Skip to comments.Obama says Republicans practice "Social Darwinism"
Posted on 12/11/2005 5:31:19 PM PST by Crackingham
Republicans controlling the federal government practice Social Darwinism, a discredited philosophy that in economics and politics calls for survival of the fittest, according to a Democratic U.S. senator. Sen. Barak Obama of Illinois, a fast-rising Democratic star, told Florida party members that only a philosophy among Republicans of sink or swim explains why some Hurricane Katrina victims in New Orleans still live in cars while Republicans in Washington prepare next week to enact $70 billion in tax breaks.
"It's called the 'Ownership society' in Washington. This isn't the first time this philosophy has appeared. It used to be called Social Darwinism," Obama said late Saturday at the Democrats meeting at Walt Disney World.
"They have a philosophy they have implemented and that is doing exactly what it was designed to do. They basically don't believe in government. They have a different philosophy that says, 'We're going to dismantle government'," Obama said.
Republicans running the federal government believe, "You are on your own to buy your own health care, to buy your own retirement security ... to buy your own roads and levees," Obama said, referring to flood barriers that gave way in New Orleans during Katrina last August.
Obama, the only African American now in the U.S. Senate, gave the keynote address at the annual meeting of Florida Democrats.
Social Darwinism applies Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection from biology to human culture. Popular in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the theory advocates free competition and a minimalist role for government in society. Darwin himself rejected the application of natural selection to human society.
What? They didn't refer to him as "Grammy Nominee Barack Obama"?
The problem is?
Ah, the "new Democrats." Just like the old Democrats.
Why am I not surprised?
""They have a philosophy they have implemented and that is doing exactly what it was designed to do. They basically don't believe in government. They have a different philosophy that says, 'We're going to dismantle government'," Obama said."
That is, of course, wrong. He's confused us with Libertarians.
We simply believe in a very limited role of gov't. We believe that a government that is big enough to satisfy all of your wants is big enough to take everything you have. We don't believe that social ills are best handled at the hightest levels of government.
We believe that government should handle only those things that the private sector can't handle, and then it's handled at the lowest possible level of government. Once we declare that the role is a legit role we believe in funding it adequately so that it is done well (ie, the military).
or "nobel peace prize nominee obama "
Nate says the RATS practice Termite Mound socialism. So there.
Translation: The Democrat party is the party of losers.
thoughT the Dims *worshipped* at the altar of Darwinism!!!
Capitalism, social darwism, individual freedom of choice... whatever... just keep your communism off my check book.
If he's the best they've got, they are in a heap of trouble. (YAWN).
He's just another phony moderate, and no doubt feels that his recent remarks urging the Dems to be cautious in the 'they lied us into war' mantra has made him questionable to the kook base of the party, so he says this to mollify and reassure them that he's still with them way out there on the Left.
if only this were all more generally true and thoroughly applied.
but we have made a bit of a start, at least.
"Social Darwinism" is not good?
Evolution is good, except when it applies to obsolete political parties?
When was social Darwinism discredited, and by whom? I assume by "discredited" the reporter means "doesn't fit with my socialist fantasy worldview."
The problem is the Bush Administration is doing no such thing. Wish they would, though.
He is right that republicans want people to be on their own. What he does not say is that the democrats want people to be "NOT ON THEIR OWN, THAT IS DEPENDENT UPON A RULING ELITE WHICH IS THEM".
Now let's take a quick vote. Anyone who became happy by doing something on their own, raise your hand. Now, anyone who became happy because you were dependent on a government program, raise your hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.