Should Americans Worry About Democratic Socialists Winning Elections?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns socialism and “the recent rise in democratic socialists winning primary elections.” In an article published at the Deseret News, opinion editor Jay Evensen wrote the following: 

I’ve been around long enough to see how most long-term political plans eventually crack and disintegrate under the harsh heat of reality. So, I try not to get too worked up over the recent rise in democratic socialist winning primary elections, or over the movement’s supposed aims, which sound closer to Marx than to Jefferson or Madison.

But those who hope a post-Trump future might revert to the calmer political days of our youth may be disappointed. The far left seems to be on the rise to compete with the far right.

And while that rise is still small, if politicians don’t stem the fearsome rise in the national debt, a possible economic collapse and the chaos it could cause might bolster all kinds of radical ideologies….

Democracy has a way of taking the sharp edges off radical ideologies, eventually. The MAGA movement benefited from a charismatic leader, which the far left currently lacks.

A Gallup poll last year found a majority of Americans still feel favorably toward capitalism, but support is waning.

As I said, that trend could accelerate if the economy collapses under the weight of the national debt and its annual interest payments, which already exceed the nation’s military budget.

Samuel J. Abrams (professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a scholar with the Sutherland Institute) agreed with Evensen in his column for Deseret News. “… Evensen is right not to panic [about] the recent string of democratic socialist primary victories nationwide.” Why young Americans are turning to socialism | Opinion – Deseret News

This is all true, but there is a deeper story that must be told as to why these radical ideologies have begun to win and why these politicians have been able to organize so effectively. It begins with the question of why so many young Americans are drawn to them.

The answer can be found in a book published a quarter century ago by a late mentor of mine – Seymour Martin Lipset. Writing with Gary Marks, Lipset wrote “It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States” and asked why America, alone among industrial democracies, never developed a serious socialist movement.

The socialists trying to reshape the Democratic Party

The answers Lipset and Marks offered were partly structural – our two-party system and winner-take-all elections punished third parties – but they were also, crucially, experiential. So many Americans lived capitalism’s promise and positive realities.

America’s workforce saw real mobility for themselves and their children and an individualist, antistatist creed ran deep. Moreover, Americans were formidable joiners – as observed by Alexis de Tocqueville decades earlier – and they were deeply embedded in churches, lodges, unions, clubs and neighborhood associations that gave them belonging, status and voice without any need for a revolutionary party to supply it.

Lipset and Marks argued that socialism did not fail in the United States because Americans read the right rebuttals to Marx. Rather, it failed because the conditions present nationwide never let it take hold. This points to the uncomfortable truth of 2026: Almost every immunity Lipset and Marks identified in their book has now degraded – particularly for young adults.

A misunderstanding of market economics

Start with young Americans’ lived experience of markets and capitalism. In cities where socialism has gained political traction – Chicago, Seattle, New York and San Francisco – many younger Americans are living through soaring housing costs, shrinking opportunities and dysfunctional markets. Their frustrations are real.

This mistake is not in recognizing the problems but in misidentifying their causes. Too often, however, they are seeing the consequences of regulation, restrictive zoning and poor governance as if they were failures of capitalism itself.

That confusion is hardly surprising. Most young Americans have never been taught how markets create prosperity. Significant numbers graduate from college without taking a single economics course….

A lack of strong social structures

Moving beyond economic systems, Lipset and Marks would point to the recent real decline of associational life as a major cause of socialism’s ascent. Theorists from Alexis de Tocqueville and Edmund Burke to Robert Nisbet and Richard John Neuhaus have long marveled at Americans’ art of association. Lipset understood that these institutions kept radicalism marginal by meeting fundamental human needs for fellowship, purpose and recognition.

Those institutions have been hollowed out, and young adults are the loneliest Americans on record. They may be digitally connected and habitually online, but few join congregations, civic clubs, scouting or recreational leagues. They are not merely under-informed; so many younger Americans are isolated, under-formed, unattached and without a social core….

What can be done?

If we consider this framing, it radically changes how we think about this so-called socialist surge. If the problem were socialism as an ideology itself, the answer would be rebuttal with more op-eds, more education and public-focused work, and more warnings about Venezuela and countless failed states. But reason and evidence alone do not persuade or work on people whose initial attraction was rooted less in ideas than belonging.

If the problem is formation – and that certainly appears to be the case – the real answer is to rebuild what once formed young Americans into confident, connected participants in a free society.

That means teaching economics so that graduates understand scarcity, trade-offs, incentives and the astonishing record of market economies, along with their real failures. It also means rebuilding our social associations where young people find the belonging they now seek in ideological movements like the DSA….

Finally, I should note that Lipset’s title contained a quiet warning that his admirers sometimes miss. Socialism didn’t happen here in the past tense because a particular America existed: prosperous, mobile, religious, fraternal and thick with institutions that formed citizens and demonstrated capitalism’s promise in daily life. That America was not an accident, and its immunities are not permanent as we see now – our nation’s immunities to socialism were built and then regularly reaffirmed.

Evensen is right that we need not fear the socialists. What we should fear and then fix is the loneliness and disconnection as well as the ignorance that make socialism feel like an answer for so many young people. Restore formation, purpose, community, and belonging and this socialist impulse will fade the way of every American socialist movement before it did.

  

Can Democratic Socialism Be Stopped in America?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday is that socialism has not worked at any place in the world where it has been tried and would work havoc in the United States. Yet, more and more of the young adults in America  think that socialism is the answer to affordability.

Both New York City and Seattle elected socialists for their mayors just a week ago. Both cities are Democrat strongholds, but who would suspect Utah of following their example?

Brigham Tomco reported on this strange phenomenon in his article published at the Deseret News this week. He used information from a new Deseret News/Hickley Institute of Politics poll. 

A slight majority, 51% of Utah voters who identify as Democrats said they have a favorable view of socialism, compared to 48% of Democrats nationally. Utah Democrats appeared uniquely open to experimenting with socialism across multiple questions.

Whereas 54% of Democrats nationally said they approve of New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s plans for office, 65% of Utah Democrats said they approve of the 34-year-old member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

Democratic socialism – the political ideology espoused by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders – was viewed favorably by 61% of Democrats nationally. But it was viewed favorably by 70% of Democrats in Utah.

Socialism refers to an economic system where the state owns major resources and industries instead of private firms, and redistributes wealth equally. Democratic socialism is seen as a way to achieve this incrementally through elected officials.

While small Nordic countries like Sweden and Finland have implemented some democratic socialist principles, places that have tried to make socialism a reality have historically devolved into greater authoritarianism and poverty, like the Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela and China….

The appetite among the vast majority of Utah Democrats for increased public ownership and expanded social welfare may find an electoral outlet now that the state’s congressional boundaries have been redrawn to include an almost-guaranteed Democratic seat in the U.S. House.

On Nov. 10, a district judge rejected the Utah Legislature’s map, which created two more competitive districts, in favor of a map making a “Democratic-leaning district anchored in the northern portion of Salt Lake” that leans blue by up to 20 percentage points….

Young people struggling to make ends meet care less about “the democratic socialist label,” King said, and care more about policies that address their “basic needs,” like affording housing, college tuition, gas and groceries….

Aside form self-identified Democrats, Utahns are less interested in socialism than the rest of the country. The state’s youngest voters are also less likely to have favorable views toward Mamdani or unfavorable views toward capitalism, the poll found.

Nationally, 31% of all voters approve of Mamdani compared to 24% in Utah. Among Gen Z voters, 39% approve of the millennial candidate nationwide, compared to 29% in Utah. This pattern was repeated across multiple questions related to different economic systems.

Whereas 44% of Gen Z nationally have a favorable view of democratic socialism, 34% do in Utah. The same goes for socialism, which is viewed favorably by 42% of Gen Z nationwide and 37% of Gen Z in the state.

The least popular economic system among Gen Z Americans is capitalism, viewed favorably by just 29% of Genn Z nationwide. But the system of private property , profits and prices set by supply and demand was viewed favorably by 42% of young Utahns….

Among American voters of all ages, democratic socialism was viewed favorably by 34% of respondents, socialism by 31% and capitalism by 49%, the poll found.

There were wide partisan disparities, with almost no Republicans in favor of socialism and 59% of Republicans holding favorable views toward capitalism, compared to 47% of independents and 39% of Democrats….

The results of the Deseret News-Hinckley Institute poll did not come s a surprise to Christopher Talgo, a socialism research fellow at libertarian-leaning nonprofit The Heartland Institute, and a former high school history teacher.

A recent Heartland Institute poll conducted in November by Rasmussen Reports found that a majority of likely voters would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election.

This points to a glaring failure in American civics education, according to Talgo, who said he saw firsthand how teachers often glossed over the shortfalls of socialism, and even spoke highly of it, when teaching students.

But the results also reflect the reality of serious economic headwinds that are pushing young people toward extremes, Talgo said. The Heartland poll found that three-quarters of voters said the cost of housing has reached a crisis level.

The poll identified majority support for Mamdani’s proposals to create government-owned grocery stores and to freeze apartment rents. But these government interventions will likely make the problem worse, according to Talgo.

Leaders must apply simple, free-market solutions that make people’s lives better – like removing “crony capitalist” zoning restrictions at the local level to increase housing options – or else Talgo believes Americans will elect more Mamdanis….

What Is Socialism?

The liberty principle for this Freedom Friday concerns statism, socialism, and communism. The election of Zohran Mamdani, a devout socialist, to be the next mayor of New York City – the financial capital of the United States and to the world – brought socialism to the forefront.

Victor Davis Hanson, senior contributor for The Daily Signal, claims in his article on the topic that Mamdani admitted that he is a communist when he advocated for “seizing the means of production.” “And almost every day, a quote from his past comes out that suggests that he’s not just a socialist who wants the government to control utilities or housing, but he wants to ‘seize the means of production.’ That means the industrial base and private property itself.”

Hanson continues his article by explaining why the above information is scary. 

… Because we have a whole generation who have gone through K-12 and higher education and heard about the glories of statism, socialism, communism in the universities and our school system, but not the merits of capitalism. It’s not really socialism versus capitalism. It is socialism has nothing to offer. And we know that for two reasons.

If we look at the contemporary world, in the recent past and in the present, everywhere a socialist paradigm has been implemented, it has done two things: It has destroyed the economy and made people poor, and two, it has deprived people of their civil liberties.

I should add, it also has created greater inequality, at least in terms of the ruling elite, who feel they’re not subject to the ramifications of their socialist ideology, and they live a very refined and affluent lifestyle.

Hanson suggests that we look at the Soviet Union before it collapsed, the collapsed Mao’s China, Cuba under the Castro brothers since 1959. A more recent example is Venezuela – once “the wealthiest country in Latin America” but now collapsed. Other nations are collapsing to a lesser degree – Peru, Colombia.

Hanson says that any nation that adopts socialism does not do well. China is doing better now “because it has an odd mixture of a communist authoritarian government, but it allows free market principles to save the economy from itself.” He says that that “the same thing is true of President Vladimir Putin’s Russia” which “achieved levels of gross domestic product, oil production that were superior to the communist past, just simply because it had elements of a market economy. Some market economy is better than none.” Hanson’s article continues:

Why, then secondly, does socialism fail? It is contrary to human nature. All of us want to be rewarded for our own efforts. We’re unique individuals. We don’t wanna be like a tessera in just one large mosaic….

And that’s what socialism does. It tries to say that we’re all brothers and we all love each other, and we all want the same thing. That’s what Mamdani is saying.

But look at Mamdani himself. He comes from one of the more affluent families in New York. His father is an endowed professor. He’s very well compensated. Hardcore Marxist. Pro-Hamas. His mother is a multimillion-dollar filmmaker. He grew up in affluence. He lives in a rent-controlled apartment, even though, by any standard, he would be qualified as a wealthy person and doesn’t need a state subsidy and could do better to give that apartment to someone with less means.

So, my point is that socialism destroys private initiative. If you think the harder you work, the better ideas you have, the more efficiency you can create in your business or in your own life but you’re not going to be compensated more than someone who does not either show those traits or doesn’t want to show those traits….

We have one last, more controversial proof that it doesn’t work. Since the Obama age, the rate of socialist practices, policies, agendas in the United States have vastly accelerated. And after the Obama presidency, the rather esoteric political term “red state,” “blue state” became commonplace. And it basically denotes those states who are more socialist and those states that are more free market.

California is a socialist state, in the sense that we’re talking, like New York, a 13%+ income tax rate at the highest rates. We have the highest gas and oil prices … highest energy prices … highest housing prices. The same is true of New York … Minnesota, Michigan, all of these states.

Why? Because the central government, first of all, … goes after the opposition. And most of these states are one-party state, without a viable opposition to keep it in check. No. 2, the people who have created this socialist system are not subject to it themselves.

[Think Nancy Pelosis, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Jerry Brown, Gavin Newsom – all] very, very wealthy. They live lives completely distinct, separate from the masses, whom they said would benefit from their socialist policy. And the result is they took a paradise, like California, and turned it into purgatory. So, there’s no empirical evidence whether, within the United States or abroad, that there’s a socialist cure for what socialism has done.

Mamdani has, basically, taken a New York under Bill de Blasio and prior mayors that was a socialist paradigm and is in dire straits, and he thinks more socialism will cure it….

So, what we’re seeing in Europe today is disastrous policies, importing poor illegal aliens with antithetical political, religious, cultural, social views than the Europeans themselves….

Are people happy? No. As we speak, there are right-wing … conservative, free market governments in places like Hungary, the Czech Republic, Italy and growing in places like Britain, the Netherlands, Austria, in France itself. The opposition, who opposes socialism, is gaining and the people are behind it. Why? Is it because they don’t know socialism? No. It’s because they know it all too well.

Why Do Americans Have Positive Views of Socialism?

According to a Pew study, one-third plus Americans have positive views of socialism. This report boggles the minds of people who understand that socialism does not work. However, it is good to know how it is possible for Americans to have such views. John Stossel reported the following information. 

Little has brought more misery [than socialism] – first in the Soviet Union, then in China, Cuba, Nicaragua, now Venezuela …

One reason young people support socialism is because their social media feeds show videos made by popular but economically illiterate people.

TikTok star Madeline Pendleton has 1.6 million subscribers. My new video shows her telling them: “Socialism is working better than capitalism 93% of the time!”

Where does she get 93%?

From a study published in 1986 by self-described Marxists in the Journal of Health Services.

The authors conveniently ignore the United States and other wealthy countries and compare socialist economies to “capitalist” countries like Uganda, Rwanda, and Somalia, some of which were at war.

It’s so stupid. But based on that, Pendleton tells her followers, “We have all the data showing that socialism does work.”

She also celebrates communism because of its “increased life expectancy.”

That’s nonsense, too. People live longest in capitalist countries like Japan (85 years) and South Korea (84 years). Even in the United States (70 years), where more of us die young because we drive more (car accidents), eat more, shoot each other more often, and try more dangerous drugs, we still live longer than people in China (78 years). Socialism is also superior, says Pendleton, because of “the 90-100% home-ownership rates.”

“One hundred percent,” of course, is just dumb, but China (if you believe the party’s statistics) does have 90% homeownership.

But not under socialism! They achieved that only after privatizing urban housing. Before 1998, when Chinese housing was still socialist, just 20% of Chinese people owned homes….

Another silly social media star, JT Chapman, tells his almost 2 million YouTube subscribers: “The central idea that unites all socialists is maximizing freedom … democratization of power.”

Democratization? In most socialist countries, there’s only one political party.

A popular TikToker calling himself Rathbone tells his hundred thousand subscribers: “capitalism … prioritizes profits over people … [but] socialism … prioritizes people over profits.”

Likewise, Chapman says socialism offers the “guaranteed right to … health care, food, and shelter.”

Well, of course socialism promises those things and claims to prioritize people over profits, but what people actually  get is different….

Finally, Chapman says, “Ownership should be collective.”

Collective ownership does feel good. “We’ll share everything!”

But every attempt at collective ownership has failed….

The bottom line: Incentives matter. No one washes a rental car. Few people care much about what belongs to everyone. It’s just human nature.

Capitalism isn’t perfect, but if we want a better future, and freedom, capitalism is the only thing that works.

Again, I ask the question: Why do Americans have positive views of socialism? It is obvious from the above information that many of them have incorrect information. Maybe they do not know where to find the information, and maybe they are too indoctrinated to really look for the truth. There are probably numerous reasons for Americans having such beliefs, but all of them are based on wrong information.

 

What Do the Cuban Protests Tell Us about Socialism/Communism?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the failure of socialism/communism in Cuba. The failure in Cuba coming on the heels of the failure in Venezuela should open the eyes of Americans.

There are four members of the U.S. House of Representatives who are also members of the Democratic Socialists of America: Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), Rashida Talib (D-Michigan), Jamaal Bowman (D-New York), and Cori Bush (D-Missouri). The four women have been surprisingly quiet after the news of the protests against Cuban communism, but the Democratic Socialists of America put out a statement of solidarity with the Cuban Revolution.

            American Democrats, progressives, and liberals argue openly for socialism even though there is evidence that socialism/communism always fails. Socialist policies always fail, and the perpetrators are always vicious. Americans who are awake – not woke – know that socialism is the opposite of democracy and the free-market system that has brought prosperity to America. Neil Patel discussed Cuban socialism in an article published by The Daily Signal. 

Since the communist revolution in 1959, leftists in America have celebrated purported Cuban progress in areas such as health care and education. Little mention was made in those quarters about the Cuban government’s human rights abuses, which include political executions, arbitrary imprisonments, an unfair legal system, and severe limits on freedom of expression, free association, free assembly, free movement, and, of course, a free press.

The problem with the left’s embrace of Cuba’s communism is it belies its ultimate lack of regard for those freedoms we, as Americans, hold most dear. The Cuban state is truly repressive. Those standing in the way of the revolution are not tolerated.

For most Americans, things like free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of movement are not ancillary. They are central to our lives. They can’t be traded away for a year of extra day care. The left does not share this view. Worse, as proven repeatedly in many corners of the world, the left is ready and willing to crush those who do.

            President Joe Biden’s first response to the protests in Cuba was not surprising. He first blamed the protests on the problems caused by COVID-19. His assistant secretary of state for the Cuba region put it this way on Twitter: “Peaceful protests are growing in Cuba as the Cuban people exercise their right to peaceful assembly to express concern about rising COVID cases/deaths & medicine shortages.” Patel bluntly called out the statement.

There is nothing truthful about this statement. First, there is no meaningful “right to peaceful assembly” in Cuba. Cuba’s president in fact called for his fellow party members to crush any dissent. “We are prepared to do anything,” he said. “We will be battling in the streets.”

In addition, the protests were clearly about a lot more than COVID-19. Protesters chanted “Freedom!”, “Down with communism!”, and “Patria y vida” (homeland and life) in videos widely available all over the web. A crowd of protesters even gathered outside of the Communist Party headquarters chanting, “Cuba isn’t yours.”

And most glaringly of all, American flags could be seen all over the place. The Cuban protesters were flying American flags because the American flag is still a symbol of freedom for people all over the world. All of this was glaringly obvious watching the Cuban protests on video.

            Officials of the Biden administration got the whole thing wrong, and they were supported by the mainstream media. How are Americans supposed to think anything different when “the only news most people see on the web is the corporate media party line. The truth is not available from CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Even though their reports were not true, it is the “reality presented to the American people by Big Tech.”

The American left is pushing a truly radical policy vision through the Biden administration. It is attempting to expand the government by trillions of dollars more than any time in history. Its vision includes government involvement in many new areas of American life.

Lying about what is really happening is necessary if the very policies you are espousing, the very direction you are advocating taking America is under widespread attack in a place like Cuba by the very people suffering under this failed experiment. The glue that held things together when conservatives in America were somewhat united was opposition to communism.

Religious conservatives opposed communist governments’ state-based atheism and their mistreatment of the church. National security hawks opposed communism’s expansionist desire and aggressive military stance. And free market conservatives, of course, opposed the communists’ desire to destroy and replace capitalism with a command-and-control economic system.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, these groups have had less and less in common to hold them together. The result is the fragmentation on the right that we see today. And the result of that fragmentation is increased difficulty in stopping Biden’s increasingly left-wing agenda.

Maybe the Cuba protests can help remind conservatives of what’s at stake. The Biden administration certainly seems to fear that’s the case.

            Another way that the Biden administration is acting against America’s interests is in the immigration/refugee area. The administration opened the southern border and invited anyone to enter. People from more than 160 nations have crossed the border without going through the legal immigration process. Yet, Cuban refugees were told NOT to come because they would not be allowed or welcomed. What is the difference?

            Migrants crossing the border are more likely to vote Democrat, while refugees/immigrants from Cuba are more likely to vote Republican. All of them speak Spanish. What if the Cuban immigrants told the immigrants crossing the border the truth about socialism? That would be a terrible thing for the American socialists!

Socialism in Africa

            Socialism fails wherever it is allowed to take hold of a nation with Venezuela being the latest example. The people there have no water except what they can get from the sewage system. Their electricity system is failing, and the people are starving for lack of food. Yet there are Americans who want to bring socialism to the United States. Why in the world do we want to replace our capitalistic system for socialism.

            According to this article at The Daily Signal, in the 1960s nations in Africa turned to socialism because they thought capitalism and colonialism were the same thing. 

George Ayittey recently presented a lecture at The Heritage Foundation titled “How Socialism Destroyed Africa.” Ayittey is a “senior fellow at the Independent Institute and founder and president of the Free Africa Foundation. He told the story of how socialism destroyed Africa as it “spread over Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Zambia, among other nations on the [African] continent.” He told how the nations adopted such practices as “nationalizing foreign companies and imposing state controls on rent, prices, imports, and foreign exchange.” He apparently did not mention any nation where the socialist agenda was successful. Socialism may be the cause for so many people from Africa migrating to other nations.

            According to Ayittey, there are “four main reasons why socialism failed in Africa:

(1) “Exploitation and Suppression of the Peasant Majority,” (2) “Administrative Ineptitude,”

(3) “Selfishness of Ruling Elites,” and (4) “An Alien Ideology.” He said that “Socialism as an ideology is alien to Africa” and leaders there failed to “understand their own African heritage.”  He warns that South Africa could be the next nation to be destroyed by socialism. “South Africa seeks to repeat the catastrophic mistakes that we made elsewhere in Africa. You don’t have to go very far from South Africa to see the devastation that socialism left.”

            We must wonder what it is about the human mind, condition, or experience that causes people to think that socialism is a good thing. The only answer I can give is that it is Satan’s counterfeit system to oppose the Lord’s law of consecration. Just like every other counterfeit that Satan introduces to mankind, it spreads by lies, deceit, and desire to gain power and influence over other people.

Trump Stands Strong

            The President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address is all over the news today. Liberals cannot believe their eyes when they see the polls saying that 76% of Americans approve of Trump’s speech. This numbers includes 40-something percent the Democrats. I was shocked to see the results of the polls as well because I was assuming that all Democrats are like the ones we saw in the audience last night. I could not help but wonder if the liberals are losing their supporters.

            Liberals and Bernie Sanders are upset with what Trump said and did not say, and conservatives are ecstatic to see Trump look and speak so “presidential.” Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) said that Trump “hit it out of park” with his speech. Then he highlighted what he thought was the most important thing that Trump said, and I agree with him.

            The President called out the New York governor and legislator and the Virginia governor for their willingness to kill babies either just before they are born or after. If I remember right, Lee called the New York law “evil,” – and I agree with him. I am glad that Trump put late term abortion in the light where everyone can see how truly evil it is. However, I believe that his efforts were lost on the ladies in the white pantsuits and their buddies.

            Last night my husband asked me to name two topics in Trump’s speech that I thought were powerful. I thought of two of them right away: late-term abortion and socialism. Bernie Sanders and AOC or whatever her initials are did not look happy when the President talked about socialism. 

Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country…. America was founded on liberty and independence – not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will never be a socialist country.”

            I liked what the President said and did not hear one word that I disagreed with. Obviously, millions of other Americans feel the same way. Now we can need to hog tie the leftists that are controlling Congress and the governors who signing death warrants, Trump may be able to break lose and continue working miracles in behalf of Americans.

            Speaking of liberal governors, New Mexico has one of them too. Just as Trump is sending more military to protect the southern border, she orders “the majority of National Guard troops deployed at her state’s Southern border to withdraw.” She claims that Trump if playing charades with his fear-mongering. 

            Our nice neighbors to the South are busing migrants to our southern border. About 1,700 migrants are now across the border from Texas with plans to come through the Eagle Pass border crossing. I think that it is too bad that they did not go to New Mexico because the governor there would probably welcome them into her state! 

United Order and Socialism

            Socialism is a hot topic in the United States at the present time.  Socialists such as Senator Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez campaign for socialism while they overlook the miserable conditions in countries that practice it. They are simply blind to the misery in North Korea, Venezuela, and other nations. The two politicians say that the United States could have socialism without dictatorship or state brutality. The believe socialism would work in America even as it has failed every place where it has been tried.

            The Trump administration says that socialism destroys lives and societies. A White House reports explains: “(P)eaceful democratic implementation of socialist policies does not eliminate the fundamental incentive and information problems created by high taxes, large state organizations, and the centralized control of resources.”

            Socialism came into being in 1848 as a response to the weaknesses of capitalism. Karl Marx was born into an upper middle-class family. He learned about the unequal distribution of wealth in a capitalistic society and proceeded to create a system that would do away with this problem. In his efforts to do it, he created a system where the people are equally miserable. The current picture in Venezuela should convince anyone that socialism does not work.

            Socialism has several problems with the first one being that no one is motivated to work or create if their benefits of that toil are taken by the government. A second problem is that individuals are more qualified to make decisions as to what they consume than even the most pure-hearted government bureaucrat. History says that less food was produced on small family farms under government control than when individual families were in charge of them.

            The little bit of study done by this author about socialism shows that it is a bad economic system. This is why there is a fair amount of confusion as to how members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could even consider that socialism and the United Order are the same thing. Apparently, there were some questions about it during the 1960s because Marion G. Romney spoke in the April 1966 General Conference of the Church on the topic of “Socialism and the United Order Compared.” He said that the Brethren had asked him to give this talk for a second time, this time in Church-wide in conference. The purpose of his talk was to answer the question, “Is socialism the United Order?”

            Romney first defines socialism using the words of several socialists. A summary of the definitions is this one by George Bernard Shaw (a Fabian socialist):

Socialism, reduced to its simplest legal and practical expression, means the complete discarding of the institution of private property by transforming it into public property and the division of the resultant income equally and indiscriminately among the entire population.

            After sharing several definitions of socialism, Romney summarizes it as follows: “Socialists (1) believe in the collective control and ownership of the vital means of production and (2) seek to achieve through state action the coordinated control of the economic forces of society.” He then proceeds to discuss the United Order.

            Romney describes the United Order as “the Lord’s program to care for the poor and needy.” He says that “the Church is under obligation to care for the poor” (Doctrine and Covenants 38). He states that God desires to provide for Hs saints, but He commands that it be done in His way (Doctrine and Covenants 104:14-16). The Lord’s way includes two “cardinal principles” – consecration and stewardship.     

            Romney explains that to enter the United Order a person must voluntarily consecrate all his property to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and transfer it to the Church by legal document(s). The bishop or presiding authority would then give that person a stewardship – again by legal document(s). The stewardship could be the exact property, or it could be more or less the original consecration. The object for the United Order is to make “every man equal according to his family, according to his circumstances and his wants and needs” (Doctrine and Covenants 51:3).

This procedure preserved in every man the right to private ownership and management of his property. At his own option he could alienate it or keep and operate it and pass it on to his heirs.

The intent was, however, for him to so operate his property as to produce a living for himself and his dependents. So long as he remained in the order, he consecrated to the Church the surplus he produced above the needs and wants of his family. This surplus went into a storehouse form which stewardships were given to others and from which the needs of the poor were supplied.

These divine principles are very simple and easily understood. A comparison of them with the underlying principle of socialism reveal[s] similarities and basic differences. The following are similarities. Both (1) deal with production and distribution of goods, (2) aim to promote the well-being of men by eliminating their economic inequalities; (3) envision the elimination of the selfish motives in our private capitalistic industrial system.

Now the differences: (1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and author of the United Order. Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God…. On the other hand socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

(3) In harmony with church belief, as set forth in the Doctrine and Covenants … (Doctrine and Covenants 134:2), the United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management. Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.

(4) The United Order is non-political. Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.

(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order. Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive. The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as “the pure love of Christ. (Moro 4:47.)

            Romney’s comparison between socialism and the United Order shows the difference between how man attempts to create economic equality and how God does it. It shows that socialism depends on the idea “We will take your property for the benefit of all” and that the United Order depends on the principle “I will give my property for the benefit of others.” We know that the Lord’s way is always the best and must be done according to His directions.

            Members of the Church attempted to live the United Order in both Missouri and Utah. Orson Pratt says that the Lord revealed His divine law for the care of the poor and needy, but the saints were not righteous enough to live it. When the people failed, the Lord released them from the obligation and gave them the lesser laws of tithing, offerings, and welfare program. Thus, the United Order has not been a program of the Church for over a hundred years.

            I question my own ability to live the United Order. Am I righteous enough to deed my home over to the Church, along with signing the titles of my vehicles and other property? Do I have enough faith in the Lord to be a part of His program? Do I trust His priesthood leaders enough to accept whatever stewardship that they think is right for me and my family? I like to think that I could do it, but I do not know.

            I also wonder how the United Order would work under the current circumstances of our society. Most of us do not have farms, ranches, or businesses to deed to the Church or to receive stewardship for. The vast majority of the members of the Church work for other people. I suppose that living the United Order in our day would include giving all savings and investments to the Church as well as the surplus from our paychecks. I can see that living the United Order in our day would take a lot of faith and righteousness. Again, I wonder if I could do it if called upon to do so. I hope so!

Call It What It Is

                Vince Scully is a veteran baseball announcer “known for some of the most memorable calls in sports history.” He recently made a statement that has nothing to do with baseball but everything to do with our world today.

                “Socialism, failing to work as it always does, this time in Venezuela. You talk about giving everybody something free and all of a sudden there’s no food to eat,” Scully said as Milwaukee third baseman Hernan Perez stood at bat in the sixth inning. “And who do you think is the richest person in Venezuela? The daughter of Hugo Chavez. Hello.”

                Scully proves once again that people with common sense can see that socialism never works, no matter where or how often it is tried. Socialism does not work, but democracy does!

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

I chose to blog about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945), nicknamed FDR while in office, simply because he was President when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I have some very mixed feelings about this President. I was born while he was in office, but he died soon after my birth. I admire the way he overcame physical problems and showed strong leadership during World War II, and yet I am amazed at his egotism that would cause him to even want to be President for such a long time. Besides, I believe that his New Deal moved our nation down the road towards socialism. His administration put programs in place that are causing financial problems for our country right now. FDR was born January 30, 1882, on his father's estate in Hyde Park, New York, and was the only child of wealthy parents. He studied under governesses and private tutors until he was 14. He then went to Groton School in Groton, Massachusetts. After graduating from Groton, he attended and graduated from Harvard University. He attended Columbia University Law School where he passed the bar examination but left school without a degree and with no interest to practice law. While at Harvard he courted his distant cousin, Eleanor Roosevelt (1884-1962) and became engaged to her the year he graduated. His mother was a domineering woman and tried to convince her son to end the engagement. FDR and Eleanor were married on March 17, 1905. President Theodore Roosevelt, Eleanor's uncle, gave the bride away. (Theodore and FDR were fifth cousins.) The Roosevelts had six children. FDR enjoyed swimming, sailing, and sledding with his children, whom the Roosevelts called "the chicks." FDR entered politics as a New York state senator at age 29 and became known as a "bold and skillful political fighter." In 1912 FDR supported Woodrow Wilson against his cousin Theodore Roosevelt in the presidential election. Wilson became President and appointed FDR as the assistant secretary of the Navy in 1913. He sought the Democratic nomination as a candidate for the United States Senate in 1914 but lost. In April 1917 when the United States entered World War I, he wanted to serve in the military, but he was persuaded to stay in his position with the Navy. In 1920, at age 38, he was a candidate for United States Vice President on a ticket with James M. Cox. They were defeated by Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge. In August 1921 FDR became ill with polio and suffered severe pain. He could not stand or even move his legs. His back, arms and hands were partially paralyzed. His condition worsened within months, and many people thought that his political career was over. His mother tried to convince him to retire. He began to fight back against the disease and by 1924 went swimming as often as possible. He spent several months each year at Warm Springs, Georgia. In 1926 he bought the springs and surrounding land and established the Georgia Warm Springs Foundation the next year with a group of friends. The foundation provided low-cost treatment for "polios," Roosevelt's word for his fellow sufferers. FDR returned to the political arena while learning to walk again. His first public speech since his polio attack was to nominate New York Governor Alfred E. Smith for President at the Democratic National Convention. Smith won the nomination and encouraged FDR to run for governor of New York. Smith lost his campaign to Herbert Hoover and didn't even carry his home state of New York. FDR barely won his campaign to become governor of New York. As governor, he supported a variety of progressive legislation. After the Great Depression began in October 1929, he began the first system for relief of the unemployed in New York. He easily won reelection in 1930. In the presidential election of 1932, he beat out the incumbent, President Herbert Hoover, and promised a "new deal" to lead the nation out of the depression. He became President on March 4, 1933, at the age of 51. His inauguration was the last one held in March. Amendment 20 to the Constitution moved all later inaugurations to January. The depression grew worse with thousands of unemployed workers standing in bread lines. Many farmers and city workers lost their homes and many more were about to lose theirs because of lack of funds to pay their mortgages. The country survived a banking crisis in 1933 because FDR closed all banks and reopened only the ones in good financial condition. In spite of many progressive solutions, such as unemployment legislation, public work projects, and the other unemployment programs, the Great Depression continued. All the government programs cost more than the government was collecting in taxes. The deficit was settled partly by raising taxes and partly by borrowing money by selling government bonds. The national debt was higher than ever before. It is sad to say that our nation was rescued from the Depression by World War II. FDR, like Abraham Lincoln, was either deeply loved or bitterly hated. Millions believed he was the friend and protector of the "common man" - the key to FDR's success in politics. His critics believed that his policies, called the New Deal, gave the federal government too much power. He was accused of usurping many of the rights that the Constitution gave to the states. He even tried to push through a Second Bill of Rights. There was much concern that the free enterprise system might be destroyed by government controls over business. While FDR was President, the New Deal recovery measures were enacted (1933), prohibition was repealed (1933), the Social Security Act was passed (1935), Supreme Court controversy happened over FDR's attempt to "pack" the court (1937), the United States began selling arms to friendly nations on a cash and carry basis (1939), Congress passed the Selective Service Act (1940), Pearl Harbor was attacked (December 7) and war was declared (1941), 26 nations signed the Declaration of the United Nations and the Allies invaded Normandy, France (1944). FDR served as President of the United States for more than 12 years, longer than any other person. He was the only President to be elected four times. No previous President ran for the office more than twice. The Constitution was changed after FDR's death to allow Presidents only two terms in office. FDR died in Warm Springs, Georgia, on April 12, 1945, just 83 days after his fourth inauguration. Facts are from article written by James T. Patterson, World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 16, pp 452-453.