Editor's Choice
Which turn-of-the-century government actions would social Darwinists disapprove of?
Quick answer:
Social Darwinists, who believed in "survival of the fittest" and unfettered capitalism, would disapprove of early 20th-century government actions like Theodore Roosevelt's "Square Deal" reforms. These included anti-monopoly laws, support for union rights, and consumer protection measures such as the Pure Food and Drug Act. Additionally, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which regulated banking to aid small banks, would also be opposed by Social Darwinists as it interfered with natural economic competition.
Social Darwinism was the idea of "survival of the fittest" applied (wrongly) to humans. In other words, this philosophy justified the idea that the rich were entitled to be at the top of the social and economic pyramid, because they were simply "better" than everyone else. Around the turn of the twentieth century, Teddy Roosevelt passed several legislative reforms that were part of his "Square Deal" and that were intended to reduce the power of monopolies, to afford protections to workers, and to protect public health. Some of these measures included the Elkins Act, which disallowed the practice of giving large companies reduced railroad fares. The Pure Food and Drug Act protected consumers by requiring accurate labeling of food and drug products. In addition, Teddy Roosevelt supported the rights of workers to bargain collectively with management. These are laws that Social Darwinists would have disagreed with.
Social Darwinists believed in...
Unlock This Answer Now
Start your 48-hour free trial and get ahead in class. Boost your grades with access to expert answers and top-tier study guides. Thousands of students are already mastering their assignments—don't miss out. Cancel anytime.
Already a member? Log in here.
the "survival of the fittest," an expression coined by the English 19th century sociologist Herbert Spencer. They saw in unfettered capitalism a system that was wholly natural and suited to the innate capacities of human beings. Such a system allowed society to sort out the wheat from the chaff, to discover which individuals were strong and which ones were weak. Unhindered capitalism was a testing ground for each individual's moral and physical strength. Those who proved themselves to be weak, who couldn't keep up with the demands placed upon them by the prevailing economic system, were a burden on society and should not be supported by any kind of government intervention. If the government got involved, say by regulating working hours or enacting health and safety legislation, they were interfering with the natural order of things.
We can apply Social Darwinist ideas to the raft of Progressive legislation enacted in the early years of the 20th century. The Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, for example, regulated the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products, phasing out patent medicines and other adulterated drugs. A Social Darwinist would deeply resent what they would see as interference in other people's lives. If Americans chose to put adulterated drugs inside themselves, then that was their business. Let the buyer beware, as they say. And if anyone suffered ill-health or even death as a result, then that was of course unfortunate, but it was simply nature's way of getting rid of its weaker elements.
The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, passed under President Wilson, regulated the banking system to help small banks stay in business. Previously, no help was forthcoming from the government, and such banks would've been left to go to the wall. That was the laissez-faire position, one enthusiastically adopted by Social Darwinists. If small banks went out of business, they believed, then that was just too bad. It was a sign that they were weak and unable to compete in a cutthroat capitalist market-place. Why on earth should government intervene and prop up failing enterprises with tax-payers' money? To Social Darwinists, the Federal Reserve Act was yet another example of Progressive legislation being used to protect the weak from the natural operations of the free market.
Basically, the Social Darwinists would not have approved of any measures that were meant to help the poor or workers. They would have felt that such measures only helped those who were less "fit."
The two clearest examples of such actions by the government would be President Roosevelt's actions to support unions and to break up monopolies. Social Darwinists would have seen unions as attempts by the less fit to conspire against those who were more fit. They would have seen monopolies as the inevitable and proper result of a Darwinian competition for survival. Therefore, they would have opposed Roosevelt's progressive policies.