Is by heliograph at Digby, on the sheer viciousness being shown by the Right against the idea of healthcare for poor children:
What we are seeing play out here are the politics of resenting the poor, sick, and injured, which have their roots deep in the principles of Social Darwinism and the ensuing Eugenics movement. People who think of themselves as naturally superior (in this case, right-wing Republicans) resent having to pay for, think about, or otherwise deal with the inferior (people who get sick, have genetically-based conditions, or get into accidents — by definition, such people are inferior losers, plus, they tend to vote for Democrats, which is further evidence of their inferiority).
Areader above has tapped into the core philosphy of this Social Darwinism, via Charles Dickens’ quote about “decreasing the surplus population.” In the mid- to late 19th century, turning one’s back on the ill and poor was couched in terms of letting nature run its course — any intervention by society was seen as un-natural and leading to a proliferation of inferior genes.
Today, denying financial assistance to the needy, ill, or injured is couched by the right wing in terms of free market principles and a philosophy of limited government. But it’s still social Darwinism, and it still has at is base the idea that the superior members of society (the well off, and those who fancy themselves someday as being well off — think Republicans) are doing nature and society a favor by denying help to the needy.
Of course this kind of Social Darwinism in the 19th century led to the Eugenics Movement, which culminated in the unspeakable atrocities of the German National Socialist regime ca. 1933 to 1945. The right wing bloggers and their mainstream beneficiaries and enablers know that today they can’t come out and say what’s really on their minds — i.e., that the poor and injured and sick probably don’t deserve to live at all — so they phrase their thoughts in terms of saying that the poor and injured and sick don’t deserve to be helped by taxpayers and they don’t deserve to live a comfortable life. It would be a little too rash to advocate cutting off health care to “decrease the surplus population.” So instead they advocate making the surplus population suffer by proposing that they sell their houses and businesses, eat cheaper food, give up private schools, forego certain kinds of furniture, autombiles, counter-tops, whatever. But the 21st century hateful outbursts of Malkin et al. basically reflect the same core philosophy as mid-19th century Social Darwinism: Society will be better off if we don’t help these chiseling, undeserving bastards who manage to get poor, sick, or injured.
Check out this poster from the Nazi-era Eugenics movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Ima…ePropaganda.jpg[See above]
It shows a disabled, elderly man and, in advocating for euthansia of the elderly, has this caption:
“60000 RM [Reichsmarks] —
This is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime.
Fellow German, that is your money, too”
Someone explain to me please the difference between the sentiments expressed in this poster, and what we’ve seen posted by Malkin et al. over the past several days as they’ve set out to destroy a 12 year-old boy whose only crime was to get injured, accept help, and then advocate that the fortunate should help the unfortunate.
heliograph | 10.12.07 – 2:49 am | #
Differences? There are no differences except those of time and place. Maybe Malkin should keep in mind that alleged Pastor Neimoller quote (I paraphrase wildly)
“First they came for the sick children parasites, then they came for the moonbats, then they came for the anchor babies…”
