Whoever said "those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat" is of great importance here as I discuss the consequences of placing such a high level of protection for cash by equating it to freedom of speech. There was a time when money equaled not only freedom of speech, but the ability to silence others who did not have the benefit of wealth; where concentration of wealth was a status beyond all others. People were being defined by what they had; the poor was considered inferior as human beings and the rich were looked at as the chosen...
More below the hypnotizing orange design....
From the very start, the wealth and privilege had advantages that were built into the system. To vote, thus have a voice in matters of government, one had to be a white male who owned property. This undoubtedly created a precedent to write into law that some people were better for societal decision making than others and those who owned property were considered better citizens than those who did not; perhaps many considered it a fact of life without need for debate. In fact, many believe it at the time that people who did not own property cannot be trusted with political power. After all, classical liberalism was about individualism, specifically, as it applies to property. Therefore, it would appear the greatest protection of rights was given to those who could afford property because of their ability to involve themselves in the political system to ensure their individual rights. This is something denied to non-property owners. No political elite, in their right mind, would ever attempt to negatively affect the rights of property owners. Doing so would spell doom for their reelection prospects. In fact, these people had much in common with the political elites since many of them were part of the political elite. It seems to be human nature to associate yourself with those for which you have the most in common. The commonality and the interdependence in the political system between the property owners and elected officials develop a system of privilege. Ralph Waldo Emerson takes it a step further with his criticism of property rights; property rights allow “the rich to encroach on the poor, and to keep them poor.” Thus, it nearly becomes a perpetual cycle; it does not allow the poor to rise and keeps the rich with the greatest influence. Therefore, in their own self-interest, they will keep the poor from having the level of liberty they enjoy so the chances of them losing their power is effectively nil. It appears the only way this can be changed is through a major event that enables that change such as war.
Although property requirements to vote vanished long before the Civil War , they left a mark on society that some people were still better. Changes in law do not equate to changes in thinking, just ask black southerners during the time of literacy tests and poll taxes that prevented them from exercising their right to vote. The idea never completely went away. After all, slavery still resembled a system of betters in, at least, half the country. According to George Fitzhugh, blacks are better off accepting the guidance of white people because white people provide necessities to blacks. They were free to do as they please after the day’s work because they need not worry about paying bills. In the north, despite slavery being outlawed, Fitzhugh also argued a new system of privilege had developed. Although his writing is a defense for slavery in the south, he does make a convincing argument about the problems rising in the north. In his discussion on the four class system in the north, Fitzhugh says the north has more respect for those who do not labor, but have others do the labor for them. The laborers or the poor do not have the respect that the wealthy do. Who are known not to labor but to delegate labor to others? The wealthy managers or business owners are in such a position. This creates a system of privilege in the north not based on strictly property rights as before, but based on the level of wealth one has; materialism starts to become its own driving force for what defines an individual and wealth becomes a property right. This progression towards linking wealth and those people who are deemed as better becomes the norm shortly after the end of the Civil War. Therefore, classical liberalism gives way to a new ideology.
The phrases “survival of the fittest” and “natural selection” became the definition of what would be known as Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer coined the phrases by using aspects (of his own interpretation) from biology and applying it in a social context. It would become the justification of the concentration of wealth; the few have the right to most of the wealth because natural selection has deemed them as better and the most fit. Those individuals who cannot make due deserve to be ignored and casted aside. William Graham Sumner invokes the spirit of classical liberalism’s belief in limited government to justify the ideology of Social Darwinism. He determines the people only have the equality of chances, not a right to equality of results. The government has no business getting involved in the inequalities that persist in the end. The only things that should be allowed under a free state between the wealthy (the betters) and the poor are “good-will, mutual respect, and mutual guarantees of liberty and security.” Beyond these items, the government needs to stay out. These ideals echo classical liberalism thought, but apply them to the economic system. In other words, they twist the meaning of classical liberalism to mean something quite different hoping to convince people that this is the true meaning of our founding ideology; liberalism is about the concentration of wealth and natural selection. He solidifies Social Darwinism thinking in The Concentration of Wealth. He brings in the natural selection element by stating:
The millionaires are a product of natural selection, acting on the whole
body of men to pick out those who can meet the requirement of certain
work to be done...It is because they are thus selected that wealth-both
their own and that intrusted to them-aggregates under their hands.
Based on their ability of accumulating wealth, the millionaires have been selected by nature or God to select those best to perform the labor. Since they are selected, wealth becomes more and more concentrated under them. This is a good thing for a couple reasons. First, the concentration of wealth is the only way to develop huge projects, such as infrastructure projects, that benefit us all. Government is ill-prepared to perform such a task. Second, a millionaire cannot become a millionaire without raising a million men to increase their modest fortunes. As a reference to trickle-down theory made popular many years later, Sumner may be considered one the first believers in the theory. It is a theory that says we should allow the wealthy to amass as much money as they can because it will trickle down to those beneath them. In the end though, the concentration of wealth is still a result of natural selection and the survival of the fittest and any gains to those not selected are modest. Despite his push for philanthropy from the rich, Andrew Carnegie believes it is best for the human race for the few accumulate such wealth because they are better at putting it to good use. Veiled in condescension, he says the rich will be the trusts for the poor since the poor cannot do alone for themselves and should not attempt to take from the wealthy. It should be up to the wealthy how to spend the extra wealth. It seems as though he does not have the absolutist thinking of Sumner, but he does still believe in the idea of natural selection, through competition, and the survival of the fittest thus he still is part of Social Darwinism thought just with an added feature of charity. But charity should only go to those who deserve it. In fact, to give indiscriminately does harm to the human race. Only by death, does the government have the right to force the wealth left behind to be taxed for the benefit of the public. Therefore, in the absence of death, the wealthy determines what shall be done with his excess wealth.
Even religion was used to justify Social Darwinism thought. If you were poor, it was the result of your own shortcomings and the punishment of God has made you poor. Russell Conwell, a minister, believed this. Charles Murray, in the 1980s, would begin to argue for a return to this type of thinking. As H.L. Mencken would remark later, religion gives the appearance of fact, credibility, and authority in a democracy. In the minds of many, the religious angle to the argument for Social Darwinism thought gives the masses the appearance that fact, credibility, and authority lies with their betters, the wealthy. They should believe what the wealthy tell them because it will only help them. Perhaps this results in the concentration of perceived facts. The powerful, as the wealthy are in Social Darwinism, can determine what the “facts” will be.
Soon, the extreme ideology of Social Darwinism, and its by-product of the concentration of wealth, would receive deserved ridicule. Criticism of the ideology would soon bring it down in the wake of the Progressive Era. The right to property seemed to start as a physical space, land to be more specific, and those items within. But when Social Darwinism took over, the definition of property rights seemed to have expanded to any material items you possess, thus not subject to taxation or government intervention. It reaches absolutist terms. For the rich, this meant whether it was by their own labor or the labor of others. So when land monopolies started to form, as those with the wealth bought the ever increasingly expensive plots, property rights seemed out of reach for everyone else, more so than ever before. The author, Henry George, noticed this transition. He said this is the root of poverty. Mere wealth alone should not dictate ownership of property. George says the product of labor determines ownership of property and property of land, specifically, should be in common; for all and used by all. Eugene V. Debs makes the same point, but says it must be achieved by the strength of unity through unionization. Following the long believed cliché, there is strength in numbers. John Dewey remarks that the concentration does not stop there. There is the concentration of liberty; business interests enjoy great liberty at the expense of everyone else. When the people have the choice of working for meager wages or not working at all, there is no real choice. Social Darwinism has promoted poverty of the masses through the few monopolizing not only the wealth, but land property and liberty as well.
Many opponents of Social Darwinism focused on the idea of competition and its predilection with survival of the fittest; one who wins in competition is the fittest. Edward Bellamy points to the core of Social Darwinism thinking through storytelling. He discusses that competition breeds selfishness and the greed for more and more money corrupts men. Given the great liberty the wealthy are afforded by Social Darwinism, corruption is no reason to punish or regulate them. This corruption, or perceived corruption, was the basis of an entire party platform. The Progressive Party set out to restrict the influence of the wealthy and give the power to the people. This is where the referendum and the idea to have the direct election of senators. It grabs some of the power from the few, indeed. Mencken would take a more broad attack on the competition for wealth (aka greed) by saying democracy has a tendency to promote greed; the majority is materialistic. Henry Lloyd expresses similar belief about competition saying it is ruthless and then he continues to assault the idea of survival of the fittest by pointing out just because you have wealth does not necessarily make you fit. Some people were able to perform better than those considered to be more fit despite their wealth. As mentioned above, this is the true face of Social Darwinism hidden under the veil of natural selection and survival of the fittest propaganda. It shows to be an unreliable ideology, according to Lloyd, since he convincingly argues that wealth and fitness are not related to each other. This contradicts the argument made by Sumner and Carnegie because they assume the people who gather great wealth are more fit. Perhaps, they are just partly lucky and partly skill; it was not because the cosmos picked them.
Setting the groundwork for what needs to be addressed, and their own extreme solution, the writings of those mentioned help build an argument for the need for solutions. Some solutions would actually be put in place. At the structural level of classical liberalism, changes were made that transformed liberalism as an ideology that allowed for the death of Social Darwinism and the avoidance of its revival (or so we thought). If classical liberalism can become Social Darwinism, changing classical liberalism may prevent such a transition. Enter John Dewey into the political fray. He set the structural groundwork that would allow for the redefinition of liberalism. By dropping the absolutist, and abstract, terms of freedom and liberty (with its centerpiece, property rights), we can apply the words in a practical manner and experiment. For instance, laissez-faire is not part of natural rights. It is absolutist thinking to think it is. Noted economist, John Maynard Keynes, takes it even further that he says there is no such thing as natural rights; rights do not come from above, they come from social construction. With flexibility, they were able to redefine freedom. They did this by saying the government has a role to play to ensure the many have their rights protected instead of the few. The concentration of wealth, land, and liberty will be dismantled.
Social Darwinism seems to be a natural evolution from classical liberalism when materialism—which leads to greed and selfishness—takeover. In theory, classical liberalism was engrained in individual rights with no connection to the idea of what you have defines who you are. It does not matter how much or what little wealth you have, you have the same rights as your wealthy neighbor. In practice, this ideal seems to give way to the worse of human nature of the few as shown above. Crass materialism leads to selfishness; selfishness leads to greed. Once these two traits become engrained in the system, it appears the ideology of Social Darwinism takes hold. The proponents of the concentration of wealth were also anti-tax and anti-unions; anything that could cost them money. But they funneled the argument through a veil of natural selection and survival of the fittest to further legitimize the greed that is taking over. According to the wealthy, they are not greedy, they are chosen. A concentration of land and liberty was also a side-effect of Social Darwinism belief. The big three: wealth, land, and liberty can put a stranglehold on a country. The few who had the benefit, and pretty much the control, of all three sooner or later exposes the effect it has on the rest of the population. It takes a lot for masses of people to notice, no doubt, but once they do, there is no turning back.
It comes down to perhaps referring to Social Darwinism as extreme classical liberalism that could make John Locke say, “That is not what I meant!” With Social Darwinism rejected by many, liberalism as an ideology transforms. It is refocused as an ideology about equality of opportunity by positive action from government in cases where someone needs a jumpstart to ensure all are protected.
This leads me to believe that we need another John Dewey to guide us past this step backwards. Classical liberalism, usually called Libertarianism these days, seems ripe for being advantageous towards the wealthy. Liberalism as we know it today evolved through the guidance of men like John Dewey and if we would have kept this nation in such a liberal slant, then we would not have court decisions like Citizens United; perhaps the worst decided case since Lochner v. New York. This was another case that put a lot of power in the hands of the wealthy denying the states' ability to put safeguards up for employees from dangerous working conditions.
History indeed repeats itself. If you are still in doubt, did you notice anything written throughout this piece that seemed very similar to what has been happening for awhile; the rich feeling they have a right to keep and gather more money and not pay taxes, the poor being looked at as inferior, the ones considered the fittest are the ones with the wealth, etc. We have not reached the point of no return. But we are heading in the wrong direction if we want to avoid it; the Guilded Age part 2, I rather not do.