Recently President Obama called the draconian Ryan budget plan "thinly disguised Social Darwinism". Robert Reich has written in a recent HuffPost article that the Republican rhetoric over the past few years is strongly suggesting a return to that period in American history called the Guilded Age when the Robber Barons controlled the nation, most Americans had very little influence, and many were impoverished. In this context, Reich points out that this philosophy of Social Darwinism is attributed to Yale Professor William Graham Sumner who wrote in 1883 that:
"Let it be understood that we cannot go outside of this alternative: Liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members."
I agree with Reich when he asks: "Could there be a better summary of what today's regressive Republicans believe?".
So what are some of the consequences that could be anticipated if the conservatives and the current group of "robber barons" were to go the social Darwinism route?
First we could look at a time in our history when social Darwinism was "in effect" - namely, the Gilded Age. During this period (1865-1900) the industrial age had its early heyday and a few folks got incredibly rich while most struggled to get along and perhaps 40% were at or below the poverty rate. And there was a lot of bad behavior in terms of labor abuses, corruption, and speculation. And, we see that the incredible economic growth didn't in more modern terms simply "trickle down" to the less fortunate.
But fortunately the Gilded Age was followed by a Progressive Era (1890-1920) during which a middle class emerged and demanded a fair chance to participate in the economic growth and to gain a bigger share of the gains that were largely going to the very top echelons of American income earners. At the same the government also began to regulate the extreme business/financial behaviors that occurred during the Gilded Age and taxes were increased to fund our participation in WW I.
So one could conclude that the Gilded Age with all of its excesses and inequities but fueled by the industrial revolution ultimately contributed to a stronger middle class and generally higher standards of living in the US population. But, it took a strong progressive movement amongst the people and the government to enable a wider sharing of the gains made.
Then there was the Roaring 20s period and its excesses aided by low taxes, deregulation, concentration of wealth, and plenty of speculation that ultimately resulted in the Crash of 29 and the Great Depression. This period as we know was followed by a very progressive New Deal period led by President Roosevelt and aimed at economic recovery and providing help for the Nation's unemployed, elderly, sick, and poor.
The economic situation was turning around albeit slowly and then WW II came along. The war stimulated almost total employment in America along with price controls and high marginal tax rates. And, as the war was coming to an end, the Roosevelt Administration enacted the GI Bill which served to create a well educated workforce going forward into the 50s. During the Eisenhower Administration the middle class grew and flourished and the nation was able to make massive investments in national infrastructure - this occurring in spite of and because of the fact that marginal income tax rates remained very high throughout the 50s, The marginal income tax rate was lowered to about 70% in the Kennedy Administration and he post war economic heyday continued through out the 60s.
Now let's fast forward to circa 1980 and the advent of Reaganomics that began a 28 year era of "supply side" economics and the "trickle down" theory (punctuated noticeably by the Clinton Administration) during which Income tax rates were dramatically cut and regulations were eliminated. There was the perception that the nation prospered over this period. But, a retrospective analysis shows that during the period from 1979 to 2008, Americans in the lower 60% of income experienced no growth in real income over that period and even the forth quintile of income (61-80%) enjoyed only very modest increases. In stark contrast the upper 1% enjoyed a nearly 300% increase in real income! Conclusion: trickle down didn't happen! These are the numbers in spite of the fact that during the Clinton Administration (which raised income taxes), had a booming economy on its watch, balanced its last four balanced budgets, and saw a significant rise in real income across all quintiles of American income. In other words if not for the Clinton Administration the dismal performance of the Reaganomics era in terms of trickle down would have been worse!
I should also add that while our nation raised taxes significantly to fund WW I and WW II it did not raise taxes to fund our recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (with exception of the Clinton increases that were reversed by Bush II). As such our country's debt skyrocketed during the Bush II administration.
Many pundits are designating our current economic experience as a new Gilded Age in which economic growth has been propelled by the information age and new technology, wealth has become extremely concentrated, ordinary people not benefiting in terms of real income growth, and speculation and corruption resulting in a catastrophic financial crisis and economic down turn in the context of a serious debt problem.
At the same time, the present day Republican Party (via the Ryan budget) seems bound and determined to dramatically cut the federal budget and at the same time further cut marginal income tax rates to levels that would be less than half of what they were following Kennedy's cuts in the 60s. This would mean that social services to the American people including health care, would be gutted and we would arrive at a situation that puts all Americans including the under served and under privileged pretty much on their own and we will be exercising a "survival of the fittest" social philosophy. Another words we will have achieved a state of "social Darwinism". Further, our nation would have no resources for absolutely crucial renovation of the infrastructure, education reform, and R&D in energy and environment.
Given the demonstrated failure of supply side trickle down economics, I am at a loss to figure out how the Republicans might conclude that the situation that they seem determined to achieve would be good for the Nation. Clearly, it would be (and has been) very good for the top echelon of American wealth holders but it would be catastrophic for ordinary Americans and in the long haul for the country. So I am wondering what "nation" the Republicans are actually concerned about.