Ronald F. White

The cornerstone of “welfare liberalism” is the belief that social justice requires that government limit (Rawls) or even eliminate (Marx) “social distance” between the “most-advantaged” and “least-disadvantaged” individuals and/or nations. Distance is usually measured in terms of the intra-group (and/or inter-group) distribution of “social goods.” While social redistribution relies on voluntary moral exchange whereby the most-advantaged willingly share their social goods (directly or indirectly) with the least-advantaged; political redistribution is executed, coercively, by political regimes via tax code. For Rawls, the justification for social and political redistribution of social goods is the Difference Principle. With a few exceptions, classical liberals who support redistribution, favor voluntary social redistribution, while most welfare liberals also accept political redistribution. Until recent years, there has been very little research on the “nature” of social distance and the social and/or political origins of redistribution. Contemporary Evolutionary Leadership Theory (ELT) and Evolutionary Ethics (EET) provide important insight into the biological origins of both social distance and redistribution. In this presentation I will argue, based on ELT  that “social distance” in its various manifestations is the product of a growing mismatch between our modular brains and human culture; most notably, the cultural evolution of leader-follower relationships within stationary, large-scale, political regimes. EET suggests that distributive morality is ultimately based on both reason and feelings (emotions). Therefore, social and/or political redistribution are based, not only on reason, but also often-conflicting emotions; especially feelings of sympathy and/or feelings associated with retributive justice.

For centuries, scientists have observed that the species Homo sapiens is a social species; and that we naturally “organize” ourselves into groups based on “leadership and followership.” The myriad “organizations” that we create are at least intended to be functional, and serve purposes within religious, military, political, and business domains. And our association and disassociation with organizations also contributes to both our individual and collective identities. Historians have observed that, all organizations are subject to change over time. Some large-scale organizations become small-scale; some small-scale organizations become large-scale; some “survive” for a long time, while others become “extinct.” Some organizations even “give birth” to new ones. Inexplicably, some apparently dysfunctional organizations survive for a long time, while some functional ones lose members and suffer extinction. And some extinct organizations are either revived or transformed into new ones. Most scientific research on organizational leadership has focused on two “domains,” political organizations and business organizations. This essay will focus on the political domain through the lens of Evolutionary Leadership Theory (ELT).