[Peace-discuss] Fwd: The Evangelical Rebellion by Chris Hedges

[C. G. Estabrook]

I would see them as essentially opposed, with the Social Darwinists 
drawing ammunition against the "Christers" from Darwin.

Darwin's theory of natural selection was easily applied to human 
society, with the conclusion that the strongest would prevail (and 
should) in order to pass along their successful traits to later 
generations.  In this form Darwin was seen to justify a society in which 
the rich get richer and the poor, poorer -- and both Bryan and the 
Social Gospelers objected to that.

Darwinism arose it the context of a lot of social thought -- Malthusian 
for want of a better term -- that justified the dark Satanic mills of 
early capitalism.  Apparently the term Social Darwinism first appeared 
in the 1870s -- Émile Gautier published an anarchist tract in Paris in 
1880 entitled "Le darwinisme social." (It's hardly surprising that the 
anarchists were the first to notice how Darwin was being used.) But it 
seems that the term was rarer than the idea until the American historian 
Richard Hofstadter published *Social Darwinism in American Thought* 
during World War II.

The Nazis and fascists in general were proponents of Social Darwinism, 
as the title of Hitler's *Mein Kampf* suggests. (Was that what attracted 
Hofstadter's attention?)

In contrast to Malthusian/Soc. Dar. thought, the Social Gospel arose 
particularly in American Protestant Christianity in the late 19th and 
early 20th centuries in order to apply "Christian principles to social 
problems, especially poverty, inequality, liquor, crime, racial 
tensions, slums, bad hygiene, poor schools, and the danger of war." 
(Similar movements in the RC church are noticeable in the "social 
encyclicals" of the popes in the same period.)

I was delighted to learn that "The Social Gospel theme is reflected in 
the novels In His Steps (1897) and The Reformer (1902), the creations of 
the Congregational minister Charles Sheldon, who coined the motto 'What 
would Jesus do?'  In his personal life, Sheldon was committed to 
Christian Socialism and identified strongly with the Social Gospel 
movement.  Walter Rauschenbusch, one of the leading early theologians of 
the Social Gospel in the United States, indicated that his theology had 
been inspired by Sheldon's novels."  (The poets always get there first.)

Incidentally, in spite of the tendency of Darwinism to influence all 
areas of human thought since 1859, there are some notable hold-outs 
today: the late "Stephen Jay Gould, probably the most famous person who 
has written on evolution, and Noam Chomsky, the most famous person who 
has written on language," deny that the language faculty, unique to 
humans, could have arisen by natural selection -- to frenzied objections 
from some of his epigoni, such as Stephen Pinker, whom I'm quoting.  --CGE

David Green wrote:
> I suppose that Social Darwinism broadly construed did define American 
> political thought at least until World War I, but wouldn't one also make 
> a distinction between conservative Social Darwinists and the Social 
> Gospel? I realize that the latter also facilitated the rise of the 
> corporate state, but at least there was room at one end of their tent 
> for John Dewey, etc., however futile his efforts turned out to be.
> 
> */"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>     I don't think it's clear that the people whose reading of Origin of
>     Species and Genesis you disagree with are necessarily stupid or
>     ignorant (and I don't agree with them either).
> 
>     Bryan, e.g., who's been made a figure of fun so that his politics could
>     be forgotten, saw that evolution was being used in the early 20th
>     century to justify rapacious capitalist practices -- what we tend to
>     isolate as "social Darwinism" but was part of the progressive view a
>     century ago. It was for example the basis of the eugenics movement in
>     America, which the Nazis acknowledged showed them the way. (A cousin of
>     mine was a principal figure in the movement.) Bryan's politics are
>     certainly to be preferred to those of his president, Woodrow Wilson.
> 
>     Cockburn is disturbed I think primarily by the gap between the
>     pretensions of the American political system and anything like real
>     democracy (which American liberals fear, because they think that the
>     people are stupid and ignorant). --CGE
> 
>     Morton K. Brussel wrote:
>      > Some value intelligence and knowledge among other qualities, even
>     for
>      > leaders in government, and abjure stupidity and ignorance.
>     Necessary, if
>      > not sufficient, reasons to govern wisely. In their disgust and
>      > abhorrence at current (and past) politics and policies, some are
>     ready
>      > to turn to anything and anybody different, or perhaps
>     nothing--nihilism.
>      > An example is,sadly, the truly disturbed Cockburn.
>      >
>      > --mkb
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      > On Dec 30, 2007, at 7:16 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>      >
>      >> Seems pretty sober to me. The Left that Cockburn has in mind is the
>      >> sad American version, synonymous with liberals, and represented by,
>      >> say, the Nation magazine (and, indeed, Chris Hedges).
>      >>
>      >> The American version is of course only a simulacrum of a Left as
>     the
>      >> term has been used for two centuries, because it's abandoned the
>      >> Left's defining characteristic, attention to class struggle.
>      >>
>      >> The Left in the US has been reduced to a matter of thinking the
>     right
>      >> thoughts and using the right language (what used to be called
>      >> "identity politics," until it became the norm). It's all a
>     matter of
>      >> symbolic analysis, in Robert Reich's term: you can't diss Darwin or
>      >> believe in resurrection, altho' it's a bit hard to see what those
>      >> terms have to do with politics. (In fact, I think the latter does,
>      >> but probably not in Evangelicalism, which seems to me a relatively
>      >> simple material heresy.)
>      >>
>      >> American politics have to be bumped over into the symbolic arena
>      >> because there's no real contestation over policy. The presidential
>      >> campaign means very little because all the "serious" candidates
>      >> (Republican and Democrat) support the same policy -- on the war,
>      >> health care, the economy, etc. It doesn't matter which of the
>     actual
>      >> candidates is elected because policy is doubly insulated from
>     politics
>      >> -- the policy is not under debate and political discussion is about
>      >> irrelevancies (cf. Darwin).
>      >>
>      >> Americans (outside of the ideological institutions --
>     universities and
>      >> the media) recognize this and conclude correctly that the
>     presidential
>      >> campaign has little or nothing to do with them. It's a game
>     played by
>      >> those designated -- show-business for ugly people. As a result, the
>      >> actual policies of both parties -- essentially two business
>     parties --
>      >> are substantially to the right of the views of most Americans.
>     (E.g.,
>      >> 80% of Americans say big business has too much influence in the
>     USG.)
>      >>
>      >> Alex I think would buy most of this, and it's in that context
>     that he
>      >> discusses Huckabee (and Paul). Remember he started as a political
>      >> reporter and is here simply assessing the chances of candidates,
>      >> without the moralistic fury against a Baptist minister who dares to
>      >> run. (A fury incidentally not shown to M. L. King, another Baptist
>      >> minister.) He considers the possibility, over against the monoglot
>      >> media, that Huckabee could be a "genuinely interesting candidate,"
>      >> even a "wild man" terrifying the political establishment like
>     Bryan (a
>      >> rather admirable figure although "another implacable foe of
>     Darwin")
>      >> or Wallace (certainly less admirable).
>      >>
>      >> Surveying the US presidents from Reagan to Bush, can you seriously
>      >> doubt that "any imbecile could be head of state" (or
>     government)? But
>      >> the problem is not that they're stupid -- in some ways they
>     aren't --
>      >> but that they do vicious things.
>      >>
>      >> I don't agree that "lack of experience and knowledge about the
>     rest of
>      >> the world is one of the principal problems right now in American
>      >> government." Liberal critics of the Vietnam War used to say that
>     the
>      >> US had stupidly blundered into a situation there (a "quagmire")
>     that
>      >> it didn't understand. There was no blunder -- it was just hard
>     for US
>      >> Liberals in their naivety to believe that that people they went to
>      >> school with would kill 3-4 million people to teach the Third
>     World a
>      >> lesson. But they did (successfully), just as Clinton and Bush have
>      >> killed millions in order successfully to maintain US hegemony
>     over ME
>      >> energy resources. And
>     Clinton-Obama-Edwards-Romney-Giuliani-Huckabee
>      >> will do the same. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme *pose*...
>      >>
>      >> Regards, CGE