Letters: Jindal’s social Darwinism hurts

Two recent columns in The Advocate have imparted the ominous news that Gov. Bobby Jindal, currently on hiatus from his national campaign of self-promotion, intends to focus his attention on the “home front.” This news should give every Louisianan pause. We know the damage Jindal can do when he actually tries to govern. His successful effort to privatize publicly funded education is a case in point. His success at demonizing career public schoolteachers is another.

Now his focus is on the state’s tax code. For this purpose, our self-avowed fiscally conservative governor has hired a new Department of Revenue director at a salary double that of the last director. While he has deemed it necessary to decimate funding for higher education and health care, Jindal has no problem finding money for hiring lackeys. Fiscal conservative indeed!

One can easily imagine the “reform” his tax revision will take: elimination of taxes for business to be offset by cuts to social services. It is the old, tired Republican song.

Jindal’s philosophy of governance (and, by extension, that of every Republican now in office) requires an abnegation of the social contract we citizens have with one another. Indeed, it is a denial of the very idea of society, for it denies the organic nature and interconnectedness of society.

We are not merely an agglomeration of individuals who all happen to inhabit the same space. Yes, we are all individuals and are free to make the decisions that directly affect us. But we are not free to disregard the consequences those decisions have on others. Nor are we free to deny that government is, in fact, the organizational extension of all of us. Government didn’t just fall out of the sky: We created it to serve us.

What helps us as individuals and hurts others in the process hurts the entire society. When government, through rank misadministration, degrades the social contract, the community is degraded. A benefit to business resulting in cuts to services for those who need them or a “scholarship”of public money that pulls funding away from another school that needs it thereby denying resources to other children — each has deleterious consequences for the entire community.

Jindal’s philosophy of governance is a dog-eat-dog form of social engineering through the deconstruction of government. It is a contradiction of one of our nation’s founding principles — e pluribus unum. It is an incongruously Darwinian philosophy for a man who espouses creationism.

Michael Russo

librarian

Baton Rouge


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (14)


1) Comment by 8.3 - 06/09/2012

more Thomas Jefferson “I hope we shall crush… in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

2) Comment by Mildred Citizen - 05/09/2012

I don't give Governor Jindal credit for demonizing the educational establishment in Louisiana. The establishment has done an absolutely fabulous job of doing that themselves. When we have so many failing schools, when you have to score as low as 65 on a 200 point scale to be considered failing (an already dumbed down system), you can consider your efforts having failed (and therefore - "demonized"). As for the social contract, that is a matter of opinion what our obligation is to our fellow man. It may be your opinion that government should provide cradle to the grave entitlements funded by money taken out of the pockets of others. It may be Governor Jindal's opinion that putting so many people on crutches is making a state full of cripples. I leave with a quote from Thomas Jefferson - "A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them other wise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

3) Comment by bourbon-soda - 05/09/2012

How is it possible to know whether Jindal's alleged social Darwinism hurts when what is in place is reverse social Darwinism?

4) Comment by InPVille - 05/09/2012

If Louisiana was the only state cutting funding to education to health care, the writer could possibly make an argument worth debating. However, most states in this country are cutting these areas of state spending and other areas. The equations are super simple to understand supposing that you live in the real world. More state revenue makes possible greater state spending. Less state revenue reduces a state's spending ability. -[**]- The hopeful thought is that since Mr. Russo is so concerned about our obligations to each other as citizens, it may occur to him that he can join with other citizens who support the numerous non-government organizations who do good works to support the less fortunate among us. You know; citizens observing the social contract and not just punting the ball on first down to the government.

5) Comment by 8point6 - 05/09/2012

the word "social" is used numerous times in this letter. I especially like "social engineering". Hasn't the public education system been "social engineering" for the last 50 plus years? Does "social promotions" in public schools ring a bell? Has it worked?.....NO! However, that was a great "progressive" letter.

6) Comment by prbeav - 05/09/2012

Sorry. "adapted" should be "adapt."

7) Comment by prbeav - 05/09/2012

This is an otherwise very good letter. >>>>Especially misguided and conventionally misleading is the last paragraph.>>>> “Jindal’s philosophy,” by behavior, seems to be: The American electorate is a Christian majority and the successful politician appeals to them yet accommodates other theists; the non-theist minority can keep on voting their way. Use of government to favor theism follows more than “deconstruction of government,” as demonstrated by Jindal’s 2008 law against education in biology—unjust legislation.>>>> Jindal is consistent with Congress’s 1956 act changing the American motto to “In God we trust” instead of “E pluribus unum.” >>>>To say “It,” Jindal’s “dog-eat-dog form of social engineering,” is “Darwinian philosophy,” is just wrong. Darwin is responsible for the phrase “natural selection.” Ursula Goodenough in “The Sacred Depths of Nature,” 1998, explained adaptation to an environmental niche as follows: “Organisms that attempt to populate a niche must be able to operate in that context; genes that improve this possibility will be selected for, and genes that hinder this possibility will be selected against. Thus there is no such thing as ‘fittest’ kind of organism.” Since then, I think of “adaptation to the environment,” rather than Darwin’s phrase.>>>>The “dog-eat-dog” philosophy often called “survival of the fittest,” is not Darwinian at all, but was coined by Herbert Spencer to adapted Darwin’s “natural selection,” to Spencer’s economic theories.>>>>I thank Mr. Russo for his focus on the people as responsible for Jindal’s bad governance; Russo aptly expresses interconnectedness and the no-harm guidance to personal behavior. It is a matter of live and let live, not govern according to theology.

8) Comment by ThinkForAChange - 05/09/2012

Where does Bobby, the uber-Catholic, stand on Paul Ryan's love affair with Ayn Rand? Does Bobby still offer free exorcisms? Given Bobby's endorsement record, we should urge him to remain out of state and campaign for Willard. That would be a "win-win" for Louisiana and the nation, to be sure.

9) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 05/09/2012

shad-o, you are being purposefully difficult. Now you know that i didn't mention a governmental role in "religion, abortion and contraception"; although it must be said that I see no logical role for government in any of those three subjects. Neither did I hold myself out as an Apostle for one belief or another; I simply interpreted Mr. Russo's post and pleaded for a clear declaration of intent and philosophy. Should that be so hard to come by?

10) Comment by DMJ - 05/09/2012

You'll have the hooples in an uproar with this one, Mike. Great letter.

11) Comment by shad-o - 05/09/2012

rgerald - That's not what was said at all and I think you know that. It truly is sad if you believe that drivel you wrote though. Oh, and let me guess, your beliefs about what the role government should have in our lives changes when it comes to religion, abortion and contraception! :)

12) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 05/09/2012

I wonder what it is that Mr. Russo actually espouses, i.e., other than liberal talking points and opposition to Governor Jindal? I think I might have a clue, let's look at his main contention "government is, in fact, the organizational extension of all of us". What he's really saying is that we are wards of the state and that only those who run the government know what's best for us all; meaning that an individual lacks enough knowledge of the overall social picture to decide what actions he should take because what he decides might not impact the rest of society in the way that government intends. So why does Mr. Russo not declare his philosophy openly? C'mon Man, say it ain't so.

13) Comment by lovemykids - 05/09/2012

Jindal is a waste of a good education.

14) Comment by Bighug - 05/09/2012

Jindal's policy of diverting tax money that should fund public schools and making it available to religious groups will keep him in favor with the hate group, Family Forum, and get him elected again.