Survival of the Fittest

The GOP controlled House is attempting to dismantle domestic programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) ostensibly to balance the budget, but actually to pay for a bloated military war machine and welfare for the rich (e.g., tax cuts and loopholes, farm subsidies for agri-business, oil subsidies).  While following the budget debates, some liberals have asked what more do conservative Republicans want from the poor, the working class, and seniors.  Here are my thoughts about that question.  Right-wing fanatics don’t think at all about the circumstances of the working class and indigent persons or what resources they have much less forfeit, whether it's food, housing, health care or jobs.  They don't give a damn about anything but their own self-interest and well-being.  The self-focused individualistic climate that has come to define our society includes little concern for the common good or the general welfare, as specified in the Preamble to the Constitution to be one function of government.  Having been influenced by Ayn Rand's selfish, greedy world view, today's uber conservatives believe every individual should be left to his or her own devices to survive.  They want to abrogate social safety nets and government regulations, leaving all citizens engaged in a battle for resources needed for survival.  Naturally, those who already have most of the resources will fare extremely well, while the weak, disabled, and poor will suffer and die off.  It's the type of world envisioned by 19th Century sociologist Herbert Spencer, who coined the term "survival of the fittest", not Charles Darwin as some people assume.  He regarded “survival of the fittest” as a sort of guide for governmental policy, which led him to oppose programs to assist the poor. His skepticism about the ability of government to do more good than harm--not only concerning poverty but in general operations as well--has made him an inspiration for today’s conservatives and libertarians.  Spencer opposed government interference in human affairs, including private businesses, markets, and dysfunctional conditions, such as poverty, sickness, mental or physical disability, and joblessness. He thought the individual should be left to his own devices to survive in a market unfettered by government regulations on industry and devoid of ameliorating programs for the less fortunate. The fittest would survive and proliferate, while the unfit, e.g., the elderly, poor, and disabled, would die out, thus progressing the social system toward a better society.  Old Spencer would be proud of his right-wing descendants, who want to rid society of the shiftless, the dregs, the worthless, and the freeloaders--all those who are robbing hard-working taxpayers of their money through presumably unnecessary budget-breaking social programs. So, they shrug, sigh, and say die, worthless scum! Conservatives, whether wealthy or the Cult Followers of the Rich, most of whom have modest means, don't give a damn about the suffering of others.  For me, this immoral direction of our country is a source of great sorrow.  In contrast to Spencer, Rand, and their contemporary counterparts, I envision a society in which humanitarianism and compassion trump self-interest, greed, and power posturing.  Oh, I know, my friends are going to laugh and call me a silly dreamer, and that’s fine.  As discouraged as I am about the hate and selfishness I see every day, I have to keep dreaming of a world in which peace, fairness, and justice are more common than indifference, greed, hate, bigotry, and violence.  While the right-wing plutocrats are currently relishing their powerful positions, they can be defeated and their disgraceful self-serving agenda replaced with one that “promote(s) the general welfare” (Preamble to the Constitution).