248 Chapter 10
Whatthe SocialDarwinismEpithetSaysAboutThoseWhoApplyIt
Theconfusioncomesfromthe inexactmannerwherebyleft-winggovernistshandle
the labelof socialDarwinism.Theyemploytwoveryvaguedefinitionsof it. Thetwo
definitions,in somecontexts,clashagainstoneanother.Thefirstdefinitionfor social
Darwinistis “anyonewhosupportsfree-marketeconomics,regardlessof whetheror not
he everinvokedmetaphorsaboutnaturalselectionto buttresshis position.” Thisdefini-
tion,whichis the one utilizedby PresidentObamaand RobertM. Reesand the 1982New
Republicissueto whichI alludedin the firstchapter,includesRonaldReaganbut excludes
socialisteugenicists,suchas KarlPearson,H. G. Wells,andJosephGoebbels,fromthe
outset.The otherdefinitionof socialDarwinistis “anybodywhoappliesnaturalselection
metaphorsin orderto reinforcepoliticalargumentsthatare consideredpoliticallyincor-
rect.” Thisdefinitionincludessocialisteugenicistsin the veinof Pearsonand Wells,while
excluding,fromthe outset,PresidentReaganandscoresof otherfree-marketadvocates
whoneverarguedthat naturalselectioneducesevidencefor free enterprise’s legitimacy.
Left-wingintellectualsoftenexploitthesetwo clashingdefinitionsinterchangeably,as
if therewereno line of demarcationbetweenthem.The clashbetweenthesetwodefini-
tionsaccountsfor the phenomenonof Hofstadter,EdwinBlack,and othergovernistintel-
lectualsfrequentlycontradictingone anotheroverwhetherleft-wingeugenicists,typified
by LouisD. Brandeisand LesterWard,can be fairlyconsideredsocialDarwinists.And,as
“far as I can tell,” admitsThomasC. Leonard,“Hofstadterneverappliedthe epithet
‘socialDarwinist’ to a progressive” whileadmittingthatthatprogressivewasvirulently
anti-capitalist.
Recallwhatwe notedaboutGeoffreyHodgson’s researchin chapter2. He embarked
on a databasesearchof everyEnglish-languagereferencetosocialDarwinismin over
200,000articlespublishedfromthe 1800sto 2004.Thesearchcameup witha mere 11
mentionsofsocialDarwinismamongthe articlesandreviewsappearingpriorto 1916.
From 1916 to 1943,the expressionemergesin 49 articles.Then,from 1944 —the yearof
SDAT’s publication—to 2004,the expressionmakesits wayinto4,236articles.Priorto
1944,the expressionwasusedto describeSpencerin but twoarticles,one of whichwas
authoredby Hofstadter.What,then,asksThomasC. Leonard,
are SpencerandSumnerdoingin a volumeentitled“SocialDarwinismin American
Thought”? The answer,of course,is thatHofstadteris using“socialDarwinist”... as an
epithetto discreditviewshe opposed.Whatis newin the Anglophoneliteratureis Hof-
stadter’s applyingthe termto free-marketeconomics.
Hofstadterput Spencerand Sumnerin the dockless for theirputativeuse of Darwinian
ideasthanfor theirdefenseof economiccompetitionandindividualism.As muchas
Hofstadterrejectedbiologicalideasin socialthought,his primaryquarrelwaswithcom-
petitiveindividualism,a positionhe neverabandoned,howevermuchhis viewsof pro-
gressivismdarkenedovertime.Likethe progressiveswhohad vilifiedSpencerand Sum-
ner,Hofstadterjudgedthe AmericanGildedAgeeconomicordera jungleand therefore
judgedanydefenseof it as “Darwinist,” whateverits particulars[emphasisLeonard’s].As Leonardrealizes,“the set of GildedAgeandProgressiveEra writerswhoendorse
laissez-faire,racism,imperialism,andeugenicsis essentiallyempty,makingtheirputa-
tive commonalityhistoricallyvacuous.”^98
The closestI havecometo findinga self-advertisedworkof socialDarwinismfromthe
nineteenthcenturywasMightIs Right,or Survivalof the Fittest. Publishedin 1890by an
authoremployingthe pseudonymRagnarRedbeard,this workproveshighlyamateurish.
The workdoesnot employthe full expressionsocialDarwinism, thoughsimpleDarwinism
makesa singleappearance.We “literallyeat eachotherwithvoracity,relish.... Thus
properlyunderstood,Darwinismis not a verycomfortingdoctrinefor fat men.” The book