With the midterms quickly approaching, Americans all over the country have many decisions to make about the candidates currently running; however, the current ‘buzz’ on the political front is one never before seen on such a monumental scale. Socialism – or as some like to call it, democratic socialism.

Previously, America on the whole, considered socialism and communist ideals the likes of nightmares. While the terrors of communism are for a later discussion, socialism is the shark lurking in the depths below, and it is closer to the boat than most people think.

One of the major arguments to defend socialism is that ‘It has never been tried on a full scale.’ This argument, however, is a ruse and inherently proves itself false. The reason socialism can supposedly ‘never be tried on a full scale’ is due to the fact that socialism will never go far enough. There will always be more problems that need fixing, and they will forever claim the answer is more socialism.

At this point, some that identify on this side of the spectrum might be thinking; Wait, we don’t want socialism, we want democratic socialism! There has never been more of a wolf hidden in sheep’s clothing.  Robert Mugabe, the President of Zimbabwe, and Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, have both been democratically elected as socialists. Both of these countries are in turmoil. They are falling apart due to the degradation of economic infrastructure as a result of socialism. Socialism to some may appear as ‘morality’ on a silver platter, but as soon as the lid is lifted, it becomes obvious that there is nothing of substance is there to sustain them, or anyone for that matter. An adjective doesn’t change what something objectively is.

The reason socialism is morally bankrupt is that the government takes a large percentage of one’s income and distributes it, without the individuals say of where that money goes. It inherently makes individuals more selfish. As I previously stated, there will never be a brink as to how far people think socialism should go. For example, Do I get to go to college for free? What about free healthcare? The list goes on and on. The danger in these questions is that it asserts a level of entitlement within the human psyche that is irreplaceable. If A leads to B and B leads to C…. I should have the right to X, Y, and Z, right? Wrong. Nothing of the sort I mentioned above is an innate human right. If it were an intrinsic human right, it shouldn’t have to manifest itself from the labors of some other person without their consent. Socialism breeds entitlement on steroids.

Furthermore, nothing about socialism is free. You still pay for yourself. However, you are further forced to pay for others. In the status quo, one pays for their means and has the opportunity to donate some of their assets to others. By forcing one to give up their earned resources for another, it eliminates the possibility of demonstrating compassion and donation to those in need. If anything, it makes people resent the people to which their money is forcibly being given. People ought to earn what they receive based on their investments in themselves through planning, and well-thought-out decision making.

As JFK once said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

Tarra S