Posted on 12/11/2005 5:31:19 PM PST by Crackingham
Republicans controlling the federal government practice Social Darwinism, a discredited philosophy that in economics and politics calls for survival of the fittest, according to a Democratic U.S. senator. Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois, a fast-rising Democratic star, told Florida party members that only a philosophy among Republicans of sink or swim explains why some Hurricane Katrina victims in New Orleans still live in cars while Republicans in Washington prepare next week to enact $70 billion in tax breaks.
"It's called the 'Ownership society' in Washington. This isn't the first time this philosophy has appeared. It used to be called Social Darwinism," Obama said late Saturday at the Democrats meeting at Walt Disney World.
"They have a philosophy they have implemented and that is doing exactly what it was designed to do. They basically don't believe in government. They have a different philosophy that says, 'We're going to dismantle government'," Obama said.
Republicans running the federal government believe, "You are on your own to buy your own health care, to buy your own retirement security ... to buy your own roads and levees," Obama said, referring to flood barriers that gave way in New Orleans during Katrina last August.
Obama, the only African American now in the U.S. Senate, gave the keynote address at the annual meeting of Florida Democrats.
Social Darwinism applies Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection from biology to human culture. Popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the theory advocates free competition and a minimalist role for government in society. Darwin himself rejected the application of natural selection to human society.
To all those FReepers who yesterday were posting about Obama not being on the liberal reservation...;)
There is nothing socialist about darwinism. In fact, intelligent design or any other religious idea is socialistic to their core(i.e., forget what you can do, everything will be just fine if you put your trust in a higher power).
I love it. They should invite him to speak at the next Republican Convention.
Surely there's SOMETHING in this thread we can fuss over!
;^)
If only this were true, I haven't heard any Republican talk of dismantling any part of government since Newt Gingrich.Maybe I'm not paying attention.
Too true!
Is this supposed to be a news story or an editorial?
Take the laxative and start thinking. Machiavelli described Renaissance political life of his times - which was THE survival of the fittest [rulers on that occasion]. The same thing happened in the earlier centuries, too [take his "history of Florence", for example] - but the description to be gleaned from "the Prince" is the most direct hence the best. And if Machiavelli's instructions are not Darwinistic, then what are they? Again, start thinking [after the laxative works].
Yeah, that's why Dubya, Frist, Hastert and DeLay have been so busy downsizing the federal government. </sarcasm>
"Rulers" make a very small faction of the population/society, even if very visible.
And if Machiavelli's instructions are not Darwinistic, then what are they? Again, start thinking
Even if Machiavelli recommended that the members of the society as a whole live according to the Darwinian competition (very dubious claim) it would not follow that the actual society listened to his advice.
Interesting. So how do you explain that the main example of non religious state was Soviet Union? How do you explain the fact that the main example of the state that enshrined Darwinian struggle for survival was National Socialist Germany?
So I guess this means that Liberals are against evolution now.
Just caught this one. It's been unbelievably busy around here, aside from the fact that I caught the creeping crud and can FReep only because I don't have to use my vocal cords, which I can't. I've been checking my other pings and will get back to this article. If it deals with social and political issues, I don't know.... I just hate the stuff.
"Interesting. So how do you explain that the main example of non religious state was Soviet Union? How do you explain the fact that the main example of the state that enshrined Darwinian struggle for survival was National Socialist Germany?"
Irrelevant, actually. Just because they used it for promoting their own goals doesn't anything. Democrats are using their disdain for (social) darwinism for this particular goal(bashing Bush). Does that make them any less socialist? Nope.
obama-bama, bo-bama...banana-fana-bo-bama...fe-fi-fo-fama...
OBAMA
Glib answer. And you conveniently skipped the key part: "So how do you explain that the main example of non religious state was Soviet Union?" (You said: "any other religious idea is socialistic to their core")
Will you suggest that Bolshevism was just a cover for religion?
If only they did. Right now the GOP is nothing but "Socialism Lite."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.