The left is having a fit of neurotic indecision. On one hand they have former Treasury Secretary Robert Reich reporting in the Christian Science Monitor that the House Republicans' "Pledge to America" agenda is a scheme to promote "Social Darwinism", "survival of the fittest." He states as a fact that Republicans have always wanted to destroy Social Security, even though the system--another supposed fact--is absolutely solid. Take his word on both scores. Or throw Gramma into the street. It's your choice.
Social Darwinism doesn't sound so good, does it?
But wait. Almost simultaneously, University of New York (Binghamton) biologist and anthropologist David Sloan Wilson is down in Australia delivering a Templeton Foundation lecture on how Social Darwinism can solve poverty, build trusting community, cure ingrown toenails, alleviate the heartbreak of psoriasis and improve your love life. Step right up. Dr. Wilson's Darwinian Elixir is good for what ails ya.
Okay, which Social Darwinism is it? Or is there, like the witches in the Wizard of Oz, a "good Social Darwinism" and a "bad Social Darwinism"?
Mssrs. Reich and Wilson are both political progressives and probably would get along very well. They both have a theory that can support or undermine any agenda they like. Unfortunately, they made opposite claims for it on the same day.