Adam Smith (Clinton) v.

Charles Darwin (Trump)

William W. Keep, PhD
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, erroneously, to 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.
The modern capitalists operate in a world where businesses vie for success within
regulated marketssome say over-regulated; some say under-regulated. The government
ostensibly serves to promote economic growth and preserve competition, though
concerns have been raised over too close business-government relations, so called,
corporate capitalism. Smiths efficient markets, which toppled the government-enabled
guilds of his day, still require 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. A failure in the integrity of markets or the voting booth
rewards the undeserving.
Critics deemed Clintons actions and inactions, inconsistencies, 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 hers to own. To her fans she is has accomplished much, given up much, and put
up with much. She understands society to be comprised of rules and social contracts and
throughout her career has sought to assist those less able to assist themselves.
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.
Donald Trump presents himself, as someone to be judged not by rules but by Darwins
winner-take-all dynamic. Success, no matter how achieved, seems to be all that matters.
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.
If lawsuits, reneging on agreements, threats, and failures move the needle toward

Success then they are justified as the end justifies the means. Those who think
otherwise harbor nave expectations. Public adulation, the ability to impose personal
preferences on others, and the outward trappings and bluster of success 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 social contracts with those he might call
losers. In Trump they see a demagogue, a self-promoter, a 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 a renegade, someone who pushes the envelope, and
contradictory behavior sometimes 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 appears to believe in bendable
rules to pursue her understanding of the greater good. The other appears to view rules
as artificial constraints that only 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.
The Founding Fathers sought a political structure inconsistent with a winner-take-all
mentality. They themselves clearly sought to live on politically to fight another day.
Consistent with Smiths thinking, the Constitution instructs Congress To regulate
Commerce Demagoguery in mainstream politics? Sure. However, history provides
hard lessons on the terrifying effects of social Darwinism.