“If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.”
— Attributed to economist Friedrich Hayek

The midterm election is two weeks away, and given the quagmire that is American politics and the media, who knows what will happen?

History suggests Republicans will lose seats in the House, the Senate, or both. After all, the president’s party almost invariably suffers losses in midterm elections, and President Trump happens to identify as a Republican, if in name only. But that’s a rant for another day.

Consider Democrat Franklin Roosevelt. In 1936, he won one of the largest landslides in presidential history. Two years later, Democrats lost 72 House seats and seven Senate seats. This from a man who won four presidential elections in a row.

Every election is heralded as the “most crucial in American history” by a media seemingly devoid of a social conscience. This year, though, they may be right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

This year, Americans should put aside their disdain or worship of Trump and consider something I believe is far more important: the rise of democratic socialism within the Democratic Party.

It’s real, folks, and I believe it has the potential to undermine the economic system that made America the envy of the world.

The Brookings Institution has reported that Democratic Socialists of America chapters endorsed hundreds of candidates during this election cycle, primarily for state and local offices. With voters historically inclined to punish the president’s party during midterms, some of those candidates may find themselves in office.

And that’s how you eat an elephant. One bite at a time.

Mainstream Democrats generally support a regulated capitalist economy, while democratic socialists advocate varying degrees of public or worker ownership, economic redistribution, and expanded government programs.

That distinction raises a question worth considering.

If government assumes greater responsibility for owning and managing businesses, who makes the decisions? Who appoints the people in charge, and what prevents political influence from determining how resources are distributed?

Under capitalism, business owners and executives exercise substantial economic power, but they’re constrained by competition, markets, and regulation. Under a highly centralized socialist system, considerably more economic authority could rest with government officials and political appointees.

And can we really trust politicians to do what’s best for the country when so many seem preoccupied with political gamesmanship and lining their own pockets?

If the government controls the economy, who controls the government?

Recently, longtime Democratic strategist James Carville criticized Hasan Piker, a 35-year-old Turkish-American socialist commentator with considerable influence among younger progressives.

Piker has generated controversy through his statements about September 11, Israel and Hamas, and American foreign policy. His 2019 remark that America deserved the September 11 attacks, for which he subsequently apologized, is one example. (Did he apologize because he changed his mind, or was it because of the backlash?)

Carville made it clear that he had no intention of belonging to the same political party as Piker.

Bernie Sanders threw in his two cents, arguing that Piker and Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed belonged in the same political coalition as he did. Sanders suggested that if Carville couldn’t accept that, he was welcome to start his own party.

And there, folks, is the ideological struggle taking place within the Democratic Party.

It’s no longer simply a disagreement between Republicans and Democrats. Democrats themselves are debating how far left their party should move and whose political philosophies they’re willing to embrace.

I believe America became the world’s leading economic power because of private enterprise, individual initiative, competition, and the opportunity to succeed or fail on one’s own merits. Our system isn’t perfect, but I wouldn’t trade it for one that places substantially greater economic authority in the hands of politicians.

History provides ample examples of socialist experiments that produced economic hardship, political repression, or both. Not every socialist movement has followed that path, but the failures should give us reason to proceed cautiously.

Folks, I’m not advocating that anyone vote Republican or Democrat simply because of the letter beside a candidate’s name.

I’m suggesting that Democratic voters examine the political philosophy of the candidates seeking their support and consider where those philosophies might ultimately lead.

I believe democratic socialism represents a slippery slope toward greater government control and higher taxes. America doesn’t need to learn the dangers of that journey the hard way.