Adam Smith (Clinton) v.

Charles Darwin (Trump)

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.