To Whom Ever it May Concern,
Welcome to my temporary blog on 21st Century Remnants of the age-old philosophy of social Darwinism. Below you will find three posts that recap major news events/ideologies written by well-respected journalists and/or professors. Also you will find three of my own personal interpretations on these pieces as well as how they relate to social Darwinism. You will also find a small post dedicated to a potential rubric that will guide you in grading the project.
My suggestion is that you read the welcome letter and rubric first, and then proceed to read the blog from the bottom up. While any order is sufficient, this was the way the blog was written and the progression is the most sensible.
I hope you enjoy my analysis of social Darwinism in American policy.
If you have any questions, concerns, or comments, you can contact me in person or leave a message in the comment box on one of my posts.
Thank you,
Katia
Sunday, April 7, 2013
The Rubric
While other points can certainly be taken into account, I believe the following six benchmarks should be the basis for grading the assignment.
1. Has a Rubric (0 or 3)
2. Appropriately identifies three separate instances of 21st Century Social Darwinism (0-5)
3. Appropriate explains the linkage between the selected news story and the philosophy (0-5)
4. Includes pictures and other visual aids to enhance the story (0-3)
5. Clear writing style, appropriate grammar, conventions, etc. (0-3)
6. Unique choice of display/media (0 or 1)
Maximum amount of points 20/20
Adjustments can be made accordingly to the wishes of the grader.
1. Has a Rubric (0 or 3)
2. Appropriately identifies three separate instances of 21st Century Social Darwinism (0-5)
3. Appropriate explains the linkage between the selected news story and the philosophy (0-5)
4. Includes pictures and other visual aids to enhance the story (0-3)
5. Clear writing style, appropriate grammar, conventions, etc. (0-3)
6. Unique choice of display/media (0 or 1)
Maximum amount of points 20/20
Adjustments can be made accordingly to the wishes of the grader.
Commentary on Foreign Policy Isolationism
i·so·la·tion·ism (
s
-l
sh-n
zm)
s-lsh-nzm)
n.
A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.
Isolationism has long been thought to be the primary philosophy of American foreign policy, and is particularly advocated for by conservative GOP party members.
While isolationism can just be viewed as a country protecting its self-interest, foreign policy isolationism can also be seen as a collective submission to social Darwinism. A large part of foreign policy for such a large and powerful country as the United States is deciding when to intervene in other matters for reasons of national interest, the protection of allies, or a multitude of other instances. While there are a few instances of the American military's heroism for other countries, the country and the Department of Defense have traditionally had a hands off approach to the world's geopolitical disputes unless it an imminent threat is posed upon an interest of the government.
There are social Darwinist aspects of this philosophy because the traditional definition of the ideology roots in a hands off, let the world's order progress as it should manner. The typical human instinct is to stand by unless you (or your interests) are provoked or threatened. While semi-isolationism has proved a somewhat successful policy for America, there have been many instances where detrimental effects could have been potentially avoided by ally intervention. There is no way to tell if government intervention or compromise on the fronts of the Rwandan genocide, or multiple instances of homeland terrorism could have presented better outcomes, but all that can be determined is that isolationism is generally safe-- a substantial way to protect what is most important to you.
But is a complete hands-off tactic, encouraging people to be bystanders always the right choice?
Haven't we been a country to teach our children to be the upstander-- how come when it comes to the world stage age-old ideologies come back to haunt us as the world's "natural order" takes its toll?
Where Does Republican Foreign Policy Go From Here?
An excerpt from the blog post written by Bruce Thornton for frontpagemag.com
March 22, 2013
Recently Walter Russell Mead neatly formulated the importance of the issue for the future electoral success of Republicans: “If the struggle over the future of the GOP is seen by independents to be a battle between neocons and isolationists, the party will lose national support no matter which faction wins. Those are hard truths, but they are real: the country doesn’t want more of either George W. Bush or Ron Paul on foreign policy and until Republicans can develop a new and different vision of the way forward, they are unlikely to regain the high ground they once enjoyed on this issue.” So what should be a Republican foreign policy––isolationism, international idealism, neocon interventionism, or realism?
Isolationism has always been an attractive option for Americans. Enjoying the protection of two oceans, in the 19th century Thomas Jefferson could preach “entangling alliances with none” of the world’s nations. John Quincy Adams famously announced that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” Later, James Monroe would say, “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.” In 1863 Secretary of State William H. Seward declined to join France’s protest against Russian intervention in Poland by evoking the U.S. “policy of non-intervention — straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,” and “forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference.”
Such a policy was in part weakened by the increasing technological and economic advances of the 19th century that shrank the world and more closely bound nation to nation, redefining what a phrase like “seriously menaced” could mean. Our national interests now faced threats not from invading armies, but from disorder and wars abroad that disrupted an increasingly globalized trade and sparked violent competition for global resources and markets. Now internationalist idealism began to gain traction, the notion that a “federation of free states,” as Kant imagined in 1795, could “for ever terminate all wars.” International organizations, laws, and treaties would bind states together based on universal mutual interests like peace and prosperity, maintaining global order and helping backward states to progress beyond war and zero-sum competition. Given that some states would lag behind this evolution, wars would still be necessary to hasten this development by eliminating despotic illiberal regimes. However, these would be wars not of conquest or nationalist aggrandizement, but of spreading the benefits of democracy and prosperity to the whole world.
Want to read the whole article? Click on the link below.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/where-does-republican-foreign-policy-go-from-here/
Is isolationism becoming more popular in the United States?
March 22, 2013
Recently Walter Russell Mead neatly formulated the importance of the issue for the future electoral success of Republicans: “If the struggle over the future of the GOP is seen by independents to be a battle between neocons and isolationists, the party will lose national support no matter which faction wins. Those are hard truths, but they are real: the country doesn’t want more of either George W. Bush or Ron Paul on foreign policy and until Republicans can develop a new and different vision of the way forward, they are unlikely to regain the high ground they once enjoyed on this issue.” So what should be a Republican foreign policy––isolationism, international idealism, neocon interventionism, or realism?
Isolationism has always been an attractive option for Americans. Enjoying the protection of two oceans, in the 19th century Thomas Jefferson could preach “entangling alliances with none” of the world’s nations. John Quincy Adams famously announced that America “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.” Later, James Monroe would say, “In the wars of the European powers, in matters relating to themselves, we have never taken part, nor does it comport with our policy, so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced that we resent injuries, or make preparations for our defense.” In 1863 Secretary of State William H. Seward declined to join France’s protest against Russian intervention in Poland by evoking the U.S. “policy of non-intervention — straight, absolute, and peculiar as it may seem to other nations,” and “forbearing at all times, and in every way, from foreign alliances, intervention, and interference.”
Such a policy was in part weakened by the increasing technological and economic advances of the 19th century that shrank the world and more closely bound nation to nation, redefining what a phrase like “seriously menaced” could mean. Our national interests now faced threats not from invading armies, but from disorder and wars abroad that disrupted an increasingly globalized trade and sparked violent competition for global resources and markets. Now internationalist idealism began to gain traction, the notion that a “federation of free states,” as Kant imagined in 1795, could “for ever terminate all wars.” International organizations, laws, and treaties would bind states together based on universal mutual interests like peace and prosperity, maintaining global order and helping backward states to progress beyond war and zero-sum competition. Given that some states would lag behind this evolution, wars would still be necessary to hasten this development by eliminating despotic illiberal regimes. However, these would be wars not of conquest or nationalist aggrandizement, but of spreading the benefits of democracy and prosperity to the whole world.
Want to read the whole article? Click on the link below.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/bruce-thornton/where-does-republican-foreign-policy-go-from-here/
Commentary on Conservative Economics as Social Darwinism
Social Darwinism calls for those who are naturally strong and inclined to positions of power to rise above and do what is necessary to support themselves in a competitive world. According to Robert Reich, Republicans have taken to a economic philosophy mildly resembling social Darwinism to reform our injured economy after a Recession that began in 2008. Reich draws upon the similarities in the agendas of millionaire industrialist Andrew Mellon and Republican giants such as Speaker of the House John Boehner. While it is true that Mellon, who was Hoover's Secretary of Treasury at the time of the Stock Market Crash of 1929 and Boehner, who was in a similar position of importance at the time of economic instability shared the similar economic-political agendas of shrinking government, cutting the federal deficit, reducing the national debt, and balancing the budget, Reich, an outspoken liberal, does frame Boehner using the words of the notoriously insensitive businessman turned politician Mellon.
An interesting parallel that can be drawn between Mellon and Boehner's economy-saving philosophies is the need to reduce government role in the economy. Both similarly believe that government is at least partially responsible for the economy's derailment. This can be assimilated with the aspect of social Darwinist theory that forced human interference with the natural way of the world is detrimental to the social and other core structures of daily life. The fact that prominent GOP politicians believe that an objective force in the economy, like the government, is causing such serious problems to the economy is akin to the basic beliefs of social Darwinism. Is it fair to call all conservative politicians and economist social Darwinists? No, for that generalizes too much information and attempts to assimilate unique economic situations through large periods of history where there are too many important variables to disregard. But, it is true that economic superstars such as Carnegie and Mellon, who obviously support social Darwinism as a "cleansing tool" for the American economy share somewhat agnate ideologies with present day American conservatives.
Just how far can we go with drawing parallels throughout different periods in American history? Yes, while the basic philosophy of Social Darwinism remains in tact throughout the years, so many other variables in American life have changed. Is this fair?
An interesting parallel that can be drawn between Mellon and Boehner's economy-saving philosophies is the need to reduce government role in the economy. Both similarly believe that government is at least partially responsible for the economy's derailment. This can be assimilated with the aspect of social Darwinist theory that forced human interference with the natural way of the world is detrimental to the social and other core structures of daily life. The fact that prominent GOP politicians believe that an objective force in the economy, like the government, is causing such serious problems to the economy is akin to the basic beliefs of social Darwinism. Is it fair to call all conservative politicians and economist social Darwinists? No, for that generalizes too much information and attempts to assimilate unique economic situations through large periods of history where there are too many important variables to disregard. But, it is true that economic superstars such as Carnegie and Mellon, who obviously support social Darwinism as a "cleansing tool" for the American economy share somewhat agnate ideologies with present day American conservatives.
Republican Economics as Social Darwinism
From Robert Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley and former Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton
*Let it be noted that some of the political events discussed in this article are out of date. For example, John Boehner is currently Speaker of the House.
September 26, 2010
John Boehner, the Republican House leader who will become Speaker if Democrats lose control of the House in the upcoming midterms, recently offered his solution to the current economic crisis: “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmer, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, lead a more moral life.”
*Let it be noted that some of the political events discussed in this article are out of date. For example, John Boehner is currently Speaker of the House.
September 26, 2010
John Boehner, the Republican House leader who will become Speaker if Democrats lose control of the House in the upcoming midterms, recently offered his solution to the current economic crisis: “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmer, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. People will work harder, lead a more moral life.”
Actually, those weren’t Boehner’s words. They were uttered by Herbert
Hoover’s treasury secretary, millionaire industrialist Andrew Mellon,
after the Great Crash of 1929.
But they might as well have been Boehner’s because Hoover’s and Mellon’s means of purging the rottenness was by doing exactly what Boehner and his colleagues are now calling for: shrink government, cut the federal deficit, reduce the national debt, and balance the budget.
And we all know what happened after 1929, at least until FDR reversed course.
Boehner and other Republicans would even like to roll back the New Deal and get rid of Barack Obama’s smaller deal health-care law.
The issue isn’t just economic. We’re back to tough love. The basic idea is force people to live with the consequences of whatever happens to them.
In the late 19th century it was called Social Darwinism. Only the fittest should survive, and any effort to save the less fit will undermine the moral fiber of society.
Republicans have wanted to destroy Social Security since it was invented in 1935 by my predecessor as labor secretary, the great Frances Perkins. Remember George W. Bush’s proposal to privatize it? Had America agreed with him, millions of retirees would have been impoverished in 2008 when the stock market imploded.
Of course Republicans don’t talk openly about destroying Social Security, because it’s so popular. The new Republican “pledge” promises only to put it on a “fiscally responsible footing.” Translated: we’ll privatize it.
Look, I used to be a trustee of the Social Security trust fund. Believe me when I tell you Social Security is basically okay. It may need a little fine tuning but I guarantee you’ll receive your Social Security check by the time you retire even if that’s forty years from now.
Medicare, on the other hand, is a huge problem and its projected deficits are truly scary. But that’s partly because George W. Bush created a new drug benefit that’s hugely profitable for Big Pharma (something the Republican pledge conspicuously fails to address). The underlying problem, though, is health-care costs are soaring.
Repealing the new health-care legislation would cause health-care costs to rise even faster. In extending coverage, it allows 30 million Americans to get preventive care. Take it away and they’ll end up in far more expensive emergency rooms.
The new law could help control rising health costs. It calls for medical “exchange” that will give people valuable information about health costs and benefits. The public should know certain expensive procedures only pad the paychecks of specialists while driving up the costs of insurance policies that offer them.
Republicans also hate unemployment insurance. They’ve voted against every extension because, they say, it coddles the unemployed and keeps them from taking available jobs.
That’s absurd. There are still 5 job seekers for every job opening, and unemployment insurance in most states pays only a small fraction of the full-time wage.
Social insurance is fundamental to a civil society. It’s also good economics because it puts money in peoples’ pockets who then turn around and buy the things that others produce, thereby keeping those others in jobs.
We’ve fallen into the bad habit of calling these programs “entitlements,” which sounds morally suspect – as if a more responsible public wouldn’t depend on them. If the Great Recession has taught us anything, it should be that.anyone can take a fall through no fault of their own.
Finally, like Hoover and Mellon, Republicans want to cut the deficit and balance the budget at a time when a large portion of the workforce is idle.
This defies economic logic. When consumers aren’t spending, businesses aren’t investing and exports can’t possibly fill the gap, and when state governments are slashing their budgets, the federal government has to spend more. Otherwise, the Great Recession will turn into exactly what Hoover and Mellon ushered in – a seemingly endless Great Depression.
It’s also cruel. Cutting the deficit and balancing the budget any time soon will subject tens of millions of American families to unnecessary hardship and throw even more into poverty.
Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon thought their economic policies would purge the rottenness out of the system and lead to a more moral life. Instead, it purged morality out of the system and lead to a more rotten life for millions of Americans.
And that’s exactly what Republicans are offering yet again.
** Let it be noted that while the article is not appropriate objective for general use, it conveys certain philosophies in the right manner that make it usable for this particular instance.
Economist Robert Reich discusses the flaws of the GOP's proposed entitlement reform.
But they might as well have been Boehner’s because Hoover’s and Mellon’s means of purging the rottenness was by doing exactly what Boehner and his colleagues are now calling for: shrink government, cut the federal deficit, reduce the national debt, and balance the budget.
And we all know what happened after 1929, at least until FDR reversed course.
Boehner and other Republicans would even like to roll back the New Deal and get rid of Barack Obama’s smaller deal health-care law.
The issue isn’t just economic. We’re back to tough love. The basic idea is force people to live with the consequences of whatever happens to them.
In the late 19th century it was called Social Darwinism. Only the fittest should survive, and any effort to save the less fit will undermine the moral fiber of society.
Republicans have wanted to destroy Social Security since it was invented in 1935 by my predecessor as labor secretary, the great Frances Perkins. Remember George W. Bush’s proposal to privatize it? Had America agreed with him, millions of retirees would have been impoverished in 2008 when the stock market imploded.
Of course Republicans don’t talk openly about destroying Social Security, because it’s so popular. The new Republican “pledge” promises only to put it on a “fiscally responsible footing.” Translated: we’ll privatize it.
Look, I used to be a trustee of the Social Security trust fund. Believe me when I tell you Social Security is basically okay. It may need a little fine tuning but I guarantee you’ll receive your Social Security check by the time you retire even if that’s forty years from now.
Medicare, on the other hand, is a huge problem and its projected deficits are truly scary. But that’s partly because George W. Bush created a new drug benefit that’s hugely profitable for Big Pharma (something the Republican pledge conspicuously fails to address). The underlying problem, though, is health-care costs are soaring.
Repealing the new health-care legislation would cause health-care costs to rise even faster. In extending coverage, it allows 30 million Americans to get preventive care. Take it away and they’ll end up in far more expensive emergency rooms.
The new law could help control rising health costs. It calls for medical “exchange” that will give people valuable information about health costs and benefits. The public should know certain expensive procedures only pad the paychecks of specialists while driving up the costs of insurance policies that offer them.
Republicans also hate unemployment insurance. They’ve voted against every extension because, they say, it coddles the unemployed and keeps them from taking available jobs.
That’s absurd. There are still 5 job seekers for every job opening, and unemployment insurance in most states pays only a small fraction of the full-time wage.
Social insurance is fundamental to a civil society. It’s also good economics because it puts money in peoples’ pockets who then turn around and buy the things that others produce, thereby keeping those others in jobs.
We’ve fallen into the bad habit of calling these programs “entitlements,” which sounds morally suspect – as if a more responsible public wouldn’t depend on them. If the Great Recession has taught us anything, it should be that.anyone can take a fall through no fault of their own.
Finally, like Hoover and Mellon, Republicans want to cut the deficit and balance the budget at a time when a large portion of the workforce is idle.
This defies economic logic. When consumers aren’t spending, businesses aren’t investing and exports can’t possibly fill the gap, and when state governments are slashing their budgets, the federal government has to spend more. Otherwise, the Great Recession will turn into exactly what Hoover and Mellon ushered in – a seemingly endless Great Depression.
It’s also cruel. Cutting the deficit and balancing the budget any time soon will subject tens of millions of American families to unnecessary hardship and throw even more into poverty.
Herbert Hoover and Andrew Mellon thought their economic policies would purge the rottenness out of the system and lead to a more moral life. Instead, it purged morality out of the system and lead to a more rotten life for millions of Americans.
And that’s exactly what Republicans are offering yet again.
** Let it be noted that while the article is not appropriate objective for general use, it conveys certain philosophies in the right manner that make it usable for this particular instance.
Commentary on Mitt Romney and the 47 Percent of Americans
Former GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney was caught on tape at a private benefit function saying the following:
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what..."
Ultimately, social Darwinism is an anti-welfare and anti-public assistance philosophy, because humans helping other humans interferes with the laws of nature and therefore puts the natural order of mankind at risk. While the original definition of social Darwinism lies in "survival of the fittest" and that pre-selected groups of individuals or the individuals themselves are destined to prevail over others. While social Darwinism is not a scientific philosophy justifying the belief in fate, it does incorporate elements of pre-determinted future. The one major aspect of the social philosophy that differs from social fate is that social Darwinism does not out rule and even honors the individual's hard worked for and well-deserved climb in social status.
What made Mr. Romney's comments so shocking to the world was that he implied in his speech a disregard for many American people's hard work. He speaks as if every person who receives welfare our living assistance wants it, and relies solely on the help of the government-- that they refuse to help themselves. While some have interpreted Romney's comments as his interpretation of the American dream-- that everyone should grasp and utilize the equal opportunity to work for their living and succeed in life-- many human and civil rights organizations have attacked the GOP's spokesperson for his disconcert with the majority of those on welfare who use it to supplement the income they make on their own. Romney put himself into a difficult position by phrasing his words very inappropriately, implying that ALL who need and use welfare are cheating the system to benefit their laziness. False generalizations are costly, Mr. Romney, and we can be assured he learned his lesson because a string of drastic missteps in public settings arguably cost Romney the American presidency.
The source of the outrage from this particular instance is rooted in Romney's apparent disagreement with the ideology that food and shelter are entitlements to all people.
According to the United Nations' Universal Declaration for Human Rights:
Article 25
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
May it be reinforced that this Declaration for Human Rights is to be upheld by every nation that holds membership at the United Nations. May it also be noted that the United Nations was co-founded by American leaders.
While remnants of social Darwinism have acceptable places in the philosophy behind the American Dream, such as the equal opportunity to make what you want of your own life, the world (as can be seen above) disagrees with Mr. Romney-- who seems to have taken social Darwinism a little too far.
Contemporary Social Darwinism in the GOP
From Washington Post Blogger Jamelle Bouie
April 5, 2013
The GOP Can't Shake that '47 Percent' Talk
Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks didn’t cost him the presidency,
but they reinforced the image of him and the GOP as cold, heartless, and
only concerned with the interests of the rich. After the election,
Republican leaders tried to repair the damage of this by distancing themselves from the former GOP nominee and trying to emphasize the elements of their agenda that may appeal working and middle-class voters.
The problem is that the GOP remains wedded to the ideas underlying the 47 percent remarks, if not their tone.
Indeed, some conservatives are unconvinced the party needs reform. Former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, who now heads the conservative Heritage Foundation, claimed late last year: “I think the problem is that as conservatives we have not taken enough control of our message and our ideas and communicated them directly to the American people.” And yesterday, he emphasized that point with a letter that borrowed liberally from Romney’s 47 percent comments, taking control of the conservative message with a broad attack on “dependency”:
Despite all the talk of a rift between DeMint and the GOP leadership, DeMint’s views are representative of those held by many in the Republican Party and party leaders. Paul Ryan, for example, continues to push a budget plan that would gut spending for the poor — thus ending dependency — and funnel it to tax cuts for the rich, while new senators like Ted Cruz of Texas support massive cuts to the social safety net.
In other words, there’s little daylight between DeMint and actual Republican policy. The only difference is that DeMint is willing to be blunt about his views and priorities. DeMint and the GOP both want deep cuts to the welfare state, in order to return to an idealized past where civil society took “responsibility,” and the desperately poor — apparently — didn’t exist.
Youtube Video Source: Mother Jones
April 5, 2013
The GOP Can't Shake that '47 Percent' Talk
The problem is that the GOP remains wedded to the ideas underlying the 47 percent remarks, if not their tone.
Indeed, some conservatives are unconvinced the party needs reform. Former South Carolina senator Jim DeMint, who now heads the conservative Heritage Foundation, claimed late last year: “I think the problem is that as conservatives we have not taken enough control of our message and our ideas and communicated them directly to the American people.” And yesterday, he emphasized that point with a letter that borrowed liberally from Romney’s 47 percent comments, taking control of the conservative message with a broad attack on “dependency”:
“Today, more people than ever before – 69.5 million Americans, from college students to retirees to welfare beneficiaries – depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions,” DeMint wrote.Like Romney, DeMint expands the idea of dependent people beyond “welfare” — the usual target of conservatives — to include many other Americans who benefit from federal programs. Tellingly, this doesn’t include homeowners, small business owners, or corporate executives, who receive huge benefits from the federal government in the form of tax breaks, subsidies, and tax preferences. It’s only dependency, it seems, when your income is less than six-figures.
“The United States must reverse the direction of these trends or face economic and social collapse.”
Despite all the talk of a rift between DeMint and the GOP leadership, DeMint’s views are representative of those held by many in the Republican Party and party leaders. Paul Ryan, for example, continues to push a budget plan that would gut spending for the poor — thus ending dependency — and funnel it to tax cuts for the rich, while new senators like Ted Cruz of Texas support massive cuts to the social safety net.
In other words, there’s little daylight between DeMint and actual Republican policy. The only difference is that DeMint is willing to be blunt about his views and priorities. DeMint and the GOP both want deep cuts to the welfare state, in order to return to an idealized past where civil society took “responsibility,” and the desperately poor — apparently — didn’t exist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)