Archive for the ‘Socialism’ category

Right Angle – A Self Inflicted Tragedy in Venezuela

August 15, 2017

Right Angle, BillWhittleChannel via YouTube, August 9, 2017

(Is it Socialism or Communism, and does it matter? — DM)

Flynn: Untie the Right from ‘Unite the Right’ Charlottesville Nutters

August 13, 2017

Flynn: Untie the Right from ‘Unite the Right’ Charlottesville Nutters, BreitbartDaniel J. Flynn, August 13, 2017

(Please see also, Left-Wing Extremism Feeds an Extremist Reaction. — DM)

The Associated Press

They resemble a white people’s Black Panther Party or La Raza in that they wish to divide the United States based on race.

********************************

Those rallying under the mantra “National Socialism Now” in Charlottesville chose the perfect slogan if not for that “w” at the end.

The protestors descending upon Charlottesville this weekend wrongly label themselves “right.” In no sense of the word do socialists, no matter the prefix, fall under any category of “right.”

They do not oppose the Left. They imitate them.

Multiculturalism does not become a right-wing movement when embraced by white people. While certainly nuances color the views of those standing up against the monuments coming down, a blunt, unsubtle common denominator—separatism (from other races and the mainstream)—brings them together.

They resemble a white people’s Black Panther Party or La Raza in that they wish to divide the United States based on race. They bash the police attempting to retain the order they help to unravel. They practice identity politics. They settle questions with violence. They do not respect freedom of speech but whine loudly when the muzzles come for them. When they look at their enemies yelling at them in the street, they look in the mirror but are too ignorant to recognize their reflection.

Sure, a Taliban vibe pervades the groups taking the wrecking ball to statues. But why do people born in Boston (Richard Spencer) or who live in Ohio (James Alex Fields) care so much about the Confederate monuments in Charlottesville, Virginia, that they travel there to hold signs, chant, and wear pots on their heads? As sixties activists reminded us, “The issue is not the issue.”

One of the organizing groups calls itself the Traditionalist Worker Party, an oxymoron in that, heretofore, all workers’ parties sought to radically buck tradition (see, Workers’ Party of Korea; see also, National Socialist German Workers’ Party). The Traditionalist Worker Party calls for “jobs with justice,” instructs followers to “support renewable energy,” and equates the free market system with its polar opposite in a “Capitalism and Communism Work Together Against You” slogan.

The heirs of George Lincoln Rockwell should sue for plagiarism.

The “Unite the Right” umbrella moniker for the event also suffers from a dyslexia of sorts. “Untie the Right” works better. People on the political Right should untie themselves from creeps seeking to tether their hateful outlook to the philosophy of Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, and other respectable advocates of limited government who eschewed bigotry and small-mindedness. The faux-conservatives seek to tether their despicable ideology with a respectable outlook. The counterprotesters eagerly aid them in this effort. On this and so many questions, the people screaming at each other see eye to eye.

Too stupid to formulate a coherent set of ideas, the demonstrators coalesce around the most primitive unifying characteristic by confusing skin color for a political program. White people, of course, disagree on every subject imaginable. What do Michael Moore and Ann Coulter, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, Susan Sarandon and Mel Gibson share beyond a profession and a propensity to get burned at the beach?

Surely any legitimate group on the Right would welcome Thomas Sowell, George Schuyler, Clarence Thomas, Zora Neale Hurston, and countless other African American men and women past and present sharing its outlook. But white nationalists would more readily accept Elizabeth Warren into their ranks. She’s white (don’t take her word for it, she is). Does that make her Right?

Charlottesville’s bloody Saturday resembled Altona Bloody Sunday, a deadly series of skirmishes between National Socialists and Soviet Socialists. Idiots debating with their fists instead of their brains miss the obvious. In Germany, competitors fought over a share of the knucklehead constituency. In Charlottesville, people united on ideology but divided by race brawled because they believed something special separated them.

Some too-common traits unite them: stupidity, turpitude, hatred, fanaticism, imprudence, and so on.

Why Venezuela Matters

June 7, 2017

Why Venezuela Matters, American ThinkerDavid Prentice, June 7, 2017

(Socialism or Communism? In the end, is there a difference? Please see also, Cassandra’s narco-curse. — DM)

Venezuela is one of the most unreported tragedies of our time.  We can guess why: the left-leaning media are not interested in telling us what happened in Venezuela because it disproves so many of their narratives.

In a nutshell:  Venezuela was once the most prosperous country in South America.  It is now one of the poorer nations in the world.  Food is hard to find, toilet paper is scarce, and civilization as the citizenry once knew it is gone.  Venezuela’s story has been one of going from first to worst, a fact the left does not want anyone to know.  The socialist paradise the left inexplicably wants for the U.S. lies in tatters at the top of South America.

Venezuela matters because socialism is one of the two great political blights foisted on the world in the past century.  There are multiple examples of the horrors of this system, be it Soviet socialism, the socialist killing fields of Cambodia, the rotting Euro-states, or the current and unfinished calamity of Venezuela.  Socialism is a system that always promises great things for humanity but in the end is dehumanizing, destructive, and false.  Dressed as an angel of light, offering equality, fairness, and goodness, socialism always seems to change clothes into the angel of death.  Destruction of the human spirit becomes its normative end.

Its siren song is hard to resist.  It always sounds so good.  Hearing about it during the college years captures your attention and consideration.  The professors espousing it seem knowledgeable, credentialed, and persuasive.  Not many teach against it.

My first conversation with someone who explained the horrors of socialism was with my grandfather.  Coming home from college, I was asked to walk him around the neighborhood.  He was in his eighties.  During that walk, he tried his best to pass on how he had fought socialism his entire life.  He was a public school teacher from Tacoma, Washington, who made it one of his projects in life to teach about the ills of socialism.

Needless to say, it was surprising, having heard my professors.  I, being young and impressionable, thought he seemed misguided and weak.

Since then, history has vindicated my grandfather’s vision.  The mask had yet to come entirely off the Soviet failure, the Killing Fields had not happened, the horrors of Mao’s China lay unexposed, Vietnam had not fallen, Solzhenitsyn had not been published, and Venezuela was wealthy.  Yet socialism was already something this man knew was disastrous.

With all these clear historical monuments to the abject failure of the socialist system, Bernie Sanders remains the most popular figure on the left.  Anyone running with a (D) behind his name will have to be “with him” (the unintended political slogan).  It’s sad.  An entire generation have not yet had their grandfathers walk with them to share the collectivist nightmare.  Instead, we have too many grandfathers like Bernie: delusional, incompetent, and ignorant of history.

Once upon a day, this widespread and full acceptance of socialism was not possible in this country.  The Democratic Party was not fully pro-socialist; they were once the party of JFK and Scoop Jackson, along with many other fervent anti-socialists.  They had not swallowed the Kool-Aid.  Unfortunately, too many of our ill-informed citizens now accept it, considering it just another system of governance.

It’s not.

Venezuela has become the clearest current object lesson against socialist destruction.  It’s a vital lesson for economic discussion in our own public square, one of the most important lessons our current snowflake generation could learn.  Everyone knows a few decent, hardworking, and talented Millennials.  Most know some of the snowflakes, too.  Trust me: they need help.  They need to see what is happening in Venezuela.  They need to see just how badly they don’t want Venezuela to happen here.  That lesson needs a bullhorn.

These kids love their smartphones.  They love good beer, good wine, cultural and sporting events.  Most even love nice cars and nice places to live.  They prefer civilization.  In spite of their current alliance with environmentalism and “climate change,” they love the material advantages we all enjoy that socialism did not bring them.  They use (and love) so many technological advances that you would think that convincing them to avoid socialism would be easy.

But it’s not.  Because now there is an entire home-grown army of angels of light preaching the gospel of socialism daily, and too few like my grandfather.

– Our public education has indoctrinated an entire generation to favor socialism.

– Our universities teach it uncritically as if it has brought us paradise on Earth, rather than reduced countries to poverty.

– Our leftist media rarely speak or sneer against it; they save that for the capitalistic freedom that gives them their lifestyles.

– Hollywood has shown a nonstop narrative of villains as either businessmen (capitalists) or U.S. military officers (who love capitalism) for twenty-five years.  Few heroes are entrepreneurs to Hollywood.

– An entire political party has renounced free enterprise for socialism.

– Rich fools such as Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Google principals, media moguls, and the Hollywood elite naïvely push it.  That’s most of our information base.

– We had eight years of a president who sounded like Hugo Chávez, nothing like JFK, and a leftist media that didn’t care to know the difference.

Venezuela is the perfect truth for countering these “angels of light” and unmasking them for what they are: delusional shills for darkness and tyranny.  This darkness, unlike the half-year-old moronic Russia-Trump collusion story, actually is a fact and has evidence – evidence ignored and unreported.

Chávez came to power by promising to redistribute, and then redistributing Venezuela’s wealth to the poor.  Giving money to the poor is always the bait for socialism; it allows power to be won and kept, as it did for Chávez.  It allowed our cultural saviors to say how much Chávez helped the poor.  In the end, it destroyed the people who voted for him.  Too late, they finally burned the Chávez childhood home.

Barack Obama sang this same song to win his nomination and did untold damage by following socialist tendencies.  His “stimulus” was nothing more than a handout to Democrat constituencies to consolidate power.  Yes, that sounds familiar.  Venezuela redux.  He was headed there.

Chávez nationalized thousands of businesses under the guise of helping the downtrodden, ultimately destroying the ability of the Venezuelans to escape poverty.  Chávez gave them fish for a day and then prevented them from fishing for themselves, convincing them he was the only one who would help them.  He demonized business, then took it away, making the chaos that reigns now.  It sounds unusually close to the Democrat platform today.  As Trump noted, the Democrats care about the poor only for their votes to keep power, but Democrats give the poor no tools to dig themselves out.

Chávez ended up obscenely wealthy, as did his daughter – billionaires for ruining a country and the lives of countless millions.  Similarly, the Clintons had their illicit and obscene pay-to-play foundation scheme; Obama is going to get millions for being a Chávez echo, huge speaking fees, along with free everything from suck-up celebrities.  A visionless (and obtusely rich) Democratic Party does not know that Venezuela matters, or why.

While Venezuela descends into darkness, the leftist media focus on how Islamophobic we are.

Pounding the left for their awful, dark, and literally wrong vision of socialism needs to be done – all while exhorting a new generation to embrace the creative vision of free enterprise and of entrepreneurship, giving them what they are used to in their lifestyle and more.

An entire generation needs to rediscover what my grandfather knew.  If we miss this opportunity to show why Venezuela matters, we might get there sooner than we think.

 

Venezuela seizes General Motors plant as property of the state

April 20, 2017

Venezuela seizes General Motors plant as property of the state, Hot Air, Jazz Shaw, April 20, 2017

This news broke overnight and it undoubtedly comes as a shock to anyone who hasn’t been paying to socialism in general and the regime of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in particular. The government of Venezuela came in and seized control of the General Motors plant in the city of Valencia, taking over the property, assets and accounts. The automotive giant responded by saying that they were immediately halting operations. (CNN)

General Motors says it will immediately halt operations in Venezuela after its plant in the country was unexpectedly seized by authorities.

GM (GM) described the takeover as an “illegal judicial seizure of its assets.”

The automaker said the seizure showed a “total disregard” of its legal rights. It said that authorities had removed assets including cars from company facilities.

“[GM] strongly rejects the arbitrary measures taken by the authorities and will vigorously take all legal actions, within and outside of Venezuela, to defend its rights,” it said in a statement.

GM’s Venezuelan operation was already pretty much at the point of stagnation. Productivity was approaching zero because their currency had collapsed and they couldn’t order parts to keep the lines running. Also, the domestic market for cars wasn’t exactly booming because their potential customers have money which is basically worthless and they’re mostly too busy looking for scraps of food to worry about a new set of wheels.

If nothing else, this incident will provide an enlightening, educational moment for the rest of the world. It’s a given that this is bad news for General Motors, for the workers there… let’s just say it. This is bad news for everyone except Maduro and his cronies. But it also serves to further pull away the mask, allowing the rest of the world to see what’s actually going on. So gather around, kids, because we’re not only seeing how socialism ends (and it always ends this way) but also how the socialist machinery operates through the various phases of its life cycle.

Originally, the government tolerates the presence of foreign manufacturing entities such as General Motors to fill needs they have which can’t be handled domestically. (GM has been there for roughly seven decades.) It’s not that the Venezuelan people are incapable of innovation or creation… there’s simply no motivation for them to strive for success. Anything they create simply becomes the property of the state anyway, so the hard working, innovative person doesn’t realize much more success than the guy who can barely keep his eyes open to show up for his job sweeping the sidewalk. There’s no point to being particularly innovative.

So companies such as GM are allowed to go to work. But once the system inevitably begins to implode, the tyrant in charge begins looking for new resources to grab. In the name of the socialist concept wherein everything “belongs to the people” he seizes the GM plant. They take the cars which are there to hand out to high ranking party officials and divide up the assets while demanding that the workers get back to producing automobiles. This is, of course, impossible because they don’t have the parts to do it and the people who actually know how to run things are fleeing.

These are the fruits of socialism. It’s a humanitarian disaster to be sure, but it’s also a teachable moment. Watch and learn.

The Left’s Shifting Overton Window

March 27, 2017

The Left’s Shifting Overton Window, Front Page MagazineBenny Huang, March 27, 2017

[The “Overton Window” represents the breadth of ideas that the public considers acceptable discourse superimposed over a spectrum ranging from far left to far right. At both ends of the spectrum lurk ideas that are literally “unthinkable.” As we inch closer to the Overton Window we find ideas that are merely “radical.” The first category contained within the Overton Window is “acceptable,” followed by “sensible,” then “popular,” and finally “policy.”

The goal of most progressive strategists has been to move that window so that previously unthinkable ideas become conceivable and eventually uncontroversial. People who don’t adopt the newly mainstreamed idea quickly enough are usually shamed into silence. If they refuse to keep quiet they are shunned by polite society and often lose their livelihoods because their old ideas have been pushed into “radical” and “unthinkable” territory.

**************************

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is prepared to go to the mat to prevent the construction of a wall on our southern border. The senator from New York is threatening to use all available options, including a government shut-down, to forestall three key provisions in the new budget: a deportation force, a border wall, and the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 

Well, it’s good to know where Schumer draws his line in the sand. Anything that impedes the endless flow of undocumented Democrats he considers to be an act of war. 

But I’m old enough to remember when Chuck Schumer supported at least one of these budget items. In 2006, he and 25 other Democratic senators voted for the Secure Fence Act which would have built a double-layered fence on the US-Mexico border. The bill passed, by the way, and President Bush signed it into law. It wasn’t a close vote because it wasn’t particularly controversial. 

Now I’m sure that a persnickety liberal like Chuck Schumer would split hairs on this one. He voted for a fence, not a wall! That argument is a non-starter. Walls and fences are both barriers intended to keep people out so let’s not pretend that the difference between then and now is the type of barrier. What’s changed is that Chuck Schumer now supports endless and unlimited immigration with no distinction made between those who enter the country legally and those who don’t. He has likely learned that his party’s best interests are best served by diluting the voice of their actual constituents.

There is perhaps no better example than Chuck Schumer of how much this country has changed since the Bush years. Positions once held by a proud New York liberal are now considered reactionary. What happened? In short, the Overton Window has moved quickly and decisively leftward.

The Overton Window? What’s that? 

Glad you asked. I’m not talking about Glenn Beck’s boring novel but rather about its namesake: the handy mental model formulated by political scientist Joseph P. Overton. His window represents the breadth of ideas that the public considers acceptable discourse superimposed over a spectrum ranging from far left to far right. At both ends of the spectrum lurk ideas that are literally “unthinkable.” As we inch closer to the Overton Window we find ideas that are merely “radical.” The first category contained within the Overton Window is “acceptable,” followed by “sensible,” then “popular,” and finally “policy.”

The goal of most progressive strategists has been to move that window so that previously unthinkable ideas become conceivable and eventually uncontroversial. People who don’t adopt the newly mainstreamed idea quickly enough are usually shamed into silence. If they refuse to keep quiet they are shunned by polite society and often lose their livelihoods because their old ideas have been pushed into “radical” and “unthinkable” territory.

This is perhaps one reason the Left so despises the slippery slope argument—except when they employ it against their adversaries, of course. They want people to concentrate only on the issue as they narrowly define it without considering the principles at stake or the long-term ramifications. Who could have imagined, for example, that a little sensitivity toward racial issues would eventually lead to the stifling environment we find on college campuses today, in which it’s now considered a microaggression to say something as harmless as “I just believe the most qualified person should get the job”? That’s against the rules at the University of California, the largest university system in the country and a state school with an obligation to protects students’ free speech. Certainly no one foresaw this in the 1960s. We just thought we were telling racists—genuine racists—to shut up. What’s the next forbidden phrase? The Left doesn’t want you to ask. If people knew where this crazy train is going they’d demand to be let off.

But we should ask. What radical ideas will the Left be pushing in ten years? What unthinkable ideas will they champion in twenty? You can bet that they won’t admit to any of them now because the time isn’t right. That’s how this game is played.

For another example of the sliding Overton Window, consider Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, both Democrats who sought the presidential nomination of their party, one successfully and the other unsuccessfully. When conservatives called Obama a socialist throughout his presidency, the Left balked. “Don’t be ridiculous!” they said. “He’s no socialist.” This protégé of the radical anti-American CPUSA member Frank Marshall Davis, who openly bragged of hanging out with the Marxist professors on his college campus, who praised a Soviet-backed communist terrorist like Nelson Mandela, was absolutely the furthest thing from a socialist a person could possibly be—or so we were told.

But then along came Bernie Sanders who didn’t even bother to hide his socialism. Of course, he made the highly dubious claim that he preferred the Danish variety of socialism to the Latin American brand he championed earlier in his political career, but at least he was honest enough to use the “S” word. And suddenly there really was nothing wrong with being a socialist. Who knew that after eight years of fervently denying Obama’s socialism—as if it were a bad thing—that the party’s next rising star would be a self-described socialist?

Sanders might even have won the nomination of the Democratic Party if Hillary Clinton hadn’t stacked the deck against him. His loss can be attributed to a number of factors but an aversion to socialism among Democratic voters isn’t one of them. Six in ten Democratic primary voters think socialism “has a positive impact” on society. That’s because the Democratic Party is really just America’s socialist party by another name.

The Left has been particularly successful in radically shifting the frame of acceptable discourse for three reasons. First, they have the media on their side to give them top cover. Second, they are masters of emotion-laden propaganda. And third, they recognize golden opportunities when they see them.

When Barack Obama came to power he recognized that an unpopular war and an economic collapse had left the American people stumbling and woozy. It was an opportune moment to remake society. “You never let a serious crisis go to waste,” said Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. “And what I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Emanuel’s maxim has been the Left’s unarticulated strategy for a long time. They recognize that in times of national tumult the electorate often grants to progressives plenty of latitude to enact their policy wish lists. Obama benefited from one of these moments when he entered the White House in 2009 with a cooperative Democratic Congress to work with. The road was wide open and Obama went pedal to the metal into territory that most Americans would have considered too far afield just a few years before.

Few presidents have changed the nation as fundamentally as Barack Obama—and not in a good way. Within his first two years he had made the ideas of Saul Alinsky look all-American. I would argue that only Franklin Roosevelt spearheaded a more complete American transformation and he had twelve years to do it. Now there was a man who knew how to move the Overton Window. FDR’s New Deal was considered radical when he proposed it and would have been unthinkable a generation before.

But there was still work to be done. Thirty years later, President Lyndon Johnson exploited America’s national grief over the Kennedy Assassination to push through the atrocious Great Society agenda. President Carter pushed the window further to the left in those disorienting days after Watergate and the Vietnam War.

We conservatives never really push it back, often because we’re afraid we’ll be accused of “turning back the clock.” We need to get over our fear of moving the Overton Window in the other direction for a change. With both houses of Congress and the White House now in conservative hands, there is no excuse not to reverse most of the horrid policies of the Obama years. While they’re at it, they ought to reverse the policies of the Carter, Johnson, and Roosevelt years too.

The collapse of the political left

December 8, 2016

The collapse of the political left, Washington ExaminerMichael Barone, December 7, 2016

Trump’s victory means the left can’t jam its policies down on the whole nation—and gives it the incentive to develop policies acceptable not only to its own base but with voters among whom it fell agonizingly short this year.

********************

It’s been a tough decade for the political left. Eight years ago a Time magazine cover portrayed Barack Obama as Franklin Roosevelt, complete with cigarette and holder and a cover line proclaiming “The New New Deal.” A Newsweek cover announced  “We Are All Socialists Now.”

Now the cover story is different. Time has just announced, inevitably though a bit begrudgingly, that its Person of the Year for 2016 is Donald Trump. No mention of New Deals or socialism.

It’s not surprising that newsmagazine editors expected a move to the left. The history they’d been taught by New Deal admirers, influenced by the doctrines of Karl Marx, was that economic distress moves voters to demand a larger and more active government.

There was some empirical evidence in that direction as well. The recession triggered by the financial crisis of 2007-08 was the deepest experienced by anyone not old enough to remember the 1930s. Barack Obama was elected with 53 percent of the popular vote—more than any candidate since the 1980s—and Democrats had won congressional elections with similar majorities in 2006 and 2008.

Things look different now, and not just because Donald Trump was elected president. It has been clear that most voters have been rejecting big government policies, and not just in the United States but in most democratic nations around the world.

Leftist politicians supposed that ordinary voters with modest incomes facing hard times would believe that regulation and redistribution would help them. Evidently most don’t.

The rejection was apparent in the 2010 and subsequent House elections; Republicans have now won House majorities in ten of the last 12 elections, leaving 2006 and 2008 as temporary aberrations. You didn’t hear Hillary Clinton campaign on the glories of Obamacare or the Iran nuclear deal, and her attack on “Trumped-up, trickle-down economics” didn’t strike any chords in the modest-income Midwest.

Republican success has been even greater in governor and state legislature elections, to the point that Democrats hold governorships and legislative control only in California, Hawaii, Delaware and Rhode Island. After eight years of the Obama presidency, Democrats hold fewer elective offices than at any time since the 1920s.

Things look similar abroad. Britain’s Conservatives, returned to government in 2010, are in a commanding position over a left-lurching Labour party. France’s Socialist president, with single-digit approval, declined to run for a second term. European social democratic parties have been hemorrhaging votes, and got walloped in Sunday’s Italian referendum. In Latin America and Asia, the left is declining or on the defensive.

Overall history is not bending toward happy acceptance of ever-larger government at home. Nor toward submersion of national powers and identities into large and inherently undemocratic international organizations. The nation-state remains the focus of most peoples’ loyalties, and in a time of economic and cultural diffusion, as Yuval Levin argues in his recent book The Fractured Republic, big government policies designed for an age of centralization have become increasingly dysfunctional.

Barack Obama doesn’t seem to have noticed this, at least until some time between nine and ten o’clock election night. Shrewder center-left politicians who have shown they know how to win elections have. Bill Clinton urged his wife’s campaign managers to put her out in rural areas speaking to voters’ concerns. The thirty-something geniuses she installed in her trendy Brooklyn headquarters knew better.

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking in Washington this week, said, “We have to pay attention to culture and identity,” and argued that in response to Islamist extremism, “Political correctness can’t get in the way.”

Such advice suggests that a sharp shift in current leftist strategy, which includes “identity politics” appeals to minorities at home and obeisance to the wisdom of supranational entities like the Paris climate changeconference and the European Union.

What’s missing in that is a concentration on the interests of one’s own citizenry. To the left that smacks of nationalism, which some seem to regard as only a baby step away from Nazism.

It’s not. The United States Constitution was designed to provide a framework in which rights are guaranteed and voters in states can choose policies in line with their different backgrounds and beliefs.

Trump’s victory means the left can’t jam its policies down on the whole nation—and gives it the incentive to develop policies acceptable not only to its own base but with voters among whom it fell agonizingly short this year.

America’s First Major Socialist Party Debuts in Philadelphia

July 30, 2016

America’s First Major Socialist Party Debuts in Philadelphia, PJ MediaRoger L Simon, July 29, 2016

(How different would Hillary be from the late lamented el Thugo down in Venezuela? He and his family got rich and his daughter remains the richest person there. El Thugo  was rotten to the core and his anointed successor, Maduro is, if that is possible, even worse. Should she become Obama’s successor, Hillary has much to look forward to. — DM)

soc party

Under cover of a sudden profusion of American flags (borrowed from city hall) and staged chants of “USA” ringing out on the final day, a new party was born in Philadelphia.

Gone are The Democrats.  Welcome, The Socialists.  

Okay, the Democratic Socialists, in deference to Bernie Sanders, whose party it is no matter who was giving the acceptance speech on Thursday. He held the whip hand and will continue to do so to keep his followers on the reservation.

And, yes, there have been more than a few socialist parties in America before – Eugene V. Debs, Norman Thomas, etc. – but never has one of our two major political parties been taken over to such an extent, not even during the days of George McGovern or Jimmy Carter.

I wouldn’t go quite so far as Dan Greenfield, who wrote the following in a compelling column inFrontPage:

Sinclair Lewis famously said, “When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”. More accurately, when Communism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. That’s what the Democratic National Convention was.

So far, as I see it, it’s still socialism.  Hillary Clinton (even under the spell of Bernie ) is closer to François Hollande or some other Eurocrat than she is to Chairman Mao.  But the situation is bad enough and likely to get worse, if she is elected.

Those who think that she will be the second coming of centrist Bill should have their heads examined – or at least watch the reruns of her speech.  Bill was asleep during it.  Call it self-preservation of mind or body, he couldn’t take it either way.  He knew what was coming and it wasn’t going to be a reprise of his most famous line – “The days of big government are over.”  Quite the contrary.  The days of big government are coming as never before.  So he shut his eyes, and not just from whatever health issue he may be harboring.

They should also reread Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, written during the rise of the National Socialist Party, for a clear analysis of why socialism inevitably turns totalitarian.

Which leads me to this:  Many of you think you have the luxury of debating whether Donald Trump is sufficiently conservative or is really a Republican or will carry out all the things he says he will (more of this in a moment).

Sorry, you don’t.  It’s five minutes to midnight for Western Civilization.  Europe, in case you haven’t noticed, is on the brink of going Islamic.  Twenty-five percent of French teenagers already are. Mohammed has been the most popular baby name in the UK for some time. (Thank God, they passed Brexit.) And Ms. Merkel, despite the constant carnage in her country, is doubling down on Middle Eastern immigration.

Hillary Clinton intends to do the same thing here – in the name of human rights, naturally, when, needless to say, it’s about votes.  Economically, if she passes even a third of her proposals, our country will be so far in debt we may never find a way out, ratifying all of Hayek’s predictions as we all become slaves to a desperate state.

Pessimistic, sure.  But we can stop it.  This is a surprisingly winnable election if we pull together.

So for reassurance, let me tell one story from the Republican Convention. It was, as anyone watching television knows, a mostly uninformative event, as virtually all conventions are.  But I did go to a luncheon panel on the economy held by Freedom Works.  Larry Kudlow was the moderator.  I forget everyone on it, but it was a distinguished panel of conservative economists including Stephen Moore and a man named Harold Hamm I had never heard of.  My bad.  It turns out Hamm had more to do with the immediate revival, such as it is, of the US economy than anybody – he is the king of fracking, the developer of the Bakken formation and someone with a net worth at least double Trump’s and closer to George Soros’.

All of the panelist had worked closely, some one-on-one, with Trump on his tax plan, This plan is quite in the mainstream of conservative economic policy with lower, simplified rates across the board, particularly for businesses, which Trump puts at 15%.  (It currently starts at 39%.) Republicans have been calling for this reduction for years to bring our corporations home and generate jobs.

Anyway, midway into the panel, Kudlow asked a question on everybody’s mind – and probably yours too.  Larry wanted to know if the panelists thought Trump would go through with it, if Donald was, to put it bluntly, for real.

The panelists were all emphatic in saying Trump would.  They also gave him high marks for listening, of all things.

Now I know you can rationalize this a lot of ways.  Rich and powerful as these men were, they clearly wanted to be advisers to a man who could be the most powerful in the world.  So factor that in.  And factor in that I have been supporting Trump for a while.  But then ask yourself if you would rather have Hillary…. and socialism.

And I’m not even going to get into the Supreme Court.