A Mid-term Election Reflection

An interesting question between now and the mid-term elections isn’t just who is going to win the various congressional, state, and local races. It’s what the Democratic Party has evidently come to believe in terms of its values, both politically, and in many cases, personally.

It’s also what the Party has led fellow Americans to believe and adopt as their own.

As intended or unintended fallout, something has been lost along the way.

Once upon a time “Live and Let Live” was part of the shared American creed. As a peaceful-seeking society, we collectively considered this value to be indispensable, since the virtue generally serves to nurture the development of positive human norms, attitudes, and behaviors.

It is oftentimes difficult to get people to agree on a shared set of values. But America had succeeded in doing so, and the success is what made pluralism survivable.

Unfortunately, over the last several decades the Democratic Party has reduced the concept of “Live and Let Live” to a single word: “Tolerance.” It didn’t just substitute a synonym for the original phrase. It altered the fundamental meaning of it.

The newly defined American value appealed to almost everyone. After all, it felt as if we were saying the same thing; that you may hold a differing belief or opinion than that of another, but you were willing to show respect to those who were of an opposing view.

It’s a binary axiom in life. We are all moving in one direction or another.

In the case of the Democratic Party and their newly adopted creed, “Tolerance” eventually devolved into what the Party mandated all must believe.

No more room for dissenting views. And no one allowed into its circle without accepting every one of the self-established tenets of the so-called progressive creed.

Ironically, the Democrats actually became the vice that they had initially been fighting against; i.e., they became the most intolerant among us.

It all seems to be catching up with them, and the timing of the elections in a way may be serendipitous.

Some folks are slowly beginning to realize the shift that has taken place in terms of the freedom to hang on to your own individual beliefs, attitudes, and philosophies without being dictated to and/or socially ostracized.

Bill Maher, who has been known to vote Democrat his entire life, has endured a kind of excommunication in slow motion over the past several years. His crime? He was noticing what was going on, and he wasn’t staying silent about it.

Maher proposed a “stand your ground law for cancel culture” so that “when the woke mob comes after you for some ridiculous offense, you’ll stand your ground and stop apologizing.”

He also coined a segment-closing rule on his “Real Time” HBO show: “Memo to social justice warriors: When what you’re doing sounds like an Onion headline, stop.”

He has been accused of leaving the left behind, when in reality the left did it to him.

Proof that the Democrat creed-turned-dictate has continued down a wayward path can be seen in the manner in which the Party attempts to police even the smallest of thoughts and actions of the people-at-large.

Here are a few examples of additional prominent independent-thinking celebrities who have suffered negative consequences.

Actress Sydney Sweeney garnered a lot of attention when she appeared in a jeans ad and said the following: “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring.” The internet lit up, claiming that she was subliminally endorsing eugenics.

A slew of derogatory comments about her followed. Her response was direct and effective. “I’m against hate and divisiveness,” she said.

Athlete Sophie Cunningham plays guard for the Indiana Fever and is one of the most-followed players in the WNBA. In a single ESPN profile, she offered an opinion about biological male athletes participating in women’s sports.

Cunningham said that she wanted to “protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sport who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”

The left-leaning media generally responded in lockstep, with The Guardian dutifully dubbing her an “anti-transgender culture war ambassador.”

Comedian extraordinaire Jerry Seinfeld, when feeling that his art was being cramped, dared to pin the blame for strangling comedy directly on “the extreme left.”

Talking to the New Yorker, Seinfeld made the charge that the disappearance of the TV sitcom was the result of ideological policing.

He said that it used to be when you went home at the end of the day, “You just expected, ‘There’ll be some funny stuff we can watch on TV tonight.’ Well, guess what — where is it? This is the result of the extreme left and PC c**p, and people worrying so much about offending other people.”

Funny how when people give themselves permission to buck the trend, courage sets in, and many times it turns out to be contagious.

The mid-term elections just may be a time when we remember how important it is to hold fast to our own self-determined principles, and to put them into practice for the good of society and our beloved country.

How Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen Became a Digital Influencer

At a time when content creators are competing for attention through the use of stunts, dance routines, and street brawls, Christianity’s most unlikely rising digital star is a man who passed away fourteen years before the first iPhone was released.

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, renown philosopher, theologian, and television pioneer, is now officially on a path toward sainthood.

What is remarkable isn’t just the fact that he might become St. Fulton Sheen. It is that he has already achieved something quite unlike anything the modern world has seen before; a posthumous social media influencer whose reach is larger now than when he first conquered the airwaves.

Blessed Sheen understood the attention economy before it had received its tagline. In 1951, he launched a prime-time television show called “Life Is Worth Living.” The program went head-to-head against TV’s top comedian Milton Berle as well as legendary singer and performer Frank Sinatra.

With piercing eyes that seemed to bore through the black-and-white screen, Blessed Sheen delivered clear moral messages to millions of average everyday Americans.

In language that ordinary folks could understand, an estimated 30 million viewers tuned in weekly to watch a Catholic bishop explain the existence of God, the problem of suffering, and the meaning of sacrifice.

He was, by any modern metric, a true influencer. Blessed Sheen built a “personal brand” before the term was part of our common vernacular. He published 73 books, recorded thousands of hours of radio and television fare, and developed what is now recognized as a unique style, complete with dramatic pauses, larger-than-life gestures, and one-liners aimed straight at the camera.

He consistently beat the competition in ratings and even won an Emmy Award in 1953, which he accepted by thanking his “…writers — Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”

Here’s another bit of info that makes Blessed Sheen’s current moment so amazing. On TikTok, X, and Instagram, clips of his broadcasts (now colorized and subtitled) routinely generate millions of views.

Those in the younger demographic, who quite often know little about the Cold War or culture war, have been sharing his quotes with the same fervor typically reserved for podcast clips and TED Talks; quotes on the deeper concepts in life that challenge our worldviews regarding human dignity, untold suffering, real and/or perceived inequities, and the inherent dangers of communism.

Blessed Sheen represents the essence upon which the algorithm thrives; that being, the concise, provocative, visually distinct, endlessly quotable, etc.

Additionally, his direct, intellectually serious, visually distinctive, and witty style that worked on 1950s TV screens is one that perfectly aligns with the social media video ecosphere of today.

Comments on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram about his one-liners have garnered positive contemporary labels such as “savage” and “based.” And discussions of his teachings are often extensive in substance and intriguing in content.

Blessed Sheen was of a mind that Christianity should meet people where they are, and one should use whatever tools are available to assist this process. If that meant a 1955 prime-time television show was in order, so be it.

In 2026, TikTok posts just may be the equivalent. Blessed Sheen’s communication style was tailor-made to go viral. As a matter of fact, he spoke in aphorisms that fit neatly into character limits.

Here’s a sampling:

– “The measure of love is to love without measure.”

– “You must remember to love people and use things, rather than to love things and use people.”

– “We become like that which we love. If we love what is base, we become base; but if we love what is noble, we become noble.”

More than mere theological observations, in today’s terms the above are shareable content. Blessed Sheen spoke to a post-Industrial Revolution culture that was anxious about technology, human connection, and the deeper meaning of life.

These are concerns that would logically be urgent to a generation raised on smartphones.

Blessed Sheen preached that material abundance without spiritual purpose creates a particular kind of despair. To young people drowning in abundance but starving for meaning, this message lands with surprising force.

The world just witnessed an event in which tens of thousands filled a former NFL stadium in St. Louis, Missouri, as the archbishop was declared “Blessed.” The first U.S.-born bishop to reach this stage of beatification now stands one verified miracle away from canonization.

Pope Leo shared that he had watched Blessed Sheen as a child. “It was a way of spending some time together as a family with the truths… that he shared in such an enthusiastic, lively way,” the pope, following the beatification, recalled.

When a second miracle is confirmed, the saint-in-waiting will be formally recognized. He is still converting, consoling, and teaching. But his words now travel farther and faster than he ever could have imagined.

The irony is rich. A man who once competed with Berle and Sinatra for ratings is now competing with MrBeast.

And he is winning, not by changing his message but by proving that truth, well-communicated, has no expiration date.

Fads and phases will always come and go. But the human hunger for meaning is a trend that never ends.

Waiting on a second miracle for The Influencer Who Would Be Saint.

How Moral Relativism Paved the Way to Communism

The news of late has been filled with stories about election wins here in the United States for socialist (aka, communist) candidates.

It wasn’t that long ago that a majority of people in our country would have considered it preposterous for a major American political party to openly advocate Marxist governance.

But here we are.

Many in our nation were already aware of how detrimental such policies were and where they would eventually lead.

Additionally, we had generations of refugees here in our country to remind us of the misery that awaits when the crooked path to communism is taken.

Plenty of folks in the country are now in the state of shock, trying to figure out how the unthinkable has happened. A look behind the curtain may provide insight.

A major factor in the societal equation is the collapse of several of our country’s foundational pillars. The pillars were actually displaced over time by a distinctly different worldview known as moral relativism.

Moral relativism is the philosophical notion that “right” and “wrong” are not the same for everyone. When a society adopts a morally relative worldview, what is considered morally acceptable is wholly dependent upon whatever a person, family, culture, or system deems so.

This is untenable for any society in the long run. With regard to individuals as well as the population at large, moral relativism creates confusion. Confusion creates instability. Instability creates anxiety. Anxiety creates the inability to function. The inability to function results in a breakdown.

Truth be known, a society can actually endure a great deal of hardship if people share a belief system based on absolutes. If not, a breakdown becomes inevitable.

In a morally relative belief system, everything is relative. Consequently, nothing is for certain.

“Ball of Confusion,” The Temptations’ 1970 hit song (written by Norman Whitfield and Barrett Strong), aptly expresses the thinking and feeling of the times. The basic precepts of our society were systematically being removed from our collective conscience.

“Evolution, revolution, gun control, the sound of soul

Shooting rockets to the moon, kids growin’ up too soon

Politicians say more taxes will solve everything

And the band played on”

If you take a listen, you’ll likely find that the tune sounds as if it dropped this morning. That’s not just because the music remains contemporary. It’s because the writers of the song were able to capture the historical experience and put it to music. And the musical artists were able to convey the cognitive dissonance and intense emotion that our people were suffering through.

Society was in an attenuated heated argument about what was right and what was wrong. It was evident that moral relativism had already taken root in a significant portion of the country.

Back before things went wobbly we generally shared a common pop culture. We watched the same TV programs, read the same books, went to the same movies, and listened to the same songs. These weren’t just trivial details. They were some of the specific social components that helped form a bond between us and hold us together as a nation.

We keep hearing now that people are so divided, so polarized, so incapable of coming to an agreement on any major or minor issue. That’s because moral relativism foments disharmony. And disharmony produces more of the same.

Peaceful co-existence requires shared norms. When norms are declared optional, something else will swoop in to fill the vacuum. The “something else” that swooped in was communism.

Founding father of communism Karl Marx contended that those who revolt against capitalism are the ones who get to define what morality is.

After the Russian Revolution in 1917, the communists didn’t just change the form of government. They changed the moral manual.

Russian revolutionary Vladimir Lenin surmised that formerly-held morality was essentially a ploy that was used by the affluent in society to maintain their status and wealth. The communist regime ended up slaughtering tens of thousands of people who were tagged with the label “enemies of the working class.”

Lenin argued that the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” (i.e., the dictatorship of the working class), must show no mercy in crushing the old ruling class. And Russian dictator Joseph Stalin went even further, intentionally starving to death millions of his own people. Officials at the time characterized it as a necessary step toward socialism.

Moral relativism is the prelude to communism. Asserting that some things are simply wrong is the minimum condition in preventing the slide from moral confusion into systematic coercion.

In the 1970s, we resonated to the music and lyrics of “Ball of Confusion.”

Same ball today. Just a different decade.

WNBA Rules Mandate that Enes Freedom and Royce White Be Let In

Enes Kanter Freedom and Royce White just threw their hats into the 2027 WNBA Draft

Under the basketball league’s own eligibility language, the two former NBA first-round picks are currently identifying as women.

Freedom and White’s declaration of gender has the WNBA dribbling across the cultural court to schedule an emergency task-force meeting of team presidents and general managers in order to discuss “transgender athlete participation.”

In a world of logic, reason, and ethics, the league has an obligation to apply its own set of rules consistently.

If the WNBA’s current framework treats self-identification as sufficient grounds for acceptance into the league, then Freedom and White currently meet every stated requirement.

Therefore, the league has a duty to afford both of them the opportunity to try out, or it must concede that the definition of the word “woman” refers to an individual’s chromosomal composition and attendant physiological characteristics.

On its face, Article XIII, Section 1(a) of the WNBA’s collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is unambiguous. It states the following: “Only players who are women are eligible to play in the WNBA.”

It offers no further definition of the term “women.” There are no hormone thresholds, no standards regarding surgical modifications, and no explicit self-identification policy. The document is completely silent on the subject of gender identity.

Freedom reviewed the stated guidelines and said, “If simply declaring who you are is all that’s required, then I meet every single requirement necessary to compete in the WNBA.”

White followed with his own announcement that he is “transgender” and “a woman,” as it pertains to his eligibility to gain admittance into the league.

Under the text that the league itself negotiated and signed, the logic of the two former NBA players is airtight. Freedom has also officially penned a letter to the league and shared the content in a social media post, saying “rules are rules!” in the caption. White is likely to follow suit.

It turns out that these two athletes are prompting the WNBA, as well as society at large, to engage in honest discussions about divisive and highly emotional issues in hopes that we arrive at mutually satisfying rational conclusions.

For years women’s sports organizations have embraced expansive inclusive rhetoric, while leaving the foundational categories of “woman” and “transgender” undefined. This ambiguity was sustainable only as long as no high-profile male athletes tested the boundaries.

Freedom (6’10” tall, 11-year NBA veteran) and White (6’ 8” tall, first-round pick of the Houston Rockets in 2012 ) are now attempting to hold the WNBA to its own stated standard.

The reaction of the league suggests that its standard was never meant to be taken literally or expected to be challenged.

Star WNBA player Sophie Cunningham is the catalyst who brought the biological males in female sports debate to a boiling point, setting the stage for the declarations by Freedom and White.

Cunningham’s stated desire is to “protect young girls in a locker room, or young girls in sports who shouldn’t have to go against biological men.”

The remarks predictably ignited immediate as well as sustained controversy. The female athlete’s willingness to utter aloud a biological sex-based view of women’s sports eligibility turned a simmering cultural issue into an all-out WNBA crisis.

Despite the shrill language from those on the far-left, the issue is resolvable by simply applying the principles of scientific knowledge, civil rights law, and common sense reasoning.

The biology of the human body is not a relative construct. Generally speaking, puberty actually produces distinct advantages in biological males in terms of height, muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, and upper-body strength.

These differences are part of the reason why sex-segregated categories came into being in our society in the first place. Likewise with federal civil rights legislation, specifically Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination and protects individuals (in the initial legislation, more often than not, girls) against sexual harassment and/or assault.

The WNBA was created so that elite female athletes could compete on a fair playing field. Allowing intact male physiology into the category undermines the very purpose of the league.

Still, the current collective bargaining agreement of the WNBA does not address or codify this biological firewall, thus creating the open door that Freedom and White are walking through.

Consistency demands one of two outcomes. The WNBA must either allow for self-declaration of gender, or it must rewrite its rules to explicitly state that eligibility is based on biology.

The players’ union has responded so far with language about diversity. This is an evasion of the issue. It is also an apparent attempt to divert discussion onto an emotional track as opposed to a fact-based one.

Freedom and White have essentially become a stress test for the league. If the planned emergency meeting of leaders produces more nuance, the league will have earned the “hypocrisy” label.

The reasoned outcomes are clear. The draft must be open to individuals who simply declare themselves to be women. Or the CBA must be amended to specify that the “W” in WNBA stands for “Women,” i.e., biologically female individuals.

Let the rules mean what they say, or change them so that they protect the athletes that the league was built to serve.

Here’s hoping science and logic rule the day.

Elon Musk’s Own Odyssey Film Possibility

Christopher Nolan’s latest film, The Odyssey, delivered a powerful opening this past weekend, hauling in roughly $125 million domestically and $264 million worldwide. It is the biggest global debut to date for the famed Hollywood director.

However, a narrative regarding the movie seems to have developed simultaneously alongside its debut. Much of the entertainment news reporting and social media activity surrounding the movie appears to have engaged in diversions that were far afield from typical box-office reporting.

It looks as though the box-office data may have gone through a political re-purposing. The film had already sparked debate over its casting choices, which included the selection of Lupita Nyong’o to portray the literary icon, Helen of Troy.

Yet numerous media outlets and online voices framed the film’s successful opening as proof that the casting controversies were irrelevant, and that potential audience rejections of woke choices were merely myths.

The Odyssey arrived amid massive IMAX pre-sales, Nolan’s stellar brand loyalty, and an all-star cast that includes Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland, and Zendaya, among others. Still, there is a lingering question of whether or not the film will reach expected levels of profitability.

Entering into the whole cinematic discussion is none other than the man who transformed social media itself, Elon Musk. The tech titan has publicly criticized aspects of Nolan’s version of The Odyssey as having departed from the source material’s cultural and historical context.

Musk recently suggested in posts on X that he would either fund an alternative Odyssey movie that has a more historically accurate take, or he would make a film of his own with his AI, Grok. He also stated that he is willing to fund filmmaker-director-actor Mel Gibson with $100 million to create an authentic adaptation.

Hollywood’s pattern of retrofitting ancient stories to fit contemporary identity politics typically ends up sacrificing coherence, as well as denying original literary writings the respect that they are due.

Homer’s The Odyssey is a Bronze Age Greek epic poem, which is rooted in specific geography, social mores, and ethnic descriptions.

Odysseus is a Mycenaean king from Ithaca. Helen is a Greek queen whose beauty and abduction drive the Trojan War. The suitors, gods, and creatures of the story operate within an ancient cultural world of honor, seafaring, and divine intervention.

These elements are in no way incidental details. Rather, they are integral components that shape the story’s logic, conflicts, and overall themes.

Altering core identities to reflect 21st-century far-left ideology severs the inherent thread of ideas within the story, transforming a classic tale into a generic storyline in which any character can be replaced, interchanged, or deleted on a whim.

The most enduring adaptations of literary works preserve the core logic that makes a story distinctive.

A historically grounded film would render the Bronze Age setting with archaeological care. The palaces, ships, weapons, clothing, and rituals would be drawn from material evidence as opposed to ideological invention.

The casting of actors with physical appearances that align with the textual and historical descriptions would reinforce the story’s internal consistency. Audiences would then be able to encounter the epic on their own terms, with the story’s honor culture, complexity of worldview, and themes of homecoming and endurance left intact.

Such fidelity to original authorship actually has a track record of success. Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings series respected Tolkien’s world-building and ethnic logic. The trilogy succeeded both artistically and commercially because it was true to the source and was not rewritten for ideological conformity.

Musk is pointing the way toward a feature motion picture that treats Homer’s The Odyssey as a specific Greek cultural achievement, which would be filmed with attention to historical detail, cast to match the source descriptions, and liberated from anachronistic social commentary.

This type of film-making approach would honor the source material while demonstrating that respect for origins and creative excellence are completely compatible.

Hollywood has produced scores of films that update classics for current tastes. But what it has produced fewer of lately are ambitious, large-scale adaptations that trust the intelligence of viewers to interact on their own terms with a story from another time and place.

In an era saturated with adaptations that feel more like ideological conditioning than cinematic storytelling, an Odyssey film that is faithful to the author would stand out by simply doing the work that the text itself invites, transporting viewers into the dangerous yet wondrous world that Homer first envisioned.

Whether in a book or on film, the words of the author are usually the ones that resonate the most.

Homer’s own may be the best guide.

“Sing in me, Muse, and through me tell the story…” ― The Odyssey (Robert Fitzgerald translation)

Social Media and AI Are Robbing Us of Personal Connections

A young 19-year-old woman sits in her dorm room holding a smart phone.

The college student has hundreds of Instagram followers and a favorite AI chatbot. The bot remembers her favorite songs, offers endless reassurances, and never disputes or disagrees.

Each night she goes through the same ritual, texting into the wee hours. Although for weeks she hasn’t met with anyone in person, she is convinced that she is indeed socializing. But the truth is she is totally alone.

This scene is in no way unique. Instead it has become the default for millions of young people.

Social media and AI chatbots are not just providing methods for making life easier. They are systematically replacing the sometimes challenging, emotionally risky, high-stakes effort of forming human relationships.

The result is a quiet but accelerating crisis of isolation that threatens mental health, family formation, and the fundamentals of society.

The United States is in the midst of a loneliness epidemic. Too many young people are spending less time building relationships, which have historically defined adulthood, created the closest of friendships, spawned romantic partnerships, and facilitated continuous face-to-face interaction.

The problem is growing wider and deeper. In 2023, the U.S. Surgeon General designated social isolation as a public health epidemic, which is linked to higher rates of depression, anxiety, cardiovascular disease, dementia, and reduced life expectancy.

Back when social media platforms first arrived on the scene, they paved a path toward isolation. Platforms that were optimized for attention quickly transformed conventional social comparisons into algorithmic activities.

Young users frequently scrolled through highlight reels and oftentimes came to the conclusion that their lives were inadequate. Posting for self-validation purposes as opposed to engagement with others became the norm for many individuals.

Impressionable minds learned that brief dopamine hits from received “likes” resulted in positive experiences.

This often stood in stark contrast to another experience; that of being engaged in genuine conversation but risking disapproval and/or rejection from other participants.

The latter case may explain why actual face-to-face time among young people declined.

Then along came AI chatbots. These were not just neutral assistants. Companion-style AIs were explicitly fashioned to simulate emotional intimacy.

Think about it. The chatbots are always dependable, extremely attentive, and never judgmental in the way real-life human beings can be.

For adolescents and young people, especially those who are already primed by social media to avoid rejection, the appeal is obvious.

Early data and user reports indicate that every day a rising numbers of teens and young adults are now spending hours in extended role-play and emotional conversation with chatbots. Some even describe the exchanges as their “main relationship.”

The chatbot provides the illusion of being known, minus any kind of reciprocal obligation.

What is truly disturbing is that young people are gradually losing the ability to build authentic relationships, because all too often they are foregoing human interaction for digital substitutes.

If they only knew how wonderfully fulfilling true human relationships can be. Challenging at times, yes, but so worth the investment.

Interestingly, relationships have the potential to become stronger when exposed to friction. In contrast, friction-less interaction may result in underdeveloped emotional muscles.

Surveys and demographic trends show Gen Z and younger cohorts are reporting fewer close friendships, lower rates of dating, and delayed milestones of partnership, when compared to prior generations of the same age.

Multiple national surveys document that loneliness among young adults is rising as digital “connection” metrics explode. And unfortunately, anxiety and depression rates have climbed.

On a hopeful note, experiments that reduce the use of social media consistently demonstrate improvements in mood and social functioning.

Society’s family structure is dependent upon adults who are capable of sustaining long-term commitments. And our workplace environment is dependent on adults who possess the much-needed interpersonal communication and conflict resolution skills.

Many are wondering if anything can be done to reverse the anti-personal, anti-social trend.

Here are a few suggestions:

– Social media companies can alter algorithms.

– AI developers can choose not to market companion bots as emotional substitutes.

– Parents and school administrators can treat screen time as a public-health issue.

– Individuals can come to the knowledge that convenience is not the same as fulfillment.

– Young people can tap into the courage within to make real connections.

The truth is we alldesperately need each other.

We simply can’t live without human companionship.

The time has come to seriously reduce our collective screen activity and make more human connections.

What folks of all ages are likely to discover is that real life beats virtual life every time.

Radical Leftist Democrats Are Following a Communist Script

Recent primary victories by Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) candidates in New York, Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles are being hailed in certain left-wing circles as some sort of a grassroots movement, when it’s anything but.

Those familiar with the wretchedness of communism have for years been doing their best to sound the alarm bells about the ideological seepage that has been occurring in our own country.

In a way, the DSA victories are serving a purpose in that more and more influential political and media figures are beginning to speak out about the dangers of veiled communist constructs and their inevitable road to ruin.

The philosophical playbooks, which the recent candidates and potential officeholders embrace, mirror the early stages that transformed previously free societies into economic and humanitarian catastrophes.

It may not be an exact replay of history’s songbook, but the anti-liberty refrain is eerily familiar. In the name of equality, activists pursue ideas about concentrating economic power.

If we look at communist countries prior to their becoming glorified prison camps, each experienced a state-controlled takeover of healthcare, energy, housing, and wages, usually accompanied by the fomenting of hostility to private enterprise, a redistribution of wealth, and a continuous erosion of individual freedom.

Venezuela is one of the more modern examples. Its tilt toward communism didn’t begin with tanks in the streets. It started with the holding of elections.

In 1998, Hugo Chávez was democratically elected on the promise of being a fighter of poverty and corporate greed. He called his platform “21st Century Socialism.”

He quickly nationalized the oil, steel, and food industries, imposing price controls, currency restrictions, and massive wealth transfers. Communism had slithered its way into a once-free country.

Supporters hailed the new way of life as empowering the people against the wealthy. Within a brief time period major production collapsed, shortages appeared, hyperinflation exceeded one million percent at peaks, and GDP cratered.

Millions fled, opposition leaders were jailed, and media were muzzled. What started as popular redistribution required an ever-greater coercion to sustain. What Nicolas Maduro inherited, he further hardened.

With regard to Russia, after 1917 the Bolsheviks promised land and bread. Factories and farms were seized under “war communism.” Then Vladimir Lenin’s New Economic Policy gave way to Joseph Stalin’s total collectivization. The results were engineered famines, gulags, and a police state that murdered millions to enforce central planning.

China’s Maoists promised peasant liberation. The Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution resulted in the deaths of millions from famine and purges, all the while private property and markets were being decimated.

Cuba’s Castro followers seized power. They promised democracy and justice, but turned around and built a tyrannical one-party system that practiced rationing, surveillance, and confiscation.

In each of the above cases, the initial pitch was the same: End exploitation, give power to the working class, and use the state as an instrument of justice.

The mechanism used was also the same: Replace voluntary exchange and dispersed knowledge with government allocation of resources.

When results were disappointing, and they consistently were, leaders blamed fake scapegoats such as saboteurs, foreign interference, or insufficient commitment to Marxist principles.

More power was demanded to fix what a prior power grab had broken. Liberty eroded bit by bit, and the system collapsed because it is impossible for central planners to replicate the information and incentives of free markets.

DSA platforms and candidates drape their major themes in American garb. Proposals such as “Medicare for All” and “Green New Deal” have them dreaming about massive new federal control over trillions in economic activity.

“Housing for All” and “Tenant Rights” campaigns end up being a means of imposing rent control, while restricting development and reducing supply.

Criticism of “corporate greed” and calls for the public ownership of businesses use the same twisted logic that was used to justify nationalizations in Moscow, Havana, Beijing, and Caracas.

For decades the United States has retained stronger constitutional guardrails, federalism, an armed citizenry, and a culture of individual rights, unlike nations that have succumbed to communism.

However, the trajectory of ideas in the leftward direction is particularly concerning for our country precisely because, more often than not, it is an incremental process.

Each step is typically defended as temporary and necessary. Each step makes reversal more difficult and failure more costly.

Americans who value prosperity and freedom should treat DSA advances, not as quaint democratic socialism but as the latest iteration of failed communist ideology.

The United States built its wealth and mobility on the opposite principles. Vigilance begins with a total rejection of the premise that concentrated political authority over production and distribution is superior to individual choice.

It’s best to listen to those who have suffered under leftist totalitarian regimes. They are sending us a message to immediately banish communism from our midst.

We fail to listen at our own peril.