhibithis
contemptfor thosewhopubliclysuggestedthat consensualismwaspreferableto govern-
ism.In the October8 issuetheNewYorkReviewof Booksfromthatsameyear,Hofstadter
lambastedthen-U.S.SenatorandpresidentialhopefulBarryGoldwater(1909–1998)over
the candidate’s minor,watered-downadvocacyof night-watchman-stateprinciples.The
Columbiascholarfumed,“Whenin our historyhas anyonewithideasso bizarre,so
archaic,so self-confounding,so remotefromthe basicAmericanconsensus,evergot so
far” in publicsupport?HofstadterlamentedthatBarrywas“withina hair’s breadthof
ruiningone of our greatand long-standinginstitutions,” the RepublicanParty,whichwas
thendominatedby suchleft-winggovernistsas JohnD. Rockefeller,Sr.’s grandson,Nel-
son AldrichRockefeller(1908–1979).^52 Theseconfessionson Hofstadter’s partremovethe
obstaclesto our gainingan understandingof whySDATis writtenas it is. “Dr. Hofstad-
ter’s ownsympathies,” saida favorablearticlein theEnglishHistoricalReview, “are not
hardto divine:he is hostileto laissez-faire,to Spenceriansociology,to classicaleconom-
ics.”^53
Thereis but one areawhereSpenceradvocateda policysimilarto thoseprescribedby
the governisteugenicists.Whileotherwisefavoringa nightwatchmanstate,Spencerdid
wantthe governmentto prohibitinterracialbreeding—whatwas thenknownasmiscegen-
ation. He wrotea letterto a Japaneseadmirerof his thathe condonedregulationsthat
forbadesex betweenwhitesandEastAsians.TheBritonbelievedthat,just as a mule,
beingthe hybridof horseanddonkey,wascondemnedto infertility,it followedthat
whitesandEastAsianswereso biologicallydissimilarfromone anotherthatany inter-
breedingbetweenthe disparategroupswouldresultin childrencursedwiththe same
defectsas thosefoundin mules.^54 It wason this one count—of supportinglegislationto
discouragemiscegenation—whereSpencerandthe governisteugenicistswereof the
samemind.For Spencerto backsuchmiscegenationlawswasindeedmisguidedand
basedon falseassumptions.Nonetheless,Spencer’s agreementwiththe eugenicistsex-
tendsno fartherthanthat.The majorityof eugenicistsbelievedthat whiteswereinherent-
ly superiorto nonwhites.By contrast,althoughSpencerwantedthe raceskeptapart,he
continuedto judgethemas beingthe samein moralmerit.To quotea notoriousphrase,
Spencerwantedthe racesto be separatebut equalunderthe law.^55 As I shalldemonstrate
in the nextchapter,in no othermannerdid Spencerapproveof legislationthatdiscrimi-
natedagainstpeoplebasedon theirancestry.
Not to concedethatSDATis mostlya spuriousscreedagainstfree-enterprisers,schol-
ars in Hofstadter’s veincan pointout thatSpencerhad somesocialcorrespondencewith
historicalfiguresthat wereimportantto the developmentof eugenics.Just as Spencerwas
a friendof Darwin’s, it was Darwin’s ideologicallygovernistcousin,Galton,whofounded
the eugenicsmovement.SpencerandGaltonhadbefriendedone another.^56 In the final
pageof his manifestoin supportof governisteugenics,paleontologistHenryFairfield
Osborn,Sr. (1857–1935),favorablyquotesfromSpencer.IrvingFisher(1867–1947),a pio-
neerin whatcameto be knownas monetaristeconomics,wasbotha studentof Sumner’s
anda vehementadvocateof eugenics,^57 goingas far as writingto Galtonto seekmoral
support.^58 Moreover,WilliamGrahamSumner’s brother-in-law,famedYaleUniversity
footballcoachWalterCamp(1859–1925),heldmembershipin the EugenicsCouncilof the
USA(ECUSA).^59
WasGovernistEugenicsa CapitalistConspiracy?
Therehas beenno suspensionto the effortto tracestate-sponsoredeugenics’ originsto
consensualisteconomics.In thismission,EdwinBlacknotesthatthe estatesof various