The further to the left or the right you move, the more your lens on life distorts.

Tuesday, November 21, 2017


Clintonistas (yes, they still exist and are poster-children for Trump Derangement Syndrome) are the first to suggest that Donald Trump and everyone who ever spoke to him, did business with him, or even came in incidental contact with him should be "investigated" by the special counsel. They continue to believe that once the investigation is done, Trump will be impeached and magically, Hillary will become President and take her rightful place atop the political pyramid.

Okay, then.

Of course, the Clintonistas take a different view of an "investigation" when it might be directed at their queen bee. They're scared to death that serious DoJ investigations of Hillary's participation in Uranium One, in Fusion GPS, and in an email scandal of her own making might be initiated.

Cass Sunstein presents the Clintonista argument that in theory is legitimate but in reality is designed to inoculate their dishonest and corrupt leader from accountability while she served in the very government Sunstein purports to protect:
Prosecuting political rivals and their associates is a tactic of authoritarians, and it reeks of authoritarianism. It suggests that political victors will not be content to have won; they will bring the force of the criminal law against those they have defeated.

That suggestion is dangerous to self-government and political liberty. It tells people who dissent, or who support rivals to current leaders, that they may be at risk. It turns opposition into an act of courage, rather than an exercise of rights.

Prosecution of political rivals politicizes the Justice Department, and in the most damaging way. Sure, the attorney general works for the president. But in a free society, prosecutorial judgments should be, and should be perceived to be, objective – rooted only in the law and the facts. Whenever national prosecutors pursue a political opponent of their president, many people will ask, naturally enough: What is the real motivation here?
Immediately after the 2016 election, I was of the opinion that Hillary should be given a pass—that investigating her obvious dishonesty and corruption would roil the body politic and do more damage than good. That it was worth allowing Hillary to skate to keep the peace. I am no longer of that opinion.

The truly unhinged behavior of the Clintonistas and Democrats in general, the unrelenting calls for Trump's impeachment, the evidence-free and McCarthyesque Russia "collusion" accusations, the questionable, tunnel-vision focus exhibited by Robert Mueller's investigation (so far) have changed my mind. What goes around should come around.

Marc Thiessen comments:
Ever since Watergate, the mantra of all major corruption investigations has been to “follow the money.” Well, Americans of all political stripes should be outraged by the fact that both Democrats and Republicans in Washington are up to their eyeballs in Kremlin cash. Russian money found its way into the pockets of not only Trump advisers like Paul Manafort and Rick Gates — who were recently indicted by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III — but also Democratic power lobbyist Tony Podesta, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.

This should suggest to objective observers that Russia was using its money to influence both sides in order to advance the Kremlin’s interests. And it means that any full and impartial investigation of Russia’s efforts to influence our political process needs to follow the Russian money flowing into the coffers of the Clintons, their foundation and their top associates.

The New York Times reported in 2015 that “shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, [former President Bill] Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” In total, $145 million went to the Clinton Foundation from interests linked to Uranium One, which was acquired by the Russian government nuclear agency Rosatum.

Think that was just a coincidence? As former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy points out, the Uranium One deal is not a national security scandal, it is a corruption scandal involving “Clinton family self-dealing.” Ask yourself: How many half-a-million-dollar speeches has Bill Clinton given to Kremlin-linked banks since Hillary Clinton was defeated? How much Russian money is flowing into the Clinton Foundation’s coffers today? If it Donald Trump had given a $500,000 speech paid by a Kremlin bank, and his private foundation had accepted $145 million from Putin-linked oligarchs and their Western business partners, do you think that his critics would be insisting there was nothing to see here?
Maybe the answers to those questions are what has Clintonistas so upset and defensive. Yeah, yeah, I know, it's all just a right-wing conspiracy and poor Hillary, the perpetual victim, has been wronged yet again.

Maybe even-handedness is the right approach. Investigate Trump and investigate Hillary. We'll see who gets a cleaner bill of health.

Monday, November 20, 2017

Two D Words

Both words begin with the letter "D". One is a entity and represents a major political party. The other is an abstraction and indicates the prevailing strategy employed by that party. The words are Democrat and Disingenuous. As the attempt at major tax reform plods forward, the Democrats do what they always do—claim that any attempt to reform a corporate tax structure that has increasingly made U.S. companies uncompetitive on the world stage is a gift to "the rich." That's where the word Disingenuous comes into play.

The Democrats recognize that the tax code is complex and that the vast majority of politicians and citizens have no real clue about the details. They also recognize that taxes are easy to demagogue, simply by claiming that any attempt at reform benefits the rich to the detriment of the middle class, that all of this is about rewarding hated CEOs, and that evil corporation will be the beneficiaries, not the common man. All of that is nonsense, but the Dems learned a long time ago that facts simply don't matter.

Sure, there are some politicians who are dumb as rocks and honestly believe the Dem rhetoric. But there are others who understand that the demagoguery makes for an excellent political strategy even though it's dishonest and detrimental to our economy. No matter. In the age of Trump, the Dems will lie if it results in a defeat for their hated adversary. Never mind that it would also be a defeat for American workers, the economy, and our international competitiveness. Trump Derangement Syndrome is paramount.

The Wall Street Journal comments:
Liberals are denouncing Republican tax reform as a giveaway to big corporations, as they always do. But the irony is that the Senate and House bills would do far more to stop corporate tax gaming than anything the Obama Administration did in eight years. This includes preventing tax avoidance, levelling the tax field for U.S. multinationals, and stopping corporate inversions.

Start with cutting the corporate rate to 20% from 35%, which in a stroke offers less incentive for companies to move capital, income and intellectual property out of the U.S. to lower tax climes. During the Obama Administration, many U.S. companies “inverted” by merging with smaller foreign competitors to take advantage of lower tax rates abroad. The U.S. has the highest corporate rate in the developed world, whose average is 25%.

Inversions seek to make American companies more globally competitive and let them reinvest in the U.S. tax free. Under the current U.S. worldwide tax system, companies can defer taxes on their overseas profits until they bring them home—and then get smacked with the full 35% rate. Hence, corporations have parked $2.5 trillion or more abroad ...

We report all this because you’d think from the press coverage that corporate tax reform is all about enriching a few CEOs. The truth is that it’s a serious attempt to fix a broken U.S. code that has festered for years and made America increasingly uncompetitive as a destination for mobile global capital. The GOP reforms would help the economy and make it harder for corporations to avoid paying taxes.
Without any Democrat support (after all, forget tax breaks for the Middle Class, the only "class" that the democrats truly care about is class warfare), passage of much needed tax reform is in doubt. That may be an excellent political strategy on the Dems' part, but it's lousy governance. So much for profiles in courage.


Guess who wrote this:
When effective marginal rates are higher, potential projects need to generate more income if the business is to pay the tax and still provide investors with the required return. Businesses will therefore limit their activities to higher-return projects. Thus, all else equal, a higher effective marginal rate for businesses will tend to reduce the level of investment, and a lower effective marginal rate will tend to encourage additional projects and a larger capital stock. Increases in the capital available for each worker’s use, also referred to as capital deepening, boost productivity, wages, and output.
James Freeman provides the answer:
That’s a passage from the 2015 Economic Report of President [Barack Obama], and Team Obama even recognized in a footnote the research on this topic conducted by Kevin Hassett, who now chairs President Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Yet now that Mr. Hassett and his boss are promoting a reform of corporate taxation to achieve the goals sketched out by Team Obama, former Obama advisers like Larry Summers and Jason Furman are railing against it. Are they nervous that the resulting Trump economy will compare too favorably with the Obama economy?

Mr. Summers for his part has lately been warning that countries might get into a race to lower corporate tax rates. In a world threatened by North Korean missiles and Islamic terror, he now asks us to be concerned at the possibility that the whole world might decide to encourage economic growth and job creation. That’s a world we want to live in.
So do I. But with regard to the Dem's reaction to the GOP tax reform package, it's D & D all the way down.

Saturday, November 18, 2017


If you were to believe the hysterical and often unhinged claims of the progressive left and their trained hamsters in the media (along with a few GOP #Nevertrumpers), Donald Trump is a KKK-loving racist, a misogynist who regularly abuses woman, a man who instituted tax-reform only for his own personal financial gain, a Russian-colluding and Putin-loving puppet, an ignorant fool who is out of his depth, a dishonest man, ... and on and on and on. Democratic politicians have already introduced articles of impeachment and regularly cheer at the thought of unseating a sitting president before the next election. They wait breathlessly as a highly partisan special prosecutor searches fruitlessly for "evidence" of Russian collusion that, after a year of looking, simply isn't there. The Left's through-the-looking-glass view of Trump would be laughable if it weren't so destructive to civility and political discourse.

Roger Kimball presents a different view:
Yesterday, just back from his 12-day, 20,000-mile whirlwind trip through Asia, the president gave what posterity will regard as a turning-point speech. The master word of this speech was “confidence.” “When we are confident in ourselves,” the president said, confident in
... our strength, our flag, our history, our values—other nations are confident in us. And when we treat our citizens with the respect they deserve, other countries treat America with the respect that our country so richly deserves.

During our travels, this is exactly what the world saw: a strong, proud, and confident America.
Donald Trump displayed, in a way we have not seen since the heyday of Ronald Reagan, what foreign-policy leadership looks like. We have serious differences with Russia and China. We also have areas of agreement and potential agreement. To address the former a canny leader endeavors to exploit the latter. This Donald Trump is doing.
In yesterday's post, I noted the significant success the Trump administration is having in the Middle East—largely unreported or downplayed by the trained hamsters of the media. After all, how could Trump possibly succeed where the vaunted Barack Obama and his foreign policy Team of 2s failed so miserably? And besides, it simply doesn't fit the media narrative.

Kimball moves on to other successes:
The anti-Trump chihuahuas keep yammering about his tweets, his being in cahoots with Putin, and his not understanding the complexities of foreign affairs. But this summary of Donald Trump’s achievements in just 10 months is difficult to gainsay:
Economic growth has been over 3 percent the last two quarters and is going higher. Unemployment is at its lowest level in 17 years. The stock market has gained trillions of dollars in value since my election and has reached record highs. We are massively increasing our military budget to historic levels. The House has just passed a nearly $700 billion defense package, and it could not come at a better time for our nation. Once again our country is optimistic about the future, confident in our values, and proud of our history and role in the world.
What’s not to like?
And now, it looks like there's a possibility that a tax reduction and reform package might actually pass the Congress. The specter of that happening has thrown Democrats into a panic. Their resultant negative claims about the tax reform package are as predictable as they are dishonest.

In addition, a Trump administration is presiding over an economic recovery (3 percent GDP for the past two quarters), has quietly reduced the impact of the regulatory state, has moved judicial appointments toward the center and away from the left-leaning judges appointed during the last administration, has seen the number of food-stamp recipients reduced by almost 1 million in just over one year, is working to reform our trade policies to provide better opportunity for our exports on the world stage, and has raised consciousness of the "swamp" that is Washington, DC. And it has done this despite the daily onslaught of attacks by the four constituencies.

It's hard to like Trump's sometimes boorish behavior, his off-the-wall tweets, the way he picks fights with nobodies, and his general affect, but it's also hard to deny that his administration's accomplishments are beginning to pile up.

Friday, November 17, 2017

Think Twice

After two decades of bad U.S. foreign policy decisions in the Middle East, it is remarkable to see current events in that region as they begin to unfold. David Goldman (a.k.a. "Spengler") is one of the most astute observers of the Middle East. He writes:
President Trump's Middle East policy is simple: Back our friends and scare the hell out of our enemies, and negotiate where possible with our competitors like Russia and China. By and large it's working, unlike the catastrophically failed polices of the previous two administrations. Trump did what he said he would do and succeeded. You wouldn't know that from the #fakenews media.
First, the only true liberal democracy in the Middle East, Israel, now has a friend in the White House. More importantly, perhaps, it actually appears that Saudi Arabia has finally recognized the danger of Islamists in its midst and is acting (albeit, somewhat tentatively) to eradicate them. The Saudis are also leaning forward in their stance against Iran, the largest and most potent danger in the region. Even more astonishing, there appears to be clandestine cooperation between the Saudis and Israelis in addressing the Iran problem—a problem exacerbated and enabled by Barack Obama and his foreign policy Team of 2s.

As this happens, social justice warriors (SJWs) increasingly rail against Israel as an "oppressor" of an "enlightened" palestinian people. This, coupled the their support of the despicable BDS movement warms the hearts of many progressives and their trained hamsters in the media.

Goldman tries to introduce a little reality to the SJW view of the Middle East:
The Muslim strategy to destroy Israel hasn't envisioned war--not at least since 1973--because Israel in all cases would win. Instead, the objective is to ring Israel with missiles and force Israel to retaliate against missile attacks in such a way that the "international community" would respond by imposing a "settlement" on Israel that would leave Israel vulnerable to further missiles attacks, and so forth. This is stated explicitly by Palestinian strategists cited by by Haviv Rettig Gur in The Times of Israel ...

Obama sandbagged Israel during the 2014 Gaza rocket attacks, suspending delivery of Hellfire missiles to the Jewish State. Israel is the only country in the world that embeds human rights lawyers in every infantry company to make sure that its soldiers keep collateral damage to a minimum.

Hezbollah, Iran's Lebanese militia, has 150,000 rockets aimed at Israel, and many of them can hit any target in the country. In the case of a major rocket attack from Hezbollah against Israel, military logic dictates the preemptive neutralization of rocket launchers embedded in civilian populations--what an Israeli strategist close to the PM described to me as "Dresden." There would be tens of thousands of civilian casualties. Trump will not tie Israel's hands in the case of attack, and will not interfere with Israel's ability to defend herself. That makes Israel's deterrent against Iran credible.

Hillary Clinton insisted that the "technology of war," in particular the rockets ringing Israel, would force Israel to accept a phony peace agreement whose main effect would be to bring the rocket launchers closer to Israel ...
Thankfully, we now have an administration that has Israel's back. That doesn't mean that a peace agreement is likely (it isn't) or that the Saudis are our friends (they aren't). But it does mean that for the first time in nine years, there is a possibility, at least, that the bad actors of the region (there are many, and they include the palestinians) will think twice before acting.

Wednesday, November 15, 2017


Christian Amanpour is the posterchild for what the main stream media loves to call a "respected, fearless journalist." Amanpour's media friends would tell us that her past fearless reporting in war zones and her more recent reporting on international politics make her an exemplar for young journalists. I see Amanpour a bit differently, but before we get there, let's see what she has to say about the current state of the media:
I always get emotional, but for me the reason this [defense of a free press] matters so much is because it is also about the men and women of my profession, journalists who have never left the front lines of the battle for truth.

Our fallen are not remembered at these services, but without the truth we seek, there is no democracy, only dictatorship. Without the truth we bring there is no rule of law, only anarchy and destruction. Without truth there are only lies that lead us into a dangerous fog of confusion -- not knowing which way, or whom to turn to. This dystopian nightmare is especially acute today.

Every year, many among us are wounded and killed in this great battle. Just a few months ago, in Malta, a fearless reporter named Daphne Caruana Galizia was blown up in an attack usually reserved only for war zone: an improvised explosive device, or IED. Imagine that for a moment. She was an equal opportunity, anti-corruption investigative journalist, targeting both the government and the opposition. Her last post included the immortal words: "There are crooks everywhere you look now. The situation is desperate."

Half an hour later she was blown to smithereens by a car bomb. Outside her home. In Europe. Think about it: In Europe.

It shouldn't, but it does, seem so much more unacceptable than the arrest and murder of our colleagues and the assault on free speech among the usual suspects: This all proceeds apace in Turkey, Russia, Mexico, Philippines, Iran, Saudi Arabia, India, Myanmar, and the list goes on.

When journalists are not being killed in cold blood, they are staggering under the weight of censorship and spurious legal action.

And this assault on truth and facts has now traveled all the way to the land of the First Amendment, the constitutionally free press, the Fourth Estate.

In the year since Donald Trump was elected President of the United States of America, he and his cohorts have used "fake news" as the political weapon with which to bludgeon us into submission.

We will not surrender nor bow, but our heads are bloodied.
Where to begin?

Last time I checked, not a single national journalist in the USA has been "killed" or "bloodied" or "censored" or "arrested" over the past year. Not a single "journalist" has been jailed for unfair or even hysterical criticism of the Trump administration. Nor will they be.

But like Amanpour, far too many journalists get the vapors when their targets push back. When their biased and often dishonest reporting is criticized. When their purposeful omissions (skewing a story to fit their narrative) are noted. When their editorial comments creep into straight new reporting. When they act as shills for certain politicians and parties and attack dogs against the opposing side? When they skew their reporting. When they purposely decide not to investigate stories that might hurt their chosen political parties, while at the same time spending inordinate amounts of time and energy on evidence-free stories that will hurt those they dislike. When they define "truth" in their own biased terms. When they turn their media organizations into something close to Pravda. And yes ... when they knowingly and enthusiastically promote "fake news" as long as it supports their chosen political narrative.

It's ironic that "journalists" are fearless in their criticism of those they don't like, correctly demanding that they have both the right and the constitutional protections to do so. At the same time, they are amazingly thin-skinned when criticism of their approach, methods, and "reporting" is directed at them. They don't like it one bit, and like Amanpour, whine about being "bludgeon[ed] into .. submission."

Shadow Brokers

Like most failures in the previous presidency, the massive hack perpetrated by the "Shadow Brokers" on our most secretive and advanced intelligence agencies has, until recently, gone widely unreported by the media. The New York Times, to its credit, reports on what may be the most significant intelligence failure in the history of the United States—the theft via hacking of the secret computer software that is used for our most advanced cyberwarfare weapons.

This hack wasn't just a leak of our intelligence programs or even the names of operatives (a la Edward Snowdon). It was the theft of the weapons themselves—equivalent to the theft of physical weapons systems and their armaments. And unlike physical weapon, cyberwarfare software can be cloned and distributed worldwide to criminals,
terrorists and our nation state adversaries.

This cyberweapon software is already in the hands of bad actors including North Korea and Iran and is being used against us. The reporters for the NYT write:
Millions of people saw their computers shut down by ransomware, with demands for payments in digital currency to have their access restored. Tens of thousands of employees at Mondelez International, the maker of Oreo cookies, had their data completely wiped. FedEx reported that an attack on a European subsidiary had halted deliveries and cost $300 million. Hospitals in Pennsylvania, Britain and Indonesia had to turn away patients. The attacks disrupted production at a car plant in France, an oil company in Brazil and a chocolate factory in Tasmania, among thousands of enterprises affected worldwide.

American officials had to explain to close allies — and to business leaders in the United States — how cyberweapons developed at Fort Meade in Maryland came to be used against them. Experts believe more attacks using the stolen N.S.A. tools are all but certain.

Inside the agency’s Maryland headquarters and its campuses around the country, N.S.A. employees have been subjected to polygraphs and suspended from their jobs in a hunt for turncoats allied with the Shadow Brokers. Much of the agency’s arsenal is still being replaced, curtailing operations. Morale has plunged, and experienced specialists are leaving the agency for better-paying jobs — including with firms defending computer networks from intrusions that use the N.S.A.’s leaked tools.

“It’s a disaster on multiple levels,” Mr. Williams said. “It’s embarrassing that the people responsible for this have not been brought to justice.”
Characterizing this as a "disaster" is an understatement.

It is difficult to understand how one of the most advanced cyberwarfare organizations on the planet, the NSA, left itself vulnerable to the hack. Was it the work of enemy agents or disaffected employees inside the agency, sloppy security measures that should have protected access to the source code, poor leadership, laziness, or a combination of all four? As yet, know one knows.

The same "deep state" intelligence agencies that went to war against Donald Trump (and whom Trump correctly called out for their sloppy work) now look like incompetent fools. In this case, at least, the "deep state" is not protecting our country, rather it seems to be putting it into jeopardy.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Voting with Your Feet

This is tax reform season and the Democrats are in full form, demagoguing any attempt to simplify and reduce federal taxes by suggesting that GOP proposals are a nefarious plot to reduce taxes for "the rich." This is a standard refrain, allowing progressives to champion higher and higher taxes, all in the name of "fairness." I have on numerous occasions discussed the facts and figures that call the Dems objections into question, but no matter. This is the progressive reality and no amount of evidence will change their position.

It is interesting to note that in states where the blue model is in full force, progressives quietly vote in a difference way—they vote with their feet. High tax blue states have seen a net outflow and population and tax dollars that is unprecedented. The Wall Street Journal comments:
The liberal tax model is to fleece the rich to finance spending on entitlements and government programs that invariably grow faster than the economy and revenues. IRS data on tax migration show this model is now breaking down in progressive states as the affluent run for cover and the middle class is left paying the bills.

Between 2012 and 2015 (the most recent data), a net $8.5 billion in adjusted gross income left New Jersey while $6.2 billion poured out of Connecticut—4% of the latter state’s total income. Illinois lost $13.6 billion. During that period, Florida with no income tax gained $39.3 billion in AGI.

Not surprisingly, income flows down the tax gradient. In 2015 New York (where the combined state and local top rate is 12.7%) lost a net $850 million in AGI to New Jersey (8.97%) and Connecticut (6.99%). At the same time, the Garden State gave up $335 million to Pennsylvania (3.07%), and $60 million left Connecticut for the state formerly known as Taxachusetts (5.1%). Taxpayers from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut escaped to Florida with $3.2 billion in income. Florida Gov. Rick Scott ought to pay these states a commission.

The affluent account for a disproportionate share of the income migration. For instance, individuals reporting more than $200,000 in AGI in 2015 made up 57% of the income outflow from Connecticut (compared to 48% of total state AGI) and 57% of the inflow to Florida.
Maybe that's why states like Connecticut are in such serious financial trouble. Some of those who pay the preponderance of state income taxes, simply decide to leave. Tax revenues go down and as a consequence, the Democratic legislature raises taxes even more. The cycle continues until the lights go out.

You'd think that progressives would learn from this phenomenon, but that requires a careful evaluation of hard evidence and critical thinking about the efficacy of higher and higher taxes. It requires spending reductions and fiscal restraint. None of that is evident of the left side of the political spectrum.

I suspect as Democrats watch high income individuals flee their states in increasing numbers as taxes go up, they must experience cognitive dissonance. After all, high taxes are a good thing—fairness in action. And besides, in the lexicon of progressive thinking, high taxes have no impact whatsoever on economic activity. And yet, taxpayers leave. So, Democrats rationalize. Unfortunately, that does change the reality of blue state decline.

Monday, November 13, 2017

100 Years

In a number of surveys, millennials indicate that they have no concern about socialism and that a significant percentage of them would have no problem if the United States evolved into a socialist country. In one way, this isn't surprising. Millennials have been propagandized with left-leaning thinking since kindergarten, and once entering college, have been fed a non-stop diet of identity and gender politics, the evils of "white privilege," the unequivocal benefits of diversity and multiculturalism, and the ideology of victimization. For them, "social justice" is paramount, and who but the left is the champion of social justice.

What millennials' predisposition toward socialism and its natural extension, communism, indicates a profound lack of historical understanding and a pathetic inability to think critically.

Robert Tracinski provides a reasonably concise summary of communism's past 100 years:
Today marks the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution that set off the long global reign of terror of Communism ... A century of Communism achieved four main results for the people who suffered under it: poverty, oppression, war, and mass death.

Countries taken over by Communists, from China and Russia to Cuba and Venezuela, were either plunged from relative prosperity into starvation or walled off for decades from the growing prosperity of capitalist countries—often right next door, enjoying all the same benefits of geography and culture. Think of the contrast between East and West Berlin, between Cuba and Chile, between mainland China and Hong Kong, between North and South Korea.

Communist countries have imposed oppressive regimes telling everyone what to read, think, and say. Scientists could be sent to the gulag for teaching unapproved ideas about genetics. Dissidents have been sent to prison camps, tortured, harassed, locked in psychiatric wards, and simply murdered outright. Artists and intellectuals have fled by the hundreds, when they could, seeking asylum in non-Communist countries in search of the freedom to do their work.

Communism fueled dozens of brutal civil wars and insurgencies across the world. A list of countries synonymous with endless warfare during the late twentieth century—Vietnam, Cambodia, Angola, El Salvador, Afghanistan, and so on—all have one big thing in common: Communism. As a consequence, the end of the Cold War saw the biggest drop in the number of wars and deaths from war since the end of World War II, along with the creation of dozens of new democracies.

Above all else, the history of Communism is a history of mass-scale horrors: the terror-famine in Ukraine, Stalin’s show trials and gulags, the mass starvation of China’s Great Leap Forward, followed by the anarchic terror of the Cultural Revolution, the Killing Fields of Cambodia—those are just the low points in a list that can go on and on. It is estimated that in the past 100 years, Communist regimes killed as many as 100 million people.
Make no mistake, socialism is communism-lite. It's the beginning of totalitarianism in which the Left centralizes power with the state, "telling everyone what to read, think, and say." It encourages dependency, suggesting that almost everyone is a victim of some kind. It advocates the redistribution of earned income and argues that Big Intrusive Government (BIG) can solve all problems. It should come as no surprise that governments that have applied the blue (left-wing) model of governance for many years have bankrupted their states and cities, even though other red states and cities next door do not have similar problems.

And yet, progressives in general and millennials in particular long for the socialist utopia that the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens of our political culture promise. The Democratic party has now skewed so far left that a Sanders-like presidential candidate in 2020 is quite likely. It's reasonable to ask why?

Tracinski tries to provide an answer:
The allure of Communism is that it promises to put into practice, as a comprehensive social system, two moral ideas that most people regard as good and noble. You, dear reader, probably regard them as good and noble, too—but maybe you had better re-examine that assumption.

The first moral idea is that self-interest is bad and that it is not only good but the very definition of morality itself to sacrifice your own interests to others. That’s why profit and money-making are supposed to be bad. That’s why anything you have that somebody else doesn’t think they have is supposed to be some kind of unconscionable “privilege.” That’s why capitalism has to be expunged, because it’s a whole system built on self-interest.

The second idea, which is the political consequence of the first, is that private interests are bad and need to be subordinated to the collective “public good.” That’s why everything private is bad, from private companies to private schools, and everything “public” is automatically good. That’s why celebrated authors hatch schemes to abolish private education, something only totalitarian regimes have ever done, in order to make sure everybody is “eating out of the same pot.”

The problem with Communism is not that it twisted these ideals or implemented them badly. The crime of Communism is that it took them seriously and implemented them fully, all the way to their logical conclusion. That is what people don’t want to face up to in the history of Communism.
But the Democrats seem undaunted in their quest for socialism. Sure, they keep the word under wraps, but by advocating everything from "universal healthcare" to "free college education" to redistributive taxation, to ever-increasing BIG spending to their non-stop class warfare rants against "the rich," they desperately want socialism to triumph.

The problem is that 100 years of history indicate that a socialist utopia is actually a nightmare.