Darwinism may explain Clinton's trysts; Biologists say it's basic human survival

The Washington Times, August 24, 1998, Monday, Pg. A9
BYLINE: Larry Witham; THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Biologists suggest President Clinton has followed the genetic program handed down by human evolution: have as much sex with as many females as possible in the Darwinian quest for hereditary survival.

Despite this brute biology that is inherited by males, however, there are other ways to survive, and these now include monogamy, other evolutionists say.

"What Darwin says is that the most dominant male gets the first crack at the women," said Michael Ruse, a historian of biology at Guelph University in Ontario. "In that sense, I find [Mr. Clinton's] behavior absolutely normal, not normal in the sense that I approve of it, though," he said. Darwinism has argued that survival is the main goal of organisms, and part of that quest is to produce as many offspring as possible. To explain human morals, biologists have argued that Homo sapiens are the only species to invent culture, and in culture they agreed on ways to curtail selfishness and have concern for others.

"Genetic survival is not the prism through which to view all modern behavior," said Robert Wright, author of "The Moral Animal," which presents the case for evolutionary psychology.

Still, he agrees with biologists that when humans in the past changed their behaviors to survive better, the surviving genes passed those moral inclinations to future generations.

Monogamy, Mr. Wright argues, arose when ordinary males - who sought to survive by having offspring - challenged the "elite males" who controlled all the women in tribal settings.

"The survival view of monogamy is associated with its egalitarian ethic," Mr. Wright said. Dominant men, in other words, were forced to divide up sexual resources more equally.

Mr. Ruse said that a "rule of reciprocation" between men and women also had to develop in the laws of the jungle. Men promised fidelity to a woman in exchange for a similar commitment.

"So often in evolution it's compromise," he said. "You get more advantage by cooperation."

The debate among evolutionary biologists regarding Mr. Clinton's power and sex began when Richard Dawkins, the British zoologist, mentioned him in an essay that likened powerful men to seals or deer with harems.

"We lust because our ancestors' lust helped pass their lustful genes on to us," Mr. Dawkins said in the London Observer earlier this year. He said that in studies of 849 human societies in the world, 708 showed that men continue to practice polygamy - having more than one wife. Only 137 societies are monogamous. Four have polyandry - women with more than one husband.

Earlier in evolutionary history, powerful males "would have responded to Clinton's predicament having to defend himself against a charge of consorting with several women with open-mouthed incredulity," Mr. Dawkins said. "What else does a man become a great chieftain for?"

Theologian John Haught of Georgetown University said that biology can only provide a morality based on fear of punishment and group conformity.

"We should try to take scientific explanations as far as we can," he said. "Our behavior is constrained by our genes and biological makeup, but it is not determined."

Moral choices such as altruism and fidelity require a transcendent and unchanging source of values, he said. "The danger comes when you have sociobiological interpretations," he said, referring to the idea that the survival of genes dictates behavior.

The biologists said that no one is claiming that Mr. Clinton's genes made him do it.

"Genes don't make people do anything," Mr. Wright said. "There is the opportunity for self-control. Apparently Clinton has less self-control than the rest of us."