Obama has called the GOP budget social Darwinism. Nice try, but they believe in social creationism.
— Stephen Colbert (@StephenAtHome) April 4, 2012
by Chris Bodenner Chait offers a counterweight to commentators such as David Boaz upset over the president’s use of the term. So does a reader:
The difference is a semantic, but important one. Obama called the Republicans’ budget “thinly-veiled social Darwinism.” He didn’t call them social Darwinists. It’s akin to the difference between calling someone a jackass and saying that they’re acting like one.
Along those lines:
If we were talking about labeling the ACA/Obamacare a “socialist experiment” vs. calling the Romney/Ryan budget “social Darwinism,” I’d be right there with Boaz. But labeling the president himself a socialist is on a different order than the same characterization on any of his various programs.
Another makes a shrewd argument:
Connecting “Darwin” to this budget is a very smart move by the president.
Where conservatives say things like “culture of life”, Obama is being very slick connecting the word “Darwin” to the GOP tax plan. Many older people are a) already convinced Darwin was the devil, and b) are a vulnerable demographic when the budget comes up due to their dependence on entitlements. If Obama beats the social Darwinism drum enough, Romney will have to say something like “No, we should take care of the weak” (anathema!) or even worse, “Darwin wasn’t that bad”. Or something mealy-mouthed and middle of the road, which will reinforce impressions of him. Check.
The Dish 