Economic Darwinism and Stability

Marie Cocco in yesterday's Newsday plunges right into the middle of Bush's "reform" of social security.

"So why does Bush want to create a crisis that doesn't exist and provide a solution that doesn't fix it? Because he is an economic Darwinist. In Bush's view, the financially strong should be helped to prosper. The weak should pay the bill."

Maha discusses the potential effects of the Economic Darwinism but I think it needs a little more airing.

I agree that the programs like Social Security that were spawned by the New Deal are primarily to insure that there is a safety net for those who don't get the brass ring. The intent being that a progresive and democratic society cannot function effectively when too many of the folks are hungry. At its most basic a society cannot exist when there there is too much difference it situation between the haves and the have nots. Too much potential energy exists and as the disparity grows this energy will reach an explosive level and something breaks. Revolution, civil war or something. The society becomes unstable.
My concern is why this is not getting any more discussion. Surely, the Bush folks know what the results of these actions will bring. I cannot accept that they are that naive and if they do know why are they doing it?
I have to believe that they are intent on de-stabilizing the country but I can't fathom the purpose.

Anybody have any ideas?