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.