Social Darwinism Reconsidered

In this Weekly Standard essay, Jonah Goldberg takes those to task who have been accusing Republicans of being modern day Social Darwinists.  Here is the key paragraph:

But here’s the interesting part: Almost no one else called himself a Social Darwinist either (including [Herbert] Spencer’s alleged co-conspirator William Graham Sumner). Simply put, there was no remotely serious intellectual movement—at least not in America or Britain—called Social Darwinism, and the evil views attributed to so-called Social Darwinists were not held by its alleged founders. Geoffrey Hodgson conducted a survey of all of the leading English-language academic journals from the mid-1800s until 1937 and couldn’t find any evidence that Spencer and Sumner were part of, never mind leaders of, an intellectual movement called “Social Darwinism.” Even more amazing: In the entire body of Anglo-American scholarly publications spanning more than a century, there is only one article that actually advocates—rather than criticizes—something called “Social Darwinism.” And it not only wasn’t written by Spencer, it doesn’t mention him either.

But after reading the piece in its entirety, I am left wondering about Jonah's defense of Spencer and Sumner.  While they certainly didn't see themselves as Social Darwinists, they certainly prepared the way by rejecting the principles of the American Founding.  Steve Hayward picks up on this over at Power Line:

They did this by rejecting the Founding Eras philosophical doctrine of individual natural right, which became the cornerstone of Progressivism. Sumner hated the Declaration of Independence, and explicitly embraced the John C. Calhoun and Stephen Douglas view Jefferson’s handiwork.

“Before the tribunal of nature,” Sumner wrote in his most memorable formulation, “a man has no more rights than a rattlesnake; he has no more right to liberty than any wild beast.” Spencer argued, following Bentham (“nonsense on stilts”) that the idea of natural rights should be abandoned.

I think it is extremely important to point this out because conservatives should not feel the need to defend every last thing Spencer and Sumner said and did in order to rescue them from being used as pawns in a political shell game.

In case you are interested, Bradley C.S. Watson explores the intellectual evolution of Progressivism (Spencer and Sumner included) in Living Constitution, Dying Faith:  Progressivism and the New Science of Jurisprudence.