Barack Obama, Planned Parenthood: Social Darwinists
This week President Obama invoked the term “social Darwinism” to disparage a trimmed budget plan proposed by Republican Congressman Paul Ryan….
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVo0xGf5Cvo&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/youtube]
Obama intended to slam fiscal conservatism but instead left nervous pundits scrambling to explain what he meant. The term has historically been connected to eugenics and Naziism and would more describe Obama’s agenda than ours – his support for abortion of the unfit, for example, and healthcare rationing. So we got this from the Associated Press:
But what exactly does the President mean?…
For language expert Kathleen Hall Jamieson, social Darwinism seems like a risky term to use for political ammunition.
She says most people are familiar with Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection – survival of the fittest….
Instead, what he is probably trying to convey is that he thinks Republicans subscribe to a theory that each person is on his own – no help from others, no government help.
The term is loaded with all sorts of negative historical associations. It has ties in the past to the rationalization of inequality, says Jamieson, as well as to the eugenics movement and the idea that those who are unfit should not be allowed to propagate.
And that’s probably not what the president intends to suggest.
Of course not, but his policies do.
The Washington Post also jumped in to help…
What does this mean?
Simply put, it means applying the ideas of Charles Darwin – that species adapt over time – to human society, arguing that competition over resources helps humanity evolve for the better as the weak are weeded out and the strong survive and thrive.
But social Darwinism is seen as more as an epithet than a useful description, because the idea is so malleable.
Social Darwinism is also seen in eugenics, the idea that certain races and physical traits should be weeded out of the general population. It played a role in the American progressive movement and in Nazi Germany – both movements that went against laissez-faire capitalism, in very different ways. In this interpretation, the weak must be culled so that the society as a whole can evolve more quickly.
“Social” Darwinism moves the idea of natural selection of the fittest on to artificial selection of the fittest. Natural selection can be helped along by eugenics. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was a full frontal social Darwinist. From the 2004 book, War Against The Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign To Create A Master Race:
But Sanger was an ardent, self-confessed eugenicist, and she would turn her otherwise noble birth control organizations into a tool for eugenics…. More than a Malthusian [humans would run out of food], Sanger became an outspoken social Darwinist…. In her 1922 book, Pivot of Civilization, Sanger thoroughly condemned charitable action. She devoted a full chapter to a denigration of charity and a deprecation of the lower classes.
Barack Obama is a semi-closeted social Darwinist. He openly supports aborting babies with physical deformities. He openly supports making contraceptives and abortion easily assessable to the poor, both in the U.S. and internationally, working closely with Planned Parenthood. He would just not be as open about his ulterior motives. He may not even realize his ulterior motives, telling himself he supports equality, not eugenics.
But the result is the same. Were Obama to support alleviating the root need for contraceptives and abortion, which is by and large promiscuity, he would be truly helping minorities and the poor. But he can’t and won’t. Doing so would undercut his political support and funding.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Jill said – Natural selection can be helped along by eugenics.
So with selection no longer natural, that is, selection is by design – then evolution is by intelligent design.
God sits above the spinning earth and laughs at the mockers.
Could this be a purposeful mistake in order to make the election about social issues and women’s “health” issues a la the contraception mandate?
Or is he just a bad speaker?
Or is he just a bad speaker?
Tyler, the bad goes a bit deeper, I fear.
A good example of what was meant by social Darwinism in this case would be what Jan Brewer did to the organ transplant recipients who were on medicaid in her state. How many died because of her?
How many died because of her?
It doesn’t matter because the promise of life ends at birth with these people.
We oppose infanticide too. Your argument is invalid.
We oppose infanticide too. Your argument is invalid.
Did you oppose Brewer’s decision?
My argument is perfectly valid.
You have to do a lot of mental gymnastics to get from “pro-lifers have differing opinions on which government programs to support” to “pro-lifers don’t care about human lives after they’re born”.
At least at first glance, I don’t agree with Brewer’s decision. That doesn’t mean it’s the same as state sanctioned killing (like abortion or infanticide). And if the death toll from abortion was as low as the death toll resulting from that decision, I think we’d all be giving ourselves a pat on the back.
The promise of life does not end with birth. But you have to be born to enjoy life’s promises.
That doesn’t mean it’s the same as state sanctioned killing (like abortion or infanticide).
Don’t go all “moral relativism” on me.
The people Brewer denied are just as dead.
And if the death toll from abortion was as low as the death toll resulting from that decision, I think we’d all be giving ourselves a pat on the back.
Now comes Ryan with his so-called “plan,” which denies needed medical care to a minimum of 14 million people.
You were saying?
Sure does sound like “social Darwinism” to me, even though there are damned few things Obama says with which I can agree.
Citing that wouldn’t be a bad idea. Hopefully you can do better than Paul Krugman and the liberal blogosphere, neither of which have a good track record when it comes to something that sounds very similar to lie of the year material…
Citing that wouldn’t be a bad idea. Hopefully you can do better than Paul Krugman and the liberal blogosphere, neither of which have a good track record when it comes to something that sounds very similar to lie of the year material…
As a financial analyst for over 40 years, I’m perfectly capable of analyzing financial data and, in this case, after having examined Ryan’s so-called “plan,” I agree with Krugman.
mp: Ryan’s so-called “plan,”
The most reliable mark of bad-faith dialog is the twofer of “so-called” when referring to something that actually is what it’s called, and the use of scare quotes around the thing it actually is.
mp is a so-called “human”. ;-)
The most reliable mark of bad-faith dialog is the twofer of “so-called” when referring to something that actually is what it’s called, and the use of scare quotes around the thing it actually is.
Ryan’s so-called “plan” is exactly that. In my opinion, it’s not a plan, it’s a bad faith offer.
I encourage you to read it. Do your own due diligence.
“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing Social engineering,”
– Newt Gingrich, about Paul Ryan’s plan
In his latest campaign speech Obama’s use of the term “social Darwinism” is meant to tie the oppressive one percenters, the OWS’ers, the anti-capitalists, and redistributionists of all stripes together as one coalition in support of Himself. As the obfuscator-in-chief he thinks he can distort fiscally responsible economic and health care reform into a nifty little term that means whatever people think it means. Even those who never heard of the concept are surely against social Darwinism (i.e. Paul Ryan and the Republicans). He can’t win with positive ideas as his own budgets have been defeated 97-0 in the Senate and 414-0 in the House, so he must resort to mocking and disparagement.
Peggy Noonan got it right when she said Obama is “divisive” and ”devious”.
“My faith shapes my values, but applying those values to policymaking must be done with principles that are accessible to all people, religious or not. Even so, those who enter the public square are not required to leave their beliefs at the door.”Barrack Hussein Obama
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-09-forum-religion-obama_x.htm
Most pro-lifers would agree with those sentiments.
I doubt b o believed them, even if he actually authored them.
My [Derek Prince] first wife, Lydia, as is widely known, spent twenty years in Palestine living amongst Arabs. She got to know them very, very well. Lydia used to make comments about them which at first I thought were rather cynical. But the longer I lived, the more clearly I saw how true they were.
One of the things she said was, “When a Muslim talks to you, he’s not thinking in terms of what is the truth. Truth is not important. What he saying to himself is, ‘Now, if I say this, what will the other person say?’ Or, ‘If I say that, what will that other person say?’” In other words, language is used by them to produce a response—the kind of response they want from the people that they’re talking to. Lydia [Prince] made it clear that the concept of being truthful in the way that we [westeners] understand it is not valid amongst them. It just isn’t part of their thinking. It’s not part of their background.”
I do not believe b o is a muslim. I believe that b o has incorporated the muslim mindset into his own worldview. It is a melding of the the Marxist/humanist and the muslim cultures that has produced a malleable personality that is not encumbered by the truth any more than the lie.
Nonsense. He just follows Mother Jarrett’s counsel. He doesn’t need any convictions of his own — or lack of them.
I already see where this election is headed…a self proclaimed Christian that the right is going to say is Muslim on one side against a self proclaimed Mormon on the other side that the right is going to try to make out as a Christian.
Good times ahead…
Yeah, I see where it’s headed too. Cliche stereotypes of the right.