The three major Democrat candidates for President shared the stage recently before the Communications Workers of America.  All three shared their vision for an America where a huge socialist government becomes a knight on a white horse that rides into the lives of individuals, rescuing them from the curse of capitalism.  In their America, the only way people can prosper or even take care of their basic needs is to depend on opportunity provided for them by the government. 

     Senator Barack Obama accused President Bush of “social Darwinism” which he defined as “a strategy that basically says government has no role to play in making sure that America is for all people and not just for some.”  He went on to say that government research and investment is what has made advances possible in the United States. 

     One must wonder exactly how Senator Obama sees the Bush Administration as social Darwinists.  The term “social Darwinism” first appeared in Europe in an 1879 article written by Oscar Schmidt published in Popular Science. The term was a reflection of the writings of English philosopher Herbert Spencer and is a quasi-philosophical, quasi-religious, quasi-sociological view which applies the theory of biological evolution to sociology.  It was popularized in this country in 1944 by American historian Richard Hofstadter whose book, Social Darwinism and American Thought was published at the height of WWII.  Without going into all the ins and outs of the theory in it’s boiled down form, social Darwinism is the application of the survival of the fittest portion of Darwin’s thought to society.  Those who are considered to be the privileged class with the benefits of adequate salary and a quality education will survive while the poorer class and the uneducated will be weeded out.

     In his speech Obama suggested that Bush’s targeted tax cuts are an attempt to “divvy up the government into individual tax breaks” which lead to the survival of those the government considers to be the most worthy.  There are many problems with this accusation but for the sake of argument I will mention only three.  First, the Bush Administration tax breaks have not produced a protected class but have proven to be a boon to the economy as a whole.  Allowing people to keep more of their money raises their standard of living and motivates them to excel.  No one wants to work hard for the money only to see the lion’s share of the fruit of their labor end up in the hands of the government. 

     Second, the tax cuts were spread over a wide spectrum of the economy.  If the Bush Administration really wanted to target the elite to benefit from their tax program they missed their mark, and instead have pushed a tax policy that benefits all levels of society.  Home ownership and disposable income, two very good measures of economic security, have increased dramatically under the Bush tax structure.