Darwin and the clueless left: It was all a misunderstanding
"This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection," wrote Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (full text available online here).
By Sissy Willis of sisu
It was all a misunderstanding. Charles Darwin called the process of nonrandom elimination of species that he hypothesized from years of field observation "natural selection." It totally works for us with both nature and human nature, but Darwin's flamboyant philosopher friend Herbert Spencer's memorable if misleading "survival of the fittest" survived the winnowing process of cultural evolution to become the meme of choice for generations of elitists who knew little about the scientific method nor the origin of species but all about what was best for us little people out here. Enter stage right Angelo M. Codevilla's American Spectator tour de force "America's Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution":
By 1853, when Sen. John Pettit of Ohio called "all men are created equal" "a self-evident lie," much of America's educated class had already absorbed the "scientific" notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest. Accordingly, by nature, superior men subdue inferior ones as they subdue lower beings or try to improve them as they please. Hence while it pleased the abolitionists to believe in freeing Negroes and improving them, it also pleased them to believe that Southerners had to be punished and reconstructed by force. As the 19th century ended, the educated class's religious fervor turned to social reform: they were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they, the most highly evolved of all, were the improvers.
You must read the whole thing, of course. No mention of the Gramscian march through the institutions, but it touches deeply upon the ur-theme of this blog, the importance of being noticed. In our view it makes the world go 'round. Codevilla nails it:
For our ruling class, identity always trumps.
Just ask Northeast Corridor Fuddy Duddy Peggy Noonan. What's true for Beltway types is true for all mankind, only more so given the stakes, as Codevilla explains:
Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity — being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment's parts.
Yes you, Mitt Romney, for enabling an aide to diss Mama Grizzly Sarah Palin as "not a serious human being." Your days are numbered.
Crossposted at sisu and Liberty Pundits.
I don’t know if you are serious or not. If you think Romney knew what his aide was going to say and approved it, then I guess you can attach blame to him. You have no way of knowing this. I don’t think you can hold him accountable for some aide popping off. It is like holding a website accountable for some moronic comment made by a reader; not fair at all.
Quoted from Codevilla: “By 1853, when Sen. John Pettit of Ohio called “all men are created equal” “a self-evident lie,” much of America’s educated class had already absorbed the “scientific” notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest.”
This doesn’t make any sense. First, Darwin didn’t publish _On the Origin of Species_ until 1859. Second, according to his wikipedia entry, John Pettit was a racist and an aggressive advocate of slavery. His opposition to Jefferson’s famous dictum had everything to do with racism and nothing to do with science.
Codevilla also makes the mistake of thinking that the “educated” who abolished slavery (and fought a bloody, brutal war to do so) are the same “educated class” that gave rise to socialism/progressivism. They aren’t. Socialism was a European idea, not an American one. It did not grow here; it was imported by immigrants and found fertile soil in the minds of people who believed that Old Europe was the fount of all wisdom.
Sissy is simply the best, but this last line was simply not her best.
To use this wonderfully developed offering, to eventually knock Mitt Romney?
The same guy who was on the pathetic David Letterman TV show, admirably praising – defending Sarah Palin?
To blame Romney for a rumor spread by an unethical TIME Author?
Romney is not finished. Nor should we foolishly turn him into the ‘enemy’ and not consider him for a potential Presidential Run. He is a HERO of the Free Market, having turned around numerous disasters, being one of the most experienced – proven CEO’s in the USA. He definitely hurt himself with the MASS Health CARE folly, but Mrs. Palin has hurt herself just as much, by abandoning the responsibility of being a Governor. (Yes, this is indeed evidence of not being “serious”).
This expressed HATRED for Romney is the same ‘cult of personality’ devotion which create such wild – overt sophistry, such as “Sarah Palin ALONE debased Obamacare”. Or the idea Mrs. Palin’s FaceBook Posts are somehow ‘feared’ by the Obama Team. It is as if the Celebrity Fan-Fare is unaware of the unrealistic offering, lowering it’s own credibility with such nonsense.
The support and devotion is admirable, but some levels of reason have become lost. And it further and further drives a number of the rest of us away from the Celebrity in question.
I have witnessed, read, heard, etc., the worst – ugly expression provided by many Palin Supporters for a vast number of other Republicans and Conservatives. If anyone dares offer even the smallest, polite question of the “Hockey Mom”, they become labeled an ‘Andrew Sullivan’ or a ‘Daily Kos’ reader. The worst vitriol provided by a number of Palin Devotees, has been directed towards Mr. Romney for Months now. The name “Mittens” is often accompanied by the most ugly hostility and dehumanizing expression, all in the name of aiding Sarah Palin. And these same Voices, including the Conservatives 4 Palin Blog, are now outraged by rumors reported by Halperin? When did these Conservatives become so hypocritical?
Mrs. Palin is largely a Celebrity now, her fame is mostly based on image and identity, and Romney does not fit the accepted stereotypical “IDEAL” – thus he is treated poorly by the Fashion. Sarah Palin often gets a pass for contradictory and questionable “imperfections” (which all politicians have), but are only expressed about those who are not fashionable (like Romney). It is clear, Mr. Romney is deemed a threat to Mrs. Palin now, (even after his admirable support for the failed Maverick Ticket in 2008: the McCain-Palin Campaign), and thus another reason for the quick acceptance of Mr. Romney being responsible for these tired charges via Halperin. The intense hype, the emotive – reactionary embrace, is similar to the counter productive mindset which helped undermine Our best interests after 2004, leaving Our Nation in terrible hands after the Elections in 2006 and 2008. It is the same rush to jump on the quick bait yet again, and we all lose in the end.
Have Conservatives become so easily played?
Will they easily digest every effort to divide us?
Do some on Our own side, still think of the negligent Clintons as being centrists?
Remember, the FASHION has been utterly wrong on so many issues. The Moderate FRED THOMPSON was a primary example, who ended up enabling the Maverick.
Chris Christie is another major example for today.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin endorsed a Primary challenger to Sen. Lisa Murkowski. You could not have a greater example of petty politics, especially after seeing some of the admirable efforts Mrs. Murkowski has provided recently in the Senate. It is another concerning moment, which indicates the HYPE is far from the human reality.
Time for cooler reasoned heads to prevail.
We have so much to do this NOV and 2012.
Uh, brooklyn….
Lisa not only pledged that she would not repeal Obama care, she now supports Daniel Akaka’s Native Hawaiian seperatist bill. Frank’s Girl needs to go.
Go sell your Romneybot apologetics to Deval Patrick. He appears to be the fall guy for all of Mitten’s buckpassing, anyway.
And she’s supporting another carbon tax, with the promise of drilling later, no wonder BP gave her the most of all republicans in the Senate, and Newsweek is talking her up as the fair haired girl
LOL !
romneybot?
section9 just proves the point.
I wish the opposition to ‘FRANK’s GIRL’ was a product of idealistic principles and not petty personal politics – but knowing the ultimate reality, Sarah Palin embraced the Maverick Platform in 2008, completely destroys any concept of an ideal political conviction overriding ambition. The Maverick Ticket (McCain-Palin Campaign), similar aspects which were incorporated in Obamacare, promoted disastrous Cap and Trade Taxation, took a truly apologist tone for fighting the GWOT, and even debased sound interrogation techniques like ‘waterboarding’.
Sarah Palin’s past is not the ‘conservative superhero’ the Fashion is presenting. And it is part of the problem with the HYPE.
The record suggests a typical Politician, who will embrace a certain belief system – policies, which will best serve the politician: not a bad Center – Right Republican, but no genuine crusader for the ideal. For example, Mrs. Palin’s other endorsements in the various GOP Primaries are so random, such as Carly Fiorina and the Maverick, there is hardly an ideology driving the game – it is clearly popularity, fashion, personal agenda, etc., (to be fair – objective – is typical of all politicians).
The record is far from the romanticized IMAGE or IDENTITY. Mrs. Palin not only rushed to embrace John McCain’s Democratic Partisan LIGHT platform, she originally grew as a Maverick in the McCain mold. It was one of the bigger reasons why he selected her. Sarah Palin provided populist tax increases for Oil Companies, built a ‘Climate Panel’ bureaucracy, etc., in Alaska before she bailed. Recently, she also sounded just like Obama during the Big P Spill, offering ONLY the advice “to talk to experts” in an effort “to hold the Oil company accountable”.
If you believe Mrs. Palin’s reasons to oppose a “MURKOWSKI” has something to do with policy embrace, than I have a bridge in NYC you should buy.
Sissy, you are right on, and Brooklyn doesn’t get what this entire post is about. I lived through Perot and I understand the fears out there that we must keep the Good Ol’ Boys and status quo in place if we want a chance.
That would be fine if we were talking about politics as usual. We have moved beyond that at light speed. Anyone who thinks that the measured words, sagacious posturing, and back room deals are gonna save us is sadly out of touch with the alternate universe that is slamming into our own: Obama comes from a completely different world beyond the ken of most Americans, but understood keenly by those of his entourage.
What part of “audacity” did we not understand? You don’t challenge audacity with a platform. You put it down with something equally as audacious. “Grizzly moms” are more serious than anything you’ve ever encountered.
Mr. Codevilla makes some very good points – but he is just another fascist. In the original sense of using government power to make people behave the “right” way.
We have two sets of fascists in America. One group is the economic fascists. The other is the moral fascists. And both of those groups believe they are opposed to each other.