Darwin and the clueless left: It was all a misunderstanding

"This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection," wrote Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (full text available online here).

It was all a misunderstanding. Charles Darwin called the process of nonrandom elimination of species that he hypothesized from years of field observation "natural selection." It totally works for us with both nature and human nature, but Darwin's flamboyant philosopher friend Herbert Spencer's memorable if misleading "survival of the fittest" survived the winnowing process of cultural evolution to become the meme of choice for generations of elitists who knew little about the scientific method nor the origin of species but all about what was best for us little people out here. Enter stage right Angelo M. Codevilla's American Spectator tour de force "America's Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution":

By 1853, when Sen. John Pettit of Ohio called "all men are created equal" "a self-evident lie," much of America's educated class had already absorbed the "scientific" notion (which Darwin only popularized) that man is the product of chance mutation and natural selection of the fittest. Accordingly, by nature, superior men subdue inferior ones as they subdue lower beings or try to improve them as they please. Hence while it pleased the abolitionists to believe in freeing Negroes and improving them, it also pleased them to believe that Southerners had to be punished and reconstructed by force. As the 19th century ended, the educated class's religious fervor turned to social reform: they were sure that because man is a mere part of evolutionary nature, man could be improved, and that they, the most highly evolved of all, were the improvers.

You must read the whole thing, of course. No mention of the Gramscian march through the institutions, but it touches deeply upon the ur-theme of this blog, the importance of being noticed. In our view it makes the world go 'round. Codevilla nails it:

For our ruling class, identity always trumps.

Just ask Northeast Corridor Fuddy Duddy Peggy Noonan. What's true for Beltway types is true for all mankind, only more so given the stakes, as Codevilla explains:

Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity — being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment's parts.

Yes you, Mitt Romney, for enabling an aide to diss Mama Grizzly Sarah Palin as "not a serious human being." Your days are numbered.

Crossposted at Riehl World View and Liberty Pundits.

Comments

[goomp]

Let freedom ring. Allow us all to pursue our best interests as we see them as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others to do the same.

[Brooklyn]

Sissy is simply the best, but this last line was simply not her best.

To use this wonderfully developed offering, to eventually knock Mitt Romney? The same guy who was on the pathetic David Letterman TV show, admirably praising - defending Sarah Palin?

To blame Romney for a rumor spread by an unethical TIME Author?

Romney's days are not "numbered". Nor should we foolishly turn him into the 'enemy' and not consider him for a potential Presidential Run. He is a HERO of the Free Market, having turned around numerous disasters, being one of the most experienced - proven CEO's in the USA. He definitely hurt himself with the MASS Health CARE folly, but Mrs. Palin has hurt herself just as much, by abandoning the responsibility of being a Governor. (Yes, this is indeed evidence of not being "serious").

This expressed HATRED for Romney is the same 'cult of personality' devotion which create such wild - overt sophistry, such as "Sarah Palin ALONE debased Obamacare". Or the idea Mrs. Palin's FaceBook Posts are somehow 'feared' by the Obama Team. It is as if the Celebrity Fan-Fare is unaware of the unrealistic offering, lowering it's own credibility with such nonsense.

The support and devotion is admirable, but reason has become lost. And it further and further drives a number of the rest of us, far away from the Celebrity and HOOPLA in question.

I have witnessed, read, heard, etc., the worst - UGLY expression provided by many Palin Supporters for a vast number of other Republicans and Conservatives. If anyone dares offer even the smallest, polite question of the "Hockey Mom", they become labeled an 'Andrew Sullivan' or a 'Daily Kos' reader. The worst vitriol provided by a number of Palin Devotees, has been directed towards Mr. Romney for Months now. The name "Mittens" is often accompanied by the most ugly hostility and dehumanizing expression, all in the name of aiding Sarah Palin. And these same Voices, including the Conservatives 4 Palin Blog, are now outraged by rumors reported by Halperin? When did these Conservatives become so hypocritical?

Mrs. Palin is largely a Celebrity now, her fame is mostly based on image and identity, and Romney does not fit the accepted stereotypical "IDEAL" - thus he is treated poorly by the Fashion. Sarah Palin often gets a pass for contradictory and questionable "imperfections" (which all politicians have), but are only expressed about those who are not fashionable (like Romney). It is clear, Mr. Romney is deemed a threat to Mrs. Palin now, (even after his admirable support for the failed Maverick Ticket in 2008: the McCain-Palin Campaign), and thus another reason for the quick acceptance of Mr. Romney being responsible for these tired charges via Halperin. The intense hype, the emotive - reactionary embrace, is similar to the counter productive mindset which helped undermine Our best interests after 2004, leaving Our Nation in terrible hands after the Elections in 2006 and 2008. It is the same rush to jump on the quick bait yet again, and we all lose in the end.

Have Conservatives become so easily played?

Will they easily digest every effort to divide us?

Do some on Our own side, still think of the negligent Clintons as being centrists?

Remember, the FASHION has been utterly wrong on so many issues. The Moderate FRED THOMPSON was a primary example, who ended up enabling the Maverick.

Chris Christie is another major example for today.

Meanwhile, Sarah Palin endorsed a Primary challenger to Sen. Lisa Murkowski. You could not have a greater example of petty politics, especially after seeing some of the admirable efforts Mrs. Murkowski has provided recently in the Senate. It is another concerning moment, which indicates the HYPE is far from the human reality.

Time for cooler reasoned heads to prevail.

We have so much to do this NOV and 2012.

[Joan of Argghh!]

Sissy, you are right on, and Brooklyn doesn't get what this entire post is about. I lived through Perot and I understand the fears out there that we must keep the Good Ol' Boys and status quo in place if we want a chance.

That would be fine if we were talking about politics as usual. We have moved beyond that at light speed. Anyone who thinks that the measured words, sagacious posturing, and back room deals are gonna save us is sadly out of touch with the alternate universe that is slamming into our own: Obama comes from a completely different world beyond the ken of most Americans, but understood keenly by those of his entourage.

What part of "audacity" did we not understand? You don't challenge audacity with a platform. You put it down with something equally as audacious. "Grizzly moms" are more serious than anything you've ever encountered.