The Love Chronicles, Political Darwinism

Posted: July 22, 2011 in News and politics

Political Darwinism, by John Love
First let us review the theory of evolution. There are a lot of misconceptions, and we need to understand that Darwinism started a study of evolutionary functions and science, which has in itself evolved as science evolved. The following is a definition I like because it does not use the language of scientists to explain itself. We are going to be discussing Political Darwinism, not evolution, so let the hackles at the back of your neck subside and bear with me, we need to start with the basics. Evolution is a fact I would very much like to debate with you, but not practical for this article. I think a review is necessary before I try and describe to you what Political Darwinism is, and how it manifests itself in today’s politics.
“Evolution is the process of change in all forms of life over generations, and evolutionary biology is the study of how evolution occurs. The biodiversity of life evolves by means of mutations, genetic drift and natural selection.”
The process of natural selection is based on three conditions. First, every individual is supplied with hereditary material in the form of genes that are received from their parents then passed on to their offspring. Second, organisms tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support. Third, there are variations among offspring as a consequence of either the introduction of new genes via random changes called mutations or reshuffling of existing genes during sexual reproduction.
When these three conditions hold true, natural selection will occur. Scientists now have a good understanding of the origin of new species (speciation) and have observed the speciation process in the laboratory and in the wild. Evolution is the principal theory that biologists use to understand life and is used in many disciplines, including medicine, psychology, conservation biology, anthropology, forensics, agriculture and other social-cultural applications.

It is the one of the social-cultural applications I wish to discuss with you now. Darwin put forth, among others, the theory of survival of the fittest. This has been adopted by certain political segments of society and applied in different, usually vile and repugnant ways. The most commonly used doctrine in Political Darwinism states that races and groups are subject to the same laws of natural selection as Darwin stated was the case for plants and animals. It was, and may still be by some, believed that the life of humans in any society was a struggle for existence ruled by survival of the fittest. Wealth was considered to be a sign of natural superiority, and its absence a sign of unfitness to exist. This was popular throughout the 19th century to support capitalism as way of life unimpeded by any rules by government or populace. It was also used to promote political conservatism. It was, as is always the case, subverted to fit the needs of the powerful to become more powerful. The term survival of the fittest, in this case meant that those who could wield the largest army and arsenal is proven to be the superior race or segment of a race, and therefore has every right to subjugate the weak and unfit populations they have conquered. Hitler and his Nazi Party is a perfect example of subverted Political Darwinism!
So, finally to my point, I believe Political Darwinism is alive and well, I believe it exists in our very own political system, and is practiced by our politicians, mostly without their even being aware of its true nature. You have read other articles by me, Jim Mahon, and some others who are involved in our attempt to change how politics is managed, complain and bark about all of the contracts and perks our representatives have written and voted in for themselves over the years. They have exempted themselves from certain laws and taxes. They have supplied themselves with some of the most lavish retirement and medical plans, paid for by you and me. They lie and misrepresent facts that get thousands killed and affect the lives of billions, and think this is perfectly acceptable for them, a crime for us. So how do you explain this, only one way, they believe themselves to be superior to the people they represent. They believe wealth and power prove them to be superior and better suited to survive. They believe that they should not be held accountable by the same laws and rules as you or I.
This is why you have people who will decimate Health Care, Social Security, food programs, and others which have no impact on the lives they lead, just to keep the status quo as is. It is complicated, but the rich do get richer, and the poor do get poorer, and our political representatives say one thing, because they can’t get around needing to get reelected by us, but then actually do something else behind closed doors. We are starting to put some pressure on them, but they will never give up the preferred status they have given themselves until we have made it abundantly clear they will not get elected if they are not agreeing to live as we live, buy insurance from the same vendors we do, paid out of their own pockets, not ours. That they should only get retirement from the companies they work for or own in the private sector, not from us, the taxpayer. If you saw the Congressional Act of 2011 that was being passed around last week, you will get the idea. It was well written and very logically based. I was going to say who started it, but she may not want me spreading her name around. If you look for it, I am sure you can find it.
The short if it is, I believe that our politicians are Political Darwinists at heart. They believe they are better, more qualified, and have a moral right to wield power. I know that a lot of them believe because they have wealth this somehow proves their superiority. Well how many people do you know that are wealthy but could not put two fence posts in a straight line? A wealthy hotel heiress comes to mind, but there are many, many examples, and not hard to find. This means, if I am right, that your politician’s actual agenda is not going to be what he or she spouts in speeches, letters or books. They will tell you what they think you need to hear to vote for them. They will give you what they can, as long as it does not take anything of value away from the others they think share their superiority and who support them as they in return protect their interests. Whether or not you and I die from lack of competent treatment, lose our house, live on dog food, if we are so fortunate, or are treated fairly by our courts and laws is really of no consequence to most. I do not want to say that all politicians fall into this category, but you can bet the ones that do keep a tight rein on the ones that don’t, and those that don’t will also experience a very short stay on Capitol Hill as a result. Think about it. Do you really believe that any Senator you can think of knows what it is like to sit down at the kitchen table, with the household bills spread out before you, trying to decide which ones you are going to pay, and which ones will do you and your family the least amount of damage when you do not pay them. These same Senators will label you a dead beat in private, and classify you as that unfit member of society when you lost your job to someone in a foreign country because your senator enabled another of his “superior” supporters to send your job overseas. Our politicians well continue to do what is best for them and those that can most effectively keep them in power unless we force them to do otherwise. Right now all we have is our vote, so we need to use it, and we need to use it wisely. Only 35% of voters who could vote, actually did in 2010. The percentage varies a little, but it is always very low. Just think how much power we would have if we could just get the other 65% to the polls! Then imagine if they were there because of an agenda we start. Talk about revolution. Whooooeeee!

  1. K.Hardiman says:

    John , I’m enjoying your blog . When I think of today’s political process , I believe it is more of a “divide and conquer” process threw polarization of the issues. “You’re either with us or agaist us”. Oscar

    • John Love says:

      I think your comment has merit. It will still take a consensus of what is our way and what is not, and getting the 65% of the non-voters to go to the polls and agree with us while there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s