Over the last few years, I’ve come to understand that the only meaningful difference between the New York Times<\/em> and the New York Post<\/em> is that the latter is occasionally good for a chuckle<\/a>. The two rags take equally insouciant approaches to reality. Witness Patricia Cohen parroting what her Sociology 101 instructor told her about Herbert Spencer<\/a>:<\/p>\n It is true that political interpretations of Darwinism have turned out to be quite pliable. Victorian-era social Darwinists like Herbert Spencer adopted evolutionary theory to justify colonialism and imperialism, opposition to labor unions and the withdrawal of aid to the sick and needy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n While the last two items are beyond the scope of this site (but read this<\/a> and this<\/a> if you’re interested in, say, facts), the bit about colonialism and imperialism is rich. Herbert Spencer was the premier anti-colonial, anti-imperial thinker of his age \u00e2\u20ac\u201c perhaps of any age. If the great British classical liberal were around today, he’d make most lefties look like Bill Kristol on matters of foreign policy. Good grief, check out these lines from Spencer’s essay “Patriotism<\/a>” (1902):<\/p>\n To me the cry \u00e2\u20ac\u201c \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Our country, right or wrong!\u00e2\u20ac\u009d seems detestable. By association with love of country the sentiment it expresses gains a certain justification. Do but pull off the cloak, however, and the contained sentiment is seen to be of the lowest. \u00e2\u20ac\u00a6<\/p>\n Some years ago I gave my expression to my own feeling \u00e2\u20ac\u201c anti-patriotic feeling, it will doubtless be called \u00e2\u20ac\u201c in a somewhat startling way. It was at the time of the second Afghan war, when, in pursuance of what were thought to be \u00e2\u20ac\u0153our interests,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d we were invading Afghanistan. News had come that some of our troops were in danger. At the Athen\u00c3\u00a6um Club a well-known military man \u00e2\u20ac\u201c then a captain but now a general \u00e2\u20ac\u201c drew my attention to a telegram containing this news, and read it to me in a manner implying the belief that I should share his anxiety. I astounded him by replying \u00e2\u20ac\u201c \u00e2\u20ac\u0153When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t care if they are shot themselves.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/strong><\/p>\n I foresee the exclamation which will be called forth. Such a principle, it will be said, would make an army impossible and a government powerless. It would never do to have each soldier use his judgment about the purpose for which a battle is waged. Military organization would be paralyzed and our country would be a prey to the first invader.<\/p>\n Not so fast, is the reply. For one war an army would remain just as available as now \u00e2\u20ac\u201c a war of national defence. In such a war every soldier would be conscious of the justice of his cause. He would not be engaged in dealing death among men about whose doings, good or ill, he knew nothing, but among men who were manifest transgressors against himself and his compatriots. Only aggressive war would be negatived, not defensive war.<\/p>\n Of course it may be said, and said truly, that if there is no aggressive war there can be no defensive war. It is clear, however, that one nation may limit itself to defensive war when other nations do not. So that the principle remains operative.<\/p>\n But those whose cry is \u00e2\u20ac\u201c \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Our country, right or wrong!\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and who would add to our eighty-odd possessions others to be similarly obtained, will contemplate with disgust such a restriction upon military action. To them no folly seems greater than that of practising on Monday the principles they profess on Sunday.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n