By Selwyn Duke

“The Democratic Party won’t be in power for a long, long time now,” we hear. The idea is that there has been a “realignment” and/or that the wrong ideology (wokeness) has hobbled the party. Well, we’ve seen this movie and its remakes before. The ending is always the same, too.

After Republican President Richard Nixon’s resounding victories in 1968 and ’72 — the latter being American history’s biggest landslide, with Nixon winning 520 electoral votes and 49 states — some observers said Democrats’ fractured coalition meant the party was nearing collapse.

It won the very next election, in 1976.

After GOP President Ronald Reagan’s two overwhelming wins (1980 and ’84), we heard about a Democratic Party in terminal decline. The Gipper’s triumphs had, after all, been aided by “Reagan Democrats,” working-class voters who’d flipped to Republicans (much like today).

Four years after Reagan left office we got Democrat Bill Clinton for two terms and increasing doses of political correctness. (That’s wokeness’ earlier name.)

We likewise heard similar predictions after the 2010 midterms and President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory. The ending was the same — wash, rinse, repeat.

And, again, today this prognostication is made, by rose-colored-glasses Republicans and some dark-colors Democrats. But, say commentator Glenn Beck and history Professor Victor Davis Hanson, the Democrats absolutely can win in 2028.

Not only that, they can deliver us a socialist president (with the help of a slouching-toward-Gomorrah electorate).

The Dark Program Reboots — but the Virus Worsens Every Time

Beck issued his warning, with guest Hanson, on Thursday’s edition of Glenn TV. He opened talking about 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani, the charismatic, avowedly socialist candidate who resoundingly won New York City’s Democratic mayoral primary. He stated that far from being just a Gotham story, the radical’s win bespeaks of larger trends.

In fact, the Democratic Party is undergoing a deliberate rebranding toward socialism, Beck said. This began during Bernie Sanders’ 2016 campaign and was amplified by the rise of Representative Sandy Cortez (D-N.Y.). And Mamdani’s mayoral rise, backed by Establishment pols like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, signals socialist candidates’ mainstream acceptance.

A Perfect Socialist Storm?

Beck and Hanson made other points, too, building their case:

• The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), with membership ballooning from 7,000 in 2016 to more than 55,000 today, has become a powerful organizing force. It’s providing operatives and funding to candidates such as Mamdani and Cortez, positioning socialism as the party’s new identity.
• The Democrats haven’t learned from their 2024 losses. So instead of moving toward the center, they’re doubling down on radical policies.
• Cortez is being groomed as the socialist movement’s face. Her and Sanders’ “Fighting Oligarchy” tour essentially comprises socialist pep rallies through which the torch will be passed from aged-out Sanders to Cortez. She’s being positioned for a presidential run.
• Mamdani has appeared alongside Cortez since 2023. This is part of an effort to normalize socialism.
• Young voters, facing unemployment and debt and marinated in Marxist university teachings, are seduced by socialism’s promises.
• Poor history and civics education (only 13 percent of eighth graders are proficient in U.S. history) makes voters susceptible to socialist rhetoric.
• Tolerance of riots and increasing approval of political violence (e.g., 49 percent of youth condone a CEO’s murder) emboldens radicals and weakens more-moderate Democrats.
• Declining national pride (only 36 percent of Democrats are proud of America) and ranked-choice voting favor organized socialist candidates such as Cortez.
• Without countering these trends, Beck and Hanson predict, a socialist such as Cortez could win in 2028, threatening economic freedom (aka “capitalism” — a word originated by socialists) and Americanism.

Never Underestimate the Nut

Many will slough this off, saying Cortez is a dim bulb, Mamdani is loony, and neither will play in Peoria. Hanson cautioned against such complacency. He compared Mamdani’s rise to historical instances in which radicals attained power via democracy. (E.g., Germany’s electing Nazis, and Benito Mussolini’s lateral move from socialism to fascism.)

Hanson pointed out, too, that everybody thought Adolf Hitler “was a nut” and that Mussolini “was just crazy.” But “I think you can’t underestimate some of these people,” the professor said. “They’re very skilled…. [T]hey’re photogenic. They’re charismatic. I don’t find them so, but a lot of people [do].”

Quite so. In late June, in fact, I wrote about how studies have explained the rise of demagogues.

That is, in politics, charisma is king.

Note here that going back decades, the more charismatic major-party U.S. presidential candidate has won every single time.

I know, I know, you may say you don’t find Cortez or Mamdani appealing at all. But it’s not about you. You may be an informed voter who evaluates candidates through the prism of policy and past accomplishments. And if so, you don’t characterize the electorate generally.

When Passion Governs

Most voters make polling decisions on emotional bases. And just imagine that you’re a kindly, apolitical grandmother who’s not conversant with the issues. What impression do you get watching Cortez or Mamdani on TV? You see someone who speaks well, looks good, has passion, and makes pronouncements with authority. (It’s called “always wrong but never in doubt” — only, you don’t know they’re always wrong. The mainstream media won’t tell you, either.) In Mamdani’s case, too, he has a beautiful smile.

Remember, there’s a reason Cortez came out of nowhere to upset a longtime Democratic incumbent in her 2018 House race. (She was chosen, from among 10,000 contenders, by a socialist group through what essentially was an audition.) There’s a reason Mamdani was an also-ran polling at one percent six months back, and then destroyed front-runner Andrew Cuomo. They’re smooth-as-silk demagogues who can talk chicken off the bone. They know how to fool people.

Hanson also emphasizes the Left’s great institutional power. They have the mainstream media, the universities, K-12, the foundations, popular culture, most corporate boardrooms, Wall Street, and professional sports. “So, they have a lot of ways of exercising influence,” Hanson concluded, “and the Right doesn’t seem to see that.”

One thing neither Beck nor Hanson mentioned is that the Left has another advantage. They’re peddling what sells in an age of moral decay: vice. (And, no, socialism isn’t a vice — it comprises many vices, including bad advice.)

Of course, there’s no guarantee a socialist or even a Democrat (but I repeat myself) will win in ’28. But given our moral degeneration, we should ponder philosopher Joseph de Maistre’s famous observation, “People get the government they deserve.”

Because, sooner or later, the kind we deserve is exactly the kind we’re going to get.

For those interested, the featured Glenn TV episode is below.

                      This article was originally published at The New American.