I feel like this article, with which I do not necessarily wholeheartedly agree nor vehemently disagree with its position, makes an interesting point. It says" This extreme form of social Darwinism is premised on two grand illusions…that we live in a true meritocracy…
I felt like this statement was ironic because it actually subtly implies, in my opinion, that the GOP argument that the “rich deserve all their wealth; the poor likewise deserve their poverty, and should therefore not be assisted by the state” would be less “illusory” if we actually lived in a true meritocracy.
Let’s assume that we lived in a society in which pretty much everyone, both rich and poor, to the bottom of their heart and soul, believed that their society was a genuine meritocracy to the core in every aspect they could possible think of. Wouldn’t the argument made by the author then imply that the “GOP argument” mentioned in the previous paragraph would then be not based in illusion, the author thus (perhaps unintendedly) making a case for Social Darwinism to be more based on reality rather than illusion the more society approaches a meritocracy?
And on a slightly different point, is there any meaningful difference between a true meritocracy and a system of Social Darwinism? I feel like the two systems are really one and the same at their logical extremes, and that those who laud the former as some sort of grand ideal are in some way “creeping Social Darwinists” rather analogous to how “socialists” are “creeping toward communism.” Is there any “merit” to my observation?
Possibly under a meritocracy, those with talent would be recognized and offered opportunity for social/academic/financial/commercial advancement by others with talent and position and they, having achieved position, would do the same to those with talent, thus promotion and opportunity come from being recognized by those who earlier received it themselves, with a social obligation to offer it to others as soon as you are able.
Under full-blown Social Darwinism, though, you gain advancement by destroying those above you, and taking their place.
If you’re going to not contribute, Rover, at least not contribute in an entertaining fashion, instead of reinforcing the victimology modern Republicans are so fond of.
Look, I disagree plenty with Republicans, but the idea that the poor deserve to be poor because of some shortcoming is not a popular sentiment. Every single Republican I know would say that s/he wants every American to be rich, but would also acknowledge that there are economic - not moral - reasons why that cannot be so.
As such, I’m going to do something quite rare for me: I’m saying Rand Rover is right. The article linked to is mostly a liberal Ann Coulter type of strawmanning the enemy, only written better.
I think it’s a lot more common than you think. “Poor people just need to do X, Y, and Z and they won’t be poor anymore, but since they don’t do X, Y, and Z, they deserve what they have.” Not only do Republicans believe this, but the first half of the statement is completely and objectively true and believed by Democrats as well. The difference is that a Democrat would end it “but they either don’t do X, Y, and Z or can’t do X, Y, and/or Z.” The difference is pretty easy to hash out; Republicans believe that capitalism will ultimately work out for the people willing to work, while Democrats believe that the capitalistic model has inherent flaws that may or may not be correctable, depending on the Democrat.
Really, if you disagree with Republicans on this you could say it’s because you believe that they are unrealistic idealists when it comes to capitalism. Ironic.
I don’t particularly see Republicans saying that the rich deserve their wealth, but there is the idea that a person who becomes rich is performing a public good. They are called job creators, as if their investments are a sacrifice that they make for the rest of society, rather than an effort to generate a profit for themselves. People who suggest raising taxes on the rich are said to want to punish them; Republicans speak of keeping their taxes low, or lowering them further, as an incentive for them to continue their noble work.
So there does seem to be an idea that rich people are good for the country, and that even richer people would be better, but that’s not the same as saying they deserve their wealth.
I am not sure that it has much to do with social Darwinism, but yes, I do think that most right wingers believe that, on the whole (no doubt they will admit there are many exceptions) the wealthy deserve their wealth, and (on the whole again, with exceptions) the poor deserve to be poor. It does not mean that they necessarily deliberately want to make people poor to punish them, but it is quite clear that right wingers think a radically unequal society can be ( and, as things are, mostly is) a just one. There is plenty of right wing rhetoric about the laziness, stupidity and even the dishonesty of the poor (all the stories about welfare cheats and the like).
The people who are well-poisoning here are those who immediately jump on any expression of such facts and call them well poisoning, or a straw man, trying to shut down the discussion, and stigmatize ideas that make them uncomfortable.
Or, maybe, just maybe, you’ve gone far off-base because you don’t understand us. Here’s a hint: the very question of “deserve” has no meaning for us. When you talk about whether Republicans believe people “deserve” to be poor or rich, you’re talking in a foreign language. We don’t talk about, because wealth or poverty isn’t considered to be in any way related to moral standing. We don’t ask whether the rich guy “deserves” his money. he can be a total asshole, but he can do whatever he likes with his money because it’s his.
In short, you’re assuming that everyone holds your worldview, and then trying to ask where we stand on it. The answer is that we don’t stand on it.
I think there is no one way to get to conservative thinking. I’m sure not all of them think that money is distributed in a just manner.
However, there are a lot of conservatives that cleave to prosperity theology, so some of them do indeed think that.
The trouble is conservative thought is so utterly wrong, there are a lot of ways to get there. 21st century conservatism is a patchwork of nonsense, jingoism, incorrect facts and flawed economic understanding.
Some conservatives literally believe that cutting taxes on the rich increases government revenue in all cases. Some believe it is the right thing to do, regardless of the economic impact. Some think that hurting the poor will help them in the long run. Some don’t think at all and just wave pennants and scream for their team.
I don’t think it’s hard to say that those conservatives that think that the world is, by necessity just and the rich are truly deserving, are wrong. But others will wriggle around and say it doesn’t apply to them.
The flipside is SB above demanding that he speak for all conservatives. Of course he doesn’t. He speaks for himself.
The question I was really trying to get at (and I used a biased source, I admit), was whether the ideal meritocracy would be a system in which wealth corresponds to “deservedness,” and whether capitalism and free competition (shouldn’t have used the word Social Darwinism in that context) could ever lead to a situation where people, rich and poor, believe that the system is indeed a meritocracy, and thus feel no injustice from it.
In other words, can capitalism construct a society in which the Republican worldview of free markets as just, even with the existence of large inequality, will be genuinely and honestly perceived by all to be fair, in which they consider their position to be deserved by what they “contribute?” Can monetary value and the value that one perceives he is providing psychologically be ever reconciled, or will there always be people who feel they are being cheated systematically by the system?
Is meritocracy a word the powerful use to appease the powerless (when in reality that meritocracy is neither realizable nor desired by the ones who have wealth and power), or is a meritocracy in which everyone feels his position is aligned with his “true merit” a realizable system?
My worry is that even in such a system, the poor will hate the rich and the rich will despise the poor, so that the Communist worldview of class conflict, although unpalatable, actually reflects the inherent and unchangeable nature of human psychology, and that inequality just can’t be swallowed, even though that inequality might be a one where a rising tide lifts all boats.
I promise I won’t do the straw man thing; in any case, if I constructed one, it’s not with the intention to tear it down. =)
Well put. I believe someone has the right to his stuff, because it’s his stuff. Period.
And conversely, someone is poor because he doesn’t have enough stuff. It has nothing to do with “deserve.” I realize this seems tautological and meaningless to many on this board, but smiling bandit’s post really is a good insight into conservative thinking if you’re really looking for it, IMO. Unlike all the straw man “I know what’s in conservatives’ hearts” nonsense that is typically offered as gospel around here.
I don’t think the word “deserve” necessarily carries a moral connotation. It could mean that they are rich because they have taken the actions to make themselves rich. And the article which inspired the OP makes no mention of the rich being morally deserving of their wealth.
Take the moral argument out of it and answer these questions: Are rich people rich solely, or at least primarily, because of their own individual efforts? Could poor people become not poor simply be deciding to and working harder?
In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with prosperity theology. It’s one of those things that I think of as a superficial interpretation (at best) of the Bible, but a useful motivator for a human world where money is so important, for better or for worse. I’m not a psychologist, but I know that Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs doesn’t start with self-actualization.
Let’s take economics out of the picture and focus on a different form of competition: dating.
I look around and I see Jennifer Connelly is married to Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Hurley is engaged to Shane Warne, Eva Mendes is dating Ryan Gosling, and Paulina Porizkova is married to Ric Ocasek. Obviously this wasn’t my choice - I’d have been happy to hook up with any of these women.
But dating is a true meritocracy - all of us, men and women, start on an equal footing and everyone ends up in a relationship based on their own merits. People may say they’ve been unlucky in love but nobody seriously complains that dating is unfair. Nobody claims that “Olivier Martinez cheated. I should be the one engaged to Halle Berry.”
But there’s no similar consensus over financial success. They’re are a lot of people who feel that some rich people are rich and some poor people are poor not because of anything they did but simply due to random chance.
