The EquivocationInfectsthe Intellectuals 61Take,for instance,RobertWright,a contributingeditortoThe NewRepublicmagazine.
To his credit,he concedesin his book,The MoralAnimal, thatalthoughSpenceris re-
gardedto be the “classicproponentof socialDarwinism,” it is “in somewaysunfairly.”
Elsewherein this volumeWrightelaboratesthatSpencerdoesnot deservea reputation
for being“heartless,” as this man“put lots of emphasison the goodness” of “sympathy,
and he wasa pacifist.”^45 Yet on the samepageof this treatise,Wrightmaintainsthat John
D. Rockefeller,Sr., and mostfree-marketintellectualsweresocialDarwinistswhouncon-
ditionallyhatedthe underclass.In an opusthatis otherwisewell-versedin historyand
economics,Nonzero, Wrightaffirmsthat“socialDarwinists” tried“to justifythingslike
racism,imperialism,and laissez-faireindifferenceto poverty.”^46
Wadingthroughso manyinaccurateportrayalsof Spencersoursme deeply.Oncein a
while,thankfully,it appearsthatsometimesthe truthdoescomeout.I recognizedthis in
the governist-biasedNewYorkTimes. On May5, 2007,thisnewspaperpredictablyre-
portedon its frontpage,“Victorian-erasocialDarwinistslike HerbertSpenceradopted
evolutionarytheoryto justifycolonialismandimperialism,oppositionto laborunions
andthe withdrawalof aid to the sickandneedy.FrancisGaltonbasedhis ‘science’ of
eugenicson it.”^47 Fortunatelythe paperpartiallyretractedthiserror.On May12, the
Times’s websiteappendedthe articlethusly:“A front-pagearticlelast Saturday... errone-
ouslyincludedone socialDarwinistamongVictorian-erasocialDarwinistswhoadopted
evolutionarytheoryto justifycolonialismandimperialism.HerbertSpenceropposed
both.” Thederogatorylabelof socialDarwinismremains,but at leastthe publication
acknowledgesthatSpencer’s positionis distinctfromthosethatleft-wingersroutinely
presumehim to hold.
On the Mattersof Holmesand Kidd,the LeftMustBe Kidding
Thesillinessof the ploysto groupSpencertogetherwithhis politicaladversariesis
moretransparentin otherinstances.IndianaUniversityEnglishprofessorPatrickBran-
tlinger(b. 1941)reproofs“the socialDarwinismof Spencer,BenjaminKidd,andKarl
Pearson.. .”, as if thesethreemenarguedthe sameposition.^48 Almostas improperas the
comparisonbetweenSpencerandsocialistPearsonis the comparisonof Spencerwith
AmericansociologistBenjaminKidd(1858–1916).JohnM. Hobson,too,lumpsSpencer
togetherwithKidd.^49 Kidd’s claimto famewas his 1894treatiseSocialEvolution, which,as
RobertBannisternotesinScienceand Myth, “attackedSpenceron twogrounds.” Being
devoutlyreligious,KiddresentedSpencer’s aggressivelysecularworldview,andchas-
tisedSpencer’s thoughtson cosmologyas too difficultto comprehend.^50 But the biggest
lapsein comparingSpencerto Kiddis thatthe latter’sSocialEvolutionexplicitlycalledfor
moregovernmentregulationsoverthe economy.Beforeit acquiredthe Marxianbiasfor
whichit has becomefamous,The Nationmagazineevaluatedthat“the generaltrend” in
Kidd’s thought,“at least,in all but the earlierchapters” ofSocialEvolution, was“unmis-
takablythatof the so-calledChristiansocialist.”^51 Concurrently,PopularSciencemaga-
zine’s reviewevaluatedthat Kidd“seemsto anticipategreatand beneficialresultsfroma
vastextensionof socialisticlegislation.”^52
BannisterobservesthatKidd’s “wasthe moodwhichin Americaproducedprogressi-
vism.. .” ThisplacesKiddin the sameclassas othersuch“Americanreformers.” Kidd
concededthe communists’ pointthat capitalismexploitsworkers.Moreover,Kiddtriedto
shootdownthe ideathat entrepreneurshipis the primaryingredientof economicgrowth.
SD-SMAASTfurtherelaboratesthatin Kidd’s philosophy,“Regulationwasthe means,
socialefficiencythe end; andhumanitarianismthe guidingspirit.”^53 In Kidd’s own
words,it “maybe noticedthatthe characteristicfeature” of the new“legislation” that
Kiddwantsenacted“is the increasingtendencyto raisethe positionof the lowerclassesat