The Conflationof LaissezFairewithRegulation-ImposedEugenics 45eugenicistswereexplicitmembersof the Progressivemovement.Hofstadteralsore-
mainedsilenton the fact that theseprogressivessupportedeugenicistlegislationon expli-
citlyprogressivegrounds.
Hofstadterfelt queasyaboutany socialscientist’s claimthat mosthumansocialbehav-
ior couldbe explainedprimarilyby genetics,as opposedto culturalconditioning.For this
reason,Hofstadterfelt ambivalentaboutthe platoonsof progressiveswhoinvokedeu-
genicistargumentsto advancethe verysameregulatorymeasuresthatHofstadterfa-
vored.He couldforgivethemtheirreformism,but not theirbiology-centeredsocialsci-
ence.By contrast,HofstadtercouldforgivealmostnothingaboutSpenceror Sumner,who
wereobjectionableon accountof theirbiology-basedsociologyand,far worseto Hofstad-
ter, theirsympathiestowardcapitalism.
Shamefully,hereHofstadteris muchakinto the vastmajorityof left-wingwordsmiths
whoinvokeSDAT. Onceconcedingthe differencebetweenSpencerianindividualismand
eugenicistcollectivism,Hofstadterimmediatelystatesthatwhatthe laissez-faireindivid-
ualistshadin commonwiththe eugenicistcollectivistswasthatbothcampswerepoliti-
callyright-wingand “conservative.” Firsthe writes,“Conservatismand Spencer’s philos-
ophywalkedhandin hand.Thedoctrineof selectionandthe biologicalapologyfor
laissezfaire,preachedin Spencer’s formalsociologicalwritingsand in a seriesof shorter
essays,satisfiedthe desireof the select[thatis, the wealthyfew]for scientificrationale.”
Thenhe opines,“The socialviewsof Spencer’s popularizerswerelikewiseconservative.”
TheColumbiahistorianhalf-heartedlyconcedesthatgovernment-regulatoryeugenicists
differed“fromearliersocialDarwinistsin thattheyfailedto drawsweepinglaissez-faire
conclusions.. .” He additionallysomewhatconcedesthat“indeeda partof theirown
programdependedon stateaction.. .” Hofstadterthenbrazenlyconcludesthat,in the
end,the eugenicistprogressiveswere“almostequallyconservativein theirgeneralbias”
as werethoseloathedfree-enterprisers.He cannothelpbut promulgatethatgovernist
eugenicsembodieda “fundamentalconservatism.”Conservative, in this context,mustbe
this ColumbiaUniversityhistorian’s word for practicallyany politicalpositionthat
churnshis stomach.Thatis, in an ineptattemptto explainhowfellowprogressivescould
promotegovernisteugenics—whichhe relegatesto the rightwing—Hofstadterevidently
writesoff progressiveeugenicistsas crypto-rightists,andthenglossesoverthe specific
caseswheremostof his favoriteprogressivespubliclyendorsedeugenics.Resultantly,
AmericanThoughtconcludesthat governisteugenicsamountsto the sameold conservative
socialDarwinism“deckedout in a somewhatnewguise.” Governisteugenicswasdis-
tastefulto Hofstadter,but the welfarestateitselfwasmorallysupreme.WhenHofstadter
describesthe socialDarwinistideologiesof bothfree-marketersand governisteugenicists
in his ownwords,he caricaturesthemboththis way.
Dominationby the fittestis of the greatestbenefitto societyas a whole.In orderto
facilitatethe processthe greatmanmustbe impelledby strongmotivesand grantedthe
instrumentsof domination.... The greatmancan exerthis influenceby one of the two
economicmeans—the slavesystemand the capitalisticwagesystem,the one a systemof
compulsion,the otherof voluntaryinducement.... To progress,a socialsystemmust
retaincompetitionbetweenthe directorsof labor,the contestfor industrialdomination.
No matterwhathappensto society,the dominationof the fittestgreatmen—capitalistic
competition—mustbe ensured.Suchmenare the trueproducers.The fundamentalcon-
ditionof socialprogressis thattheseleadersbe obeyedby the masses.In politics,as in
industry,the formsof democracyare hollow;for whileexecutiveagenciesare designedto
executethe willof the many,the opinionsof the manyare formedby the few,who
manipulatethem.Hofstadter’s ideologicalmyopiaaccountsfor his refusalto acknowledgeinSDATthat,as
we shallbeginto learnin chapters4 and 5, Hofstadter’s ownfellowprogressiveswereat