56 Chapter 3
mentthatthe financialtransactionsof Rockefellerwereon par withthe tyrannyand
genocideperpetratedby Nazis.
As RobertBannisterassessesthe situation,“Wilsonhimselfcouldnot resistthe temp-
tationto label” earliertheoriesaboutthe applicationof evolutionarybiologyto society“to
exonerate” his ownbiases.^27 AndStephenJay Gould’s participationin the SSGSP’s cam-
paignagainst“SocialDarwinism” is funny,consideringthathe himselfwouldgo on to
say that Darwin’s theory“was essentiallyAdamSmith’s economicsreadinto nature.”^28 It
doesnot surpriseme thatIsaacAsimov,CarlSagan,E. O. Wilson,Sciencefor the People,
and othergovernistson the politicalLeftwouldpromotethis “non-religiousfree-market-
ers are eugenicists” equivocation.Whattrulyhorrifiesme is thatostensiblefree-market
advocates,havingbeenmisledby Hofstadter’s followers,do so as well.^29
Whileadmittingthatsuchmeasureswere“not advocatedby Spencer” himself,right-
wingeconomistMarkSkousennonethelesswritesthat Spencer’s “thinkingled directlyto
the eugenicsmovement,which,in its mostextrememanifestationin NaziGermany,
calledfor compulsorysterilizationandselectivebreedingto improvethe qualityof the
population.”^30 As is the casewithmanyRepublicanssympathetictowardthe evangelical
Right,Dr. SkousenconflatesSpencer’s pro-capitalistevolutionismwithvillainy.Skou-
sen’s rationaleis not thathe sympathizeswithHofstadter’s animositytowardbig busi-
ness.In Skousen’s case,it is thathe prefersthatpeoplerejectsecularargumentsfor free
enterprise,andaccepta justificationmorecompatiblewiththe Judeo-Christianreligious
tradition.HenceSkouseninveighsthat“there’s a darksideto [Ayn]Rand’s teachings.
Her defenseof greedand selfishness,her diatribesagainstreligionand charitablesacrific-
ing for otherswhoare lessfortunate,andher criticismof the Judeo-Christianvirtues
underthe guiseof rationalObjectivismhavetarnishedher advocacyof unfetteredcapital-
ism.” SkousenthusupholdsAdamSmithas a superiorespouserof capitalism,on order
that“Smith’s theme” allegedly“echoeshis Christianheritage,particularlythe Golden
rule,‘Thereforeall thingswhatsoeverye wouldthat menshoulddo to you,do ye evenso
to them’ (Matt.7:12).’”^31
It cannotbe deniedthatthe mainstreamaltruistparadigm,popularizedby Christian-
ity, pressuredSmithto air specificassumptions.Firstwouldbe thatthe entrepreneur’s
profitmotivationcouldbe rationalizedby the benefitsthatthe entrepreneur’s activities
providedto others,but thatthe profitmotivecouldnot be justifiedby the entrepreneur’s
peaceableself-interestalone.Nonetheless,it is misleadingfor Skousento cite Smith’s
“Christianheritage” in the absenceof acknowledgingthat Smithwas not a Christianbut a
deist.À la ThomasJefferson,Smithbelievedin a Godwhilesimultaneouslyrejectingthe
Abrahamictheologicaltradition.The Godof Smithand Jeffersonwas“Nature’s God”—a
godwhoallegedlycreatedExistencebut did not intervenein humanaffairs.Andan
apologistattitudemirroringSkousen’s is expressedby right-wingpunditLowellPontein
DavidHorowitz’sFrontPageMagazine. There,Ponteimpliesthatoncea womanaccepts
the veracityof naturalselection,that acceptancesteersher towardevil.The recognitionof
biologicalmutations,writesPonte,“had in earlierdecadesbegotten‘socialDarwinism,’ a
worldviewin whichthe ‘fittest’ survivedand thosewithinferiorgenesweresupposedto
die out.... Thisneo-Darwinianthinkingwouldreachits peakin boththe deathcamps
and ‘Aryan’ breedingprogramsof socialistAdolfHitler.”^32
Anotherright-wingerwhotakesadvantageof the socialDarwinismstrawmanto
denouncehis politicalopponentsis inventor-engineerRobertZubrin.In a bookthatcriti-
cizesenvironmentalistsand abortionactivists,Zubrinpronouncesthatnineteenth-centu-
ry industrialists“readilyunderstoodthatDarwinismgavethempreciselythe scientific
andethicaljustification” for theirowncallousruthlessness“thattheydesired,andthey
lost no timeputtingit to work.” Copyingthe left-wingersbeforehim,Zubrinconflates
evolutionaryeconomicswithstate-imposedcompulsorysterilization.“Initially,like Dar-