From the Founding Fathers forward, democracy naturally linked to the market mechanism of Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations. During periods such as the Cold War, the merits of democracy and Smiths capitalism reduced to a single argument against the perils of communism and the somewhat less frightful socialism. Winning in capitalism has been likened to the survival of the fittest, a concept closely associated with Charles Darwin. Our current presidential battle pits the two concepts against each otherthe competitive markets of capitalism against the winner-take-all dynamic of Darwinism. Here is why the theories transcend the individuals. Hillary Clinton represents the modern capitalist, for all that means, including its perversion of Smiths competitive markets (i.e., so called, corporate capitalism). She operates in a world where businesses vie for success within regulated markets (some say over-regulated; some say under-regulated). The government ostensibly serves to promote economic growth and preserve competition. Smiths theory undercut the governmentenabled guilds of his day, forcing sellers to compete to the benefit of buyers, but also required ongoing oversight to maintain a competitive environment. Similarly, democracy broke from a past of landed aristocracy and centralized political power to give individuals (call them, buyers) the right to choose their representatives (call them, sellers). Sellers compete in an open market of ideas, albeit a funnel-shaped iterative process, to be selected by buyers. Writers from the Founding Fathers to the John Birch Society have made similar connections. The integrity of markets and the voting booth require that rules be followed as the failure of rules rewards the undeserving. Critics deemed Clintons actions and inactions, inconsistencies (hypocrisies ?), parsing of words, and personal flaws as crooked within a rules-based context. They argue that she skirts rules and responsibilities, hides her true motivations, and tells Wall Street bankers one thing and the public another, all for vainglory and power. Any denial is questioned and all failures are hers to own, whether following predecessors or not, whether having full responsibility or not. To her fans she is has accomplished much, given up much, and put up with much. She understands society to be comprised of social contracts and throughout her career has sought to reinforce and satisfy those contracts, particularly in defense of those less able to do so. Darwinism is very different. The notion of survival-of-the-fittest describes an entirely different dynamic, one of biological diversity, competitive struggle, survival, demise, and evolution. There are no rules, no regulators, and certainly no similarities to democracy. The ultimate measure of successsurvival, coming out on topis all that matters. While some have equated Darwinian thinking with winning in Smiths competitive market, the comparison fits only in a static view. In order for Smith-style capitalism to work, to truly benefit society, the same winner must face competitors again, and again, and again. When this happens the biggest winners are buyers, while sellers engage in an ongoing struggle to remain innovative and competitive.
Donald Trump presents himself as someone to be judged not by Smiths market
competition rules but by Darwins winner-take-all dynamic. Success, no matter how achieved, is all that matters. Success in some context though not in others is sufficient. Apparent success need not be hindered with details, which keeps the singularity of the measure clean and simple. Rule flaunting is a plus because rules are artificial constraints. Lawsuits, reneging on agreements, threats, and failures are all a means to an end and the end justifies the means. Those who think otherwise harbor nave expectations. Public adulation; gifts, particularly of the financial or personal type; the ability to impose personal preferences on others; and the outward trappings and bluster of successnot unlike a male ape competing for dominancetogether reinforce the position of a winner. Critics of Trump point to his business failures, self-contradictory statements, bothersome personal history, aggression to the point of intimidation, lack of knowledge about issues in the public realm, and refusal to recognize even the potential of social contracts that include those he might call losers. In Trump they see a demagogue, a pompous selfpromoter, a questionable leader pursuing unfettered power. Trump fans care little about such issues. In fact, the pursuit of power and aggression are viewed not as a flaw but the inevitable, natural traits of a winner. Breaking rules can be interpreted as being appropriately above the lawa renegade, with contradictory behavior seen as necessary to win and move forward. The trappings of success are just desserts that reinforce the social hierarchy. Two candidates judged by two different standards. One believes in rules sufficiently bendable to allow the pursuit of the greater good. The other sees rules as artificial constraints that only to delay the appropriate and inevitable ultimate winners and losers. Two theories, one designed specifically to shape the output of social activity and the other to explain a biological phenomenon. Mistaking one for the other can be dangerous. We have seen the terrifying effects of social Darwinism in fascism and its accompanying loss of life and freedoms. In fact, the Founding Fathers specifically sought a political structure inconsistent with a winner-take-all mentality. They themselves clearly sought to live on politically to fight another day. Mechanisms put in place, however tedious, encourage rather than inhibit competition, in the case of political ideas or financial gain. Demagoguery in mainstream politics? Sure. However, the real pain comes when demagoguery means following the notions of an over-proud single winner.