About Connections: Love it or hate it, history is a map. Those who hate history think it irrelevant; many who love history think it escapism. In truth, history is the clearest road map to how we got here: America in the 21st century.
An illustrative image appeared after the election. It is a picture of the United States all red with blue slivers just visible on the coasts. The caption reads: “Can you hear me now?”
Some folks think this election was about racism; others think it was about sexism, but, as former President Bill Clinton said, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
No doubt the election of 2016 had distinctive characteristics, and yet the debate basic to American politics has not changed since the Gilded Age.
In 1853, the Reverend Henry Ward Beecher purchased a farm in Lenox (Cranwell today). In his day, Beecher was called “the greatest preacher since St. Paul.”
Beecher established his reputation as an author with publication of “The Star Papers.” The book celebrated nature as the intimation of God. Standing on the brow of his hill, Beecher wrote, “From here I see the very hills of heaven.”
Beecher used his powerful voice to influence politics. He was called a “thought leader” and advocated for many causes including abolition, suffrage, and temperance. At the height of his power, Beecher embraced Spencerian Darwinism (also called social Darwinism). Through his sermons, he helped forge the philosophical foundation that would support the Gilded Age.
English philosopher Herbert Spencer (1820–1902) developed a simple theory: if Darwin was right about the survival of the fittest in the animal kingdom, why does it not apply to humans? Europe was unimpressed. They knew who was superior to whom; they had the aristocracy. Hereditary titles told everyone who was who. Whether the son of the king was or was not fit, he was the heir apparent. On the other hand, the Americans were impressed, and the American application of Spencerian theory was unique.
Beecher wrote Spencer, “The peculiar condition of American society has made your writings far more fruitful and quickening here than in Europe.”
In post-Civil War America, the Gilded Age was approaching. It was characterized by a disproportionate distribution of wealth. Beecher found social Darwinism a way to defend and explain the inequity. When he wedded the philosophy to religion, Beecher made a powerful argument. Beecher embraced Spencer, identifying himself as an evolutionist. In 1885, he expounded his views in “Evolution and Religion.”
He saw survival of the fittest as part of “God’s plan for a steady march toward perfection.”
Spencerian Darwinism was reinterpreted on Beecher’s pulpit to justify the rich to their riches and blame the poor for their poverty. He preached that both were the will of God. God rewarded the most fit with the most wealth. God denied the poor because they were unfit. It was, in fact, a moral unfitness. Their piteous condition was their own fault. The solution was for the poor to mend their ways and pull themselves up by their own boot straps.
It was a period of history when science was very popular but true scientists were few. There was as much false science as ground-breaking discovery. Americans believed character could be determined by studying the bumps on the head; and that magnets, magnetic fluid, and bleeding healed. On the other hand, the existence of germs and the necessity for anesthesia were discovered. It was a “scientific age” in which some scientific theories were more defensible than others. Beecher wedded the science of social Darwinism to the church and the result was powerful, widely accepted, and helped obliterate criticism of the Gilded Age’s excessively disproportionate distribution of wealth.
So the great American debate was born. The bedrock, and conflicting ideals, of the two parties were formed; the national division was made permanent.
On one side was the belief that there was inherent unfairness in the economic system that kept some people from succeeding. These inequities should be corrected by government.
On the other side, support was for less government and for a free market wherein unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses would achieve fair prices and proper conditions.
One side embraced the idea that there was a communal responsibility for the least among us. There was an obligation to help those in need and for the government to provide basic human needs: health, education, and welfare.
On the other side were theories of “trickle down” wherein the wealthiest among us, and the most superior, would provide jobs and charity. Government should support the wealth and job creators and prosperity. At that point people would succeed or fail as a function of their abilities, moral character and willingness to work. Nativism, white supremacy and isolationism were ways of determining whose rights were sacrosanct and who was entitled to a piece of the pie.
The debate became a permanent part of the national dialogue and shaped each party’s policies. The idea that the government had an obligation to provide a social safety net was not accepted until the Great Depression in the 20th century. FDR and his policies made the Democratic Party, irrefutably, the party of the working class…until 2016…can you hear them now?
