Robert Reich on Social Darwinism

It seems like Robert Reich is channeling George Lakoff. In a recent article, The Rebirth of Social Darwinism, Reich describes the Republicans as harkening back to the social Darwinism of the late 1800’s. What’s striking is the language he uses, and the language he quotes. “To [William Graham] Sumner [professor of political and social science at Yale in the 1880’s] and his followers, life was a competitive struggle in which only the fittest could survive — and through this struggle societies became stronger over time.” Echoes of George Lakoff’s description of the strict father model of morality, where “competition is a crucial ingredient in such a moral system. It is through competition that we discover who is moral, that is, who has been properly self-disciplined and therefore deserves success, and who is fit enough to thrive in a difficult world.”

For Sumner, “It’s either ‘liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest,’ or ‘not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.'” Or as Lakoff says of the strict father model, “Success is a sign of having been obedient and having become self-disciplined. Success is a just reward for acting within this moral system.” Otherwise said, those at the top of the heap are there because they are better people and deserve their bounty; likewise those at the bottom of the heap are there because they are, Reich quoting Sumner again, “‘neligent, shiftless, inefficient, silly, and imprudent.'”

Or as Michael D. Tanner says in his article The Real “1 Percent”, unlike teachers and firefighters I suppose, “By and large, the wealthy have worked hard for their money.”