The EquivocationInfectsthe Intellectuals 59izationsas socialDarwinists—“BecauseSumnerwasableto investhis pseudoscientific
theorieswithscientificauthorityandan auraof rationality,... he mustbe rankednot
onlyas one of the mostinfluentialacademicsof his day but as the philosophicalforefather
of the right-wingpublicintellectualswhohaveexercisedsimilarinfluencein American
societysincethe early1980s.Sumner’s ideaswouldfit perfectlytodayin the position
papersof the HeritageFoundationandthe AmericanEnterpriseInstitute.”^40 In other
words,SusanJacobyis insinuatingthatthosewhoagreewiththe consensualistpolicy
proposalsof the HeritageFoundationandAmericanEnterpriseInstitute(AEI)mustbe
socialDarwinistswhorevilethe hungry.I findit amusingthatAEI’s presidentas of this
writing—ArthurBrooks—doesnot disputeJacoby’s mischaracterizationof Spencerand
Sumner.The USA’s contemporaryLeft and Rightare quiteunitedin theirsharedmiscon-
ceptionon this issueof historiography.
TheMisconceptionAppearsin NonpartisanNonfiction
It getsworse.Severalintellectualsspeakabouta nonexistentHerbertSpencer-eugenics
connectionwhentheyare not evenintendingto scorepointsfor someideologicalargu-
ment.Theyexhibitno overtlyleft-wingor religiousagenda.Nay,theyjust uncritically
swallowthe misinformationthe academicmainstreamhas spoon-fedthem.Oneexample
can be foundinThe Rootsof Desire—an otherwisefun bookby MarionRoachwho,as
statedin the precedingchapter,is mostfamousas a commentatoron NationalPublic
Radio’sAll ThingsConsidered.The Rootsof Desireexploresthe scientificreasonswhysome
individualssportred hair,andalsoprovidesa historicalsurveyof the depictionof red-
headsin folkloreand popularculture.Unlikethe worksof Hofstadterand Skousen,this
one doesnot appearto be tryingto advanceany politicalcause.Yet,dueto the pilesof
propagandathatweredumpedon the authoressas fact in collegeclassroomsandtrea-
tises,herRootsof Desireneverthelessconveysto its readersmostof the old mythsabout
Spencerencouraginggovernment-inflictedgenocide.
... fromSpencer’s workcomesthe term“socialDarwinism”... For a while,social
Darwinismtidilyexplainedwhypeoplewithadvantagesbegetchildrenwiththe same
advantages,deemingthoseadvantageousfar fitterthanothersandby extension,more
suitedto survive.But this theoryworkedto explainthe rungsof societyonlyuntilthose
whohad it all had beganto be outnumberedby thosewhohad nothing....
It was in this climatethat the newscienceof geneticswas usedby someto identifywhich
of the world’s peoplemightbecomea burdento society.... Howto identifythesepeople
was key.
Onemethodwasby applyingsocialDarwinismto eugenics.... At its worst,[govern-
ment-decreedeugenics]wasHitler’s hatefulsciencein whichthe fittestracewasgranted
biologicalsanctityand bestoweda superiorstatus.But Hitlerdid not formulatethe ideas
he embraced.He andhis scientistsadoptedtheseideasas partof a hugemovementof
socialDarwinisteugenicsthatburnedthroughthe firstthirtyyearsof the twentieth
century.The Germanversionwasadoptedfromthe Americanmodel[startedby Charles
Davenport].^41
Hofstadter’s influenceis additionallyrampantin one partof the otherwiseexcellentwork
WarBeforeCivilizationby anthropologistLawrenceKeeleyof the Universityof Illinois.It
willbe recollectedthatI citedthisworkin BookTwoaboutthe warliketendenciesof
hunter-gatherers. Keeley’s anthropological data are well-verified. But, depressingly,
whenKeeleycondemnsthe ideologicalfactorsthatmotivatedthe nineteenth-century’s
Europeancolonialism,Keeleyreleasesthe old SocialDarwinismbugbear.“In the second
halfof the nineteenthcentury...sociologistsandanthropologistsunitedthe neo-Hobbe-
sianperspectivewithsomethingquiteforeignto Hobbes’ carefulargumentsfor human