Herbert Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest”. What the term means is that, in nature the strongest survive to pass on their genes to the next generation. Therefore, the organism with the relative advantage continues and contributes to the process of evolution.
But Spencer applied Darwin’s theory of evolution to human society, believing that society was better off if corporations were allowed to outmaneuver one another without the risk of government intervention. His ideas inspired eugenicists such as Lothrop Stoddard to argue that races were in the same situation as beasts in the wild. Stoddard and other eugenicists further argued that it was incumbent on the white race to ensure its continued dominion over other races.
And while eugenicists and the Proud Boys may couch their arguments in pseudo-scientific babble, the growing scientific consensus is pretty much that race itself is a social construct, so that survival of the fittest is a meaningless framework to view society.
But survival of the fittest has a strong appeal to Donald Trump. Why else would he heap praise over a butcher like Vladimir Putin? Putin is a thief and a butcher. But Putin has prevailed over the chaos of the breakdown of the Soviet Union. Therefore, in Trump’s mind, Putin is not only a survivor, but a winner. And the Trump brand is all about projecting an air of constant winning. This is also why Trump still favors MbS over the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. In Trump’s mind MbS is a winner and Khashoggi was an enemy of the state.
According to social psychologists, people gravitate towards bullies like Trump because they like associating with whoever is likely to win a fight. The fight that Trump was supposed to fight was against what he called the swamp in Washington. But also against the “loss of American values”, a whistle term to indicate the increase in numbers of of non-white Americans. Trump asked why it was that people from Scandinavia were not immigrating to the United States and why it was that America had to take in so many people from shithole countries. So if the perception is proven wrong, that Trump did not build his wall to keep people from “shithole countries” from coming to the US, then it is possible to get Trump voters to turn against him. Or at least to stop showing up to vote for him.
A Trumpian claim has been that refugees coming through the border with Mexico must all be disease-ridden criminals. This idea has had significant appeal among Trump voters. On the one hand, Trump voters engage in self-pity, while at the same time demanding that a champion redress their cause. Trump fits this bill well. He makes his followers feel like victims, while at the same time he places blame for all that ails them on immigrants that don’t look like Trump voters.
Trump claimed during the presidential campaign that only a massive border wall would ensure America’s tranquility and future prosperity. Further, Trump emphasized, the border wall would be paid for by Mexico. Two years into his administration and there is no border wall and no inkling on the part of Mexico that they will pay for Trump’s campaign promise. What we did get was Trump ordering the use of deadly force against the refugee caravan. To win the argument over the wall (which would be pointless and the least effective way of enforcing border security), Democrats must hammer the point that Trump is too inexperienced and politically weak to get his wall built. Arguing that the wall would be ineffective is a non-starter. Nancy Pelosi’s statements that Trump needs a wall to prove his manhood and her remark that Trump cannot be associated with anything related to manhood, is an excellent start to painting Trump as weak and his wall as a white elephant. Without a wall, it will be very difficult for Trump to campaign for re-election because he would have broken the most visceral of his campaign promises. Trump knows this, which is why he is threatening to shut down the government unless he gets things his way.
How else does survival of the fittest apply to Trump? Well, now that Democrats have won the House of Representatives, they can start by giving weight to the investigations into Donald Trump’s decades of tax evasion. If only part of what the New York Times alleges is true, then it will be very difficult for Trump to continue brandishing the story that he was self-made. In fact, he inherited all his wealth. What he did do was lose in his casino ventures, and it is because of this that he is in debt to Russian and Saudi lenders. This link to his business debts can be made through Trump’s tax returns, which the new Democratic majority should get. The incoming House Democrats should subpoena whatever government departments have these documents in order to perform what Congressman Swalwell terms an MRI of Trump’s finances. Showing that Trump is far from being a multi-billionaire would burst the image of the self-made man that Trump likes to peddle.
Hoping that Robert Mueller will find impeachable offenses against Trump is fraught with danger. Mueller has already proven that Trump broke campaign finance laws, but Trump’s supporters see this as a vindication that there was “no collusion” with Russia. Trump voters account for 28% of the electorate and they have proven to be inured to Trump’s loathsomeness. The strategy should be to win the minds of independent voters who voted for Trump in 2016. These two things, no border wall and an investigation of Trump’s tax returns, should be the two pillars of the case against Trump in 2020.