Survival of the Fittest

Survival of the Fittest.  Various meanings have been put forth by the likes of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase, but the context I refer to is that which is espoused by the free market, less government is better conservatives and libertarians.  I see not only the obvious problems with their thinkings, but obvious contradictions also.  I also see commonalities between the right and the left that although difficult to reconcile, appear to be an avenue of hope against the government kleptocracy and corporate plutocracy we must bring down in order for real change for all citizens to occur.  Perhaps a foundation for a viable third party.    

I read an article the other day about the antiwar movement from the right!  Yes, that’s right, antiwar from the right.…

Here we are having a world of trouble getting the left to stand up on the issue, and now the right wants in on the action.  Of course, what they’re doing is veering into the Libertarian camp on foreign policy, with a bit of political party strategy thrown in.  But paleoconservatives are traditionally anti-imperialists also.  Libertarians, although with a contradictory message themselves that moves from libertarianism to liberalism to conservatism and back have always been antiwar/anti-imperialist.  The mainstream left is always antiwar unless there is a democratic President.  The desperate need to hold that power overpowers their natural instincts against killing and subjegation.  I say mainstream left because a significant minority of liberals are antiwar no matter the party in power.

Then this article from Glenn Greenwald:…

The New Republic, a bastion of right wing insensibilities, is telling the democrats they need to shitcan Joe Lieberman so they can “finally address the country’s actual needs”.  

What are you saying here New Republic?  Not long ago, you endorsed Leiberman for President!  Now you want the Democratic Party to get rid of him so we can pass some legislation that actually addresses the country’s needs? I’m astounded, yet not surprised.   New Republic, what difference does it make to you that the Democratic Party addresses the country’s actual needs when all you have wanted is for the Republican Party to be in power?  I don’t get it.

It appears what is happening is twofold.  A signal from the right that the majority really aren’t “Survival of the Fittest” types, i.e., those who are willing to let the less fortunate among us deal with life on their own.  They appear to be a very small minority, one which we will never be rid of, and needn’t worry about in the overall picture.  The second is a recognition of how the corporate plutocracy and the Military Industrial Complex, and the increasing wealth concentration at the top, is putting a heavy damper on the old American dream.

This all leads to the commonality issue and the seeds for a true revolution against the oligarchy.   There is a fine line between a revolution and a civil war.  A revolution requires a majority of the citizens united in a common cause.  At this point, the divisions caused by the propaganda machines appear to have us too divided.  But there are glimmers of hope, as the above citations might suggest.

It’s One, Two, Three, What are we fighting for?  What are we citizens fighting for, from the right to the left?  Is there that much difference in this age of corporate plutocracy, government kleptocracy, and US imperialism and hegemony?  In this age of rampant and evidently sustained

unemployment, decreased employment opportunities, and reduced hours and benefits.  In this age of wealth disparity amongst the classes that rivals any in US history and where the middle class is threatened as a viable entity, perhaps falling to the middle class percentages of third world countries?   The 1 to 10 percenters are pretty similar worldwide, but the middle class has been the American staple.  That is disappearing relative to the rest of the world.…

I think if we are going to have major changes in this country, it must come from the majority of people.  You know, like a democracy.  But the majority of people have to be on the same page, have the same basic agenda.  I think it is possible.  Look at the New Republic’s statement.  Maybe they wouldn’t be against a health care system that was fair to all citizens, as long as it was free from corporate and government corruption.  They’re skeptical and even adamantly opposed to government involvement, but then again, encouraging “addressing the country’s actual needs”.

Maybe they could be the key to an effective antiwar agenda that can raise enough pressure to stop the madness.  The conservatives were essentially taken over by the neocons.  But not all on the right are neocons, in fact they are the minority among conservatives.  Many are paleoconservatives who are generally anti-imperialist.  Many understand the need for government services but are disgusted with the quality, extent, corruption, and intrusion.  

Maybe if we want real health care reform, real economic and financial reform, and an end to the plutocracy, kleptocracy, and oligarchy, and an end to US imperialism, many of those on the right can help.  



Skip to comment form

    • Underdog on August 30, 2009 at 02:10
    • Edger on August 30, 2009 at 02:20

    maybe there is a new two party system that is develping to replace the old left/right polarity?

    The people.

    And the government (or the politicians).


  1. Right now, multi-level selectional forces are completely fucked-in-the-head-imbalanced.  of course, they will self-correct, to the detriment of all, in the short-term.

Comments have been disabled.