This week, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) won the Democratic nominations for three New York congressional seats. These deep blue seats are now poised to be held by three individuals who not only hold terrible policy positions but also actively despise the nation they seek to represent.
Take “Democratic” nominee Darializa Avila Chevalier, who looks less like a candidate than a conservative&#8217;s parody of one. A Columbia University graduate and PhD candidate, Chevalier narrowly won her race for Congress while accusing her Dominican immigrant opponent of being a racist. She was one of the founders of Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), and led the illegal occupation of the college campus.
Chevalier’s open disdain for the United States did not stop her from securing the Democratic nomination. A few years ago in a now-deleted Twitter account she said she “just wiped my hand on the American flag.” Her disdain isn&#8217;t reserved for America. She also turns it on the country her parents came from, the Dominican Republic, branding it a racist nation and calling for it to merge with Haiti into a single “black” country.
Another winner, Claire Valdez, campaigned and rallied — like Chevalier — alongside socialist streamer Hasan Piker. Piker is now under Treasury investigation for allegedly violating U.S. sanctions on the Cuban regime. He has said America deserved the 9/11 attacks, and has praised and dressed as tyrants like China’s Mao Zedong, whose policies killed an estimated 60 million people, more than any ruler in history. Valdez hasn&#8217;t merely kept odd company; she has made a “free Palestine” one of her most important issues, rather than the issues that concern people who live in her district. Like Chevalier, Valdez is a downwardly mobile overeducated liberal arts graduate who worked at Columbia University and was a “union organizer” after graduating with a Fine Arts degree in Chicago.
The final DSA congressional winner is the least publicized in part because it seems as if many other DSA members dislike him, New York City Comptroller Brad Lander. Lander ticks every socialist box: abolishing ICE, taxing the rich, redistributing income, cracking down on corporations, and attacking Israel. But unlike Chevalier and Valdez, Lander is Jewish and thus influencers like Hasan Piker and even Mayor Zohran Mamdani&#8217;s wife, who backed the other two, withheld the same endorsement for Lander.
Antisemitism was so prevalent during this Democratic primary that Congressman Dan Goldman, who is Jewish and was running against Brad Lander for the nomination in New York’s 10th congressional district, was asked not to come back to a coffee shop by the store owner on social media and refunded his payment.
The DSA didn’t just win congressional races this week; they also nominated over a dozen state legislators in New York, and their ranks are poised to grow from <a href="https://nysfocus.com/2026/06/24/ny-primary-election-results-dsa-state-legislature-2026">six to 15</a> state legislators.
Like many of you, I watch unfolding events with deep concern. My homeland was ruined by socialists who came to power not by coup but by ballot, carrying the same ideas I now see on the rise in America. When Venezuelans voted for Hugo Chavez, he too promised to take from the rich, he too hated America and “imperialism,” and he was also a furious antisemite who condemned Israel. His socialist policies were the same: free housing, government grocery stores, price controls, and the seizure of private property. The result was shortages, blackouts, extreme poverty, an exodus of millions, and hyperinflation.
What separates American socialism from Venezuela&#8217;s isn&#8217;t ideology but who votes for it. America’s socialists are mostly young, white, and college-educated. When they had support, Venezuela&#8217;s socialists were older, poorer, less educated, and mostly not of European descent.
While Darializa Avila Chevalier carried New York’s 13th congressional district by <a href="https://votehub.com/2026_ny13dem_primary">winning</a> white college-educated and young voters, Espaillat ran up double-digit margins in the poorest, most Hispanic parts of the district and carried majority-Black precincts. Valdez, who took NY-7, did <a href="https://votehub.com/2026_ny07dem_primary">best</a> in the highest-income, youngest areas and lost Orthodox Jewish precincts badly.
There has never been a nation so rich and so free like America, where the most well-off and educated members of society vote for their own destruction.
***
Daniel Di Martino is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute. All views expressed are those of the author and not the Manhattan Institute.

NYC Congressional Candidate Claire Valdez Holds Primary Night Watch Party

I’ve Seen What Socialism Did To Venezuela And NYC Is Next

2026 elections

Democratic Socialists Of America

DW Opinion

New York City

Socialism

In 1960, nearly 85% of prime-age adults (those between 25 and 54) were married. Today, that figure has collapsed to roughly 54%.
However, the topline marriage data conceals that America’s marriage rate is propped up by immigrants. While 64% of foreign-born adults in America are married, fewer than 52% of native-born American adults are married. That&#8217;s a 12-point gap. Without the steady arrival of immigrants who still prioritize marriage, America&#8217;s marriage rate would be even lower and, consequently, so would the birth rate.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-1094841" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/1.jpg" alt="" width="1800" height="1336" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/1.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/1-300x223.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/1-776x576.jpg 776w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/1-768x570.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/1-1536x1140.jpg 1536w" sizes=" (max-width: 1800px) 100vw, 1800px" /></div>
At first, one may think that immigrants are more likely to be married because many of them arrive through marriage. But two facts disprove this argument. First, there was no gap in the marriage rate between immigrants and natives as early as 1970. And second, when we divide immigrants by how old they were when they first came to the United States, it becomes clear that the younger immigrants are when they arrive in the United States, the more they look like the average American when it comes to marriage. Culture is driving the decline in marriage, and immigrants and their children are unfortunately assimilating into America’s low-marriage culture.
When you look only at immigrants who arrived in the United States before turning 18, and thus well before marriage-based immigration could explain their presence, they still marry at a higher rate than native-born Americans. But when you compare immigrants who arrived before age 10 to those who arrived as teenagers, the pattern is unmistakable: the more years an immigrant spends growing up in America, the less likely they are to ever marry. <a href="https://manhattan.institute/article/the-vanishing-immigrant-marriage-advantage-how-assimilation-leads-to-fewer-marriages">The marriage gap</a> between native-born Americans and immigrants who arrived as young children has completely vanished this century.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1094845" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2.jpg" alt="" width="1800" height="1443" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2-300x241.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2-719x576.jpg 719w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2-768x616.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/2-1536x1231.jpg 1536w" sizes=" (max-width: 1800px) 100vw, 1800px" /></div>
This is what assimilation looks like, except in this case, it is a bad thing. Immigrants aren&#8217;t bringing some exotic disease called &#8220;low marriage rates&#8221; with them. They&#8217;re catching it in America.
It raises a question that should haunt every American who still believes families are the building blocks of a free society: What exactly are immigrants assimilating to?
The answer becomes even more disturbing when you look at the second generation, that is, the U.S.-born children of immigrants. Second-generation Americans grew up in households with two married parents under one roof at rates their native-born peers did not. They lived in <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w19843">neighborhoods</a> that were more likely to provide upward mobility, and they enjoyed unparalleled opportunity in the richest country on earth. By every reasonable theory of how culture is transmitted, they should be the strongest defenders of marriage.
Yet, they aren&#8217;t. The children of immigrants don&#8217;t just match the marriage rates of multigenerational Americans; they often underperform them.
Among college graduates, the children of immigrants are less likely to marry than college graduates whose families have been here for generations. The pattern holds across every major ethnic group: white, black, Hispanic, and Asian. The kids who grew up with married parents are now marrying at lower rates than the kids who didn&#8217;t.
After controlling for age, education, and ethnicity, Americans with one immigrant parent marry at a rate 3.3% less than their multigenerational peers. For Americans with two immigrant parents, the gap widens 4.8 percentage points. Whatever cultural advantage their parents brought from abroad reverses in a single generation.
The most striking case is among black Americans. Black immigrants marry at a higher rate than native-born blacks. While about 55% of black immigrants aged 35–39 are married, only 35% of native-born blacks are married at the same age. Yet second-generation black Americans marry at roughly the same rate as multigenerational native-born black Americans.
The same story repeats in every ethnic and educational subgroup. Approximately 85% of Asian immigrants in their late 30s are married — the highest rate of any subgroup studied, and consistent whether they have a college education or not. Yet only 63% of the American-born children of Asian immigrants get married: over a 20-point drop from the Asian immigrant rate. A similar phenomenon occurs in Hispanic immigrants&#8217; marriage prospects, which collapses to match native-born Hispanics in a single generation.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-1094849" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/3.jpg" alt="" width="1800" height="1486" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/3.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/3-300x248.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/3-698x576.jpg 698w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/3-768x634.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/3-1536x1268.jpg 1536w" sizes=" (max-width: 1800px) 100vw, 1800px" />
So what are young Americans assimilating to? They&#8217;re assimilating to an American culture that increasingly treats marriage as optional and unnecessary. The children of immigrants are immersed in a culture saturated with messaging that careers come first, that commitment is risky, and that families are a &#8220;lifestyle choice&#8221; rather than the foundation of human flourishing.
The sad consequence of immigrant marriage assimilation is that the third generation won’t be as numerous or prosperous as the second. For defenders and detractors of immigration alike, this poses ironic challenges. Defenders of immigration often point to the fact that immigrants exhibit conservative values by being more likely to marry, but this doesn’t last. Opponents often say that immigrants don’t assimilate, but in this case, they do, however undesirable. If immigrants and their children marry less often, then they will have fewer children and should be less threatening to the native population in the eyes of opponents.
The decline of marriage isn&#8217;t mainly a story about economics, but one about culture. The children of immigrants are marrying less often than their peers whose families have been here for generations and whose parents were less likely to be married. Immigrants are assimilating into American marriage norms. Conservatives really shouldn’t want that to happen.
***
Daniel Di Martino (@DanielDiMartino) is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and an economist.

High angle view of husband and wife exchange vows and rings during their wedding ceremony.

The Marriage Crisis Is Worse Than You Think

Immigration

Marriage

This past weekend in Barcelona, Spain, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy and Minnesota Governor Tim Walz took the stage alongside Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, Brazilian President Lula da Silva, Colombian President Gustavo Petro, and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum at a summit their organizers titled, without apparent irony, the &#8220;Global Progressive Mobilisation forum&#8221; in defense of democracy. The event was marketed as a progressive counterpart to President Donald Trump’s Shield of the Americas meeting in Miami last month. In reality, the leftist meeting was a gallery of leaders who have destroyed the very democratic institutions they now claim to champion, and all oppose the interests of the United States.
Two elected American Democrats flew across the Atlantic to lend their credibility to that anti-American gallery. They should be asked to explain it.
Start with the host. Pedro Sánchez leads a government engulfed in the worst corruption crisis since Spain&#8217;s return to democracy. His wife has been formally <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20260413-spanish-pm-pedro-sanchez-wife-charged-corruption-years-long-probe">charged</a> with influence peddling and corruption. His brother is on trial in a <a href="https://www.rtve.es/noticias/20250428/jueza-badajoz-procesa-hermano-pedro-sanchez-prevaricacion-trafico-influencias/16557415.shtml">separate case</a> because he was given a government job he didn&#8217;t show up for by Socialist officials in his brother&#8217;s party. His former right-hand man is also <a href="https://www.elespanol.com/espana/tribunales/20260304/abalos-antigua-mano-derecha-pedro-sanchez-juzgado-abril-supremo-rechaza-enviar-caso-audiencia/1003744154431_0.html">on trial</a> over alleged kickbacks on public contracts and prostitution. His attorney general has himself been convicted of leaking confidential information. None of this stopped Sánchez from lecturing the world about the dangers of the &#8220;populist right.&#8221;
But the worst part of Sanchez for America is not his internal destruction of Spain, but that he <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-aircraft-leave-spain-after-government-says-bases-cannot-be-used-iran-attacks-2026-03-02/">prohibited</a> the United States from using the two American military bases in the country during the military conflict with Iran. An American senator and a sitting governor saw all of this and decided it was a good look to support him.
Next to Sánchez stood Lula da Silva. Lula was convicted of corruption and money laundering by a Brazilian court in 2017, had the conviction upheld and the sentence increased on appeal in 2018, and served nearly 600 days in prison. His convictions were later annulled on procedural grounds, but he was never acquitted on the merits. He is no doubt guilty. He returned to the presidency and has spent the last three years fast-tracking Brazil’s descent into tyranny with an allied Supreme Court that censors social media and has imprisoned his main political opponent, former President Jair Bolsonaro. But Murphy and Waltz pretend to lecture us about democracy.
Next up was Gustavo Petro, Colombia’s president and a former member of the M-19, a Marxist guerrilla group whose career highlights included the <a href="https://cja.org/what-we-do/litigation/palace-of-justice/">1985 seizure</a> of Colombia&#8217;s Palace of Justice, during which 11 Supreme Court justices were killed. Petro aligned his government with former Venezuelan narco-tyrant Nicolás Maduro. Testimony from Venezuela&#8217;s former military intelligence chief, Hugo “El Pollo” Carvajal, <a href="https://thecitypaperbogota.com/news/did-venezuelas-ex-spymaster-hugo-carvajal-spark-ofac-sanctions-against-petro/">alleges</a> that Chávez and Maduro financed Petro&#8217;s presidential campaigns. A U.S. senator sharing a dais with him is not a defense of democracy; it is an act of diplomatic malpractice.
Finally, there was Claudia Sheinbaum, who implemented a constitutional overhaul that ended judicial independence in Mexico. In June 2025, Mexico became the only country on Earth to have its population elect all federal judges, including the Supreme Court. Turnout at that constitutional referendum was <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/02/world/americas/mexico-judicial-election-low-turnout.html">13 percent</a>. This is not democracy; it is the dictatorship of the majority, something the American Founders warned about. Of course, Tim Waltz and Chris Murphy must enthusiastically support this because it aligns with their agenda to pack the U.S. Supreme Court to change the meaning of the Constitution.
Perhaps the best part of the “Progressive” Defense of Democracy meeting in Barcelona last Saturday was that the actual citizens of Latin America didn’t care for them. While these wannabe leftist tyrants met in Barcelona, tens of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants were rallying in support of democracy in Spain’s capital, Madrid. They were there in support of a transition in Venezuela that is possible thanks to the support of the United States and President Trump’s military action to arrest Nicolas Maduro.
Truthfully, I would have expected a speech and support for this anti-American meeting from the likes of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Senator Bernie Sanders, or a video message by New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, but I did not expect Murphy and Walz to lend credibility to this meeting of criminals. Murphy is often mentioned as a 2028 presidential contender. Walz was the Democratic vice-presidential nominee. When they stand with these leaders and call it a defense of democracy, they are telling American voters something important about what they believe democracy looks like.
Daniel Di Martino (@DanielDiMartino) is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and an economist.

Inaugural Global Progressive Mobilisation Held In Barcelona

Chris Murphy and Tim Walz Cozy Up To Wannabe Tyrants At Communist Rally

Democracy

foreign affairs

MI x DW

Daniel DiMartino is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, one of the best think tanks in the country. But what qualifies him to write this piece is not his Ivy League economics degree, but rather the fact that he grew up in Venezuela, where he had a front-row seat to the brutal consequences of socialism.
DiMartino is just one of the millions of Venezuelans that fled Nicolas Maduro&#8217;s regime and were jubilant this weekend after the world learned that the United States had removed Maduro from power. I mean, just <a href="https://x.com/DanielDiMartino/status/2007460524137562395/video/1">listen to the joy in his voice</a> as he reacted to the news early Saturday morning. After hearing that, we knew we needed him to explain that joy to our audience at The Daily Wire.
For DiMartino, the joy is not about getting revenge on Maduro. it&#8217;s about hope for the future of Venezuela. We hope you enjoy. —Brent Scher
***
Venezuelans throughout the world are celebrating after this weekend’s perfectly executed U.S. military operation which captured narco-terrorist tyrant Nicolas Maduro. The morning I woke up to the news of Maduro’s capture was one that I had been dreaming of for my entire life as a Venezuelan who suffered under his regime.
This move by President Trump and his team provides justice, advances America’s and Venezuela’s interests, and could unleash prosperity like we have never seen before in the Western Hemisphere.
Venezuela has been ruled by Maduro’s socialist regime since I was born in 1999. The regime pillaged what was once the richest nation in Latin America. Millions of Europeans in the 1940s and 1950s sought opportunity in places like Caracas in the aftermath of World War II. Millions of Colombians crossed the border to Venezuela for safety from narco-terrorist Marxist guerrillas from the 1970s until the 1990s. Lebanese and Syrian Christians escaped to Venezuela in the 1960s after the Assad family’s takeover. And Americans routinely traveled to Venezuela for tourism and investment opportunities.
After more than two decades of a socialist regime that started out democratically and gradually took absolute power and rigged elections to remain in charge, Venezuela is starving. The country that once drew immigrants and exported oil bled millions of refugees and imports its own gasoline. The Maduro regime, once it ran out of oil, gold, and companies both foreign and domestic to steal, turned to drug trafficking to profit and fund their repression system.
Venezuela, if governed well with a free market economy, has the potential to be wealthier than nations like the United Arab Emirates or Kuwait. It has more oil and it is better positioned, both culturally and geographically.
That should explain why Venezuelans abroad are celebrating openly on social media and in the streets, with mass gatherings spotted all over the United States, but especially in the heart of the Venezuelan diaspora of Miami. Celebrations were held in Argentina, Peru, Colombia, Spain, and Chile, among other countries. The nine million strong Venezuelan diaspora forced into exile by socialism is celebrating this way because we know who Maduro is. We know what his regime did to our families, our economy, and our future. And we know that this moment, however fragile, represents something we were told we would never see: freedom and justice.
What Venezuelans feel today is not bloodlust or vengeance. It is relief. It is gratitude. And above all, it is hope. Gratitude toward the United States, a country that did not throw in the towel when diplomacy, sanctions, and international pressure all failed. Gratitude toward an America willing to defend its own interests while also standing on the right side of history. Gratitude to President Trump for following through on his promise, to Secretary of State Marco Rubio for standing for his values when it mattered, and to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and all the U.S. servicemen involved who executed an operation perfectly.
The Trump administration understands something many foreign-policy “experts” refuse to admit: Maduro never would have left power voluntarily. He only understands force. He could have chosen the easy life with all the stolen wealth in Moscow, but instead he opted for a New York City jail. Such is life.
But this victory does not mean the danger is over.
As Secretary Rubio acknowledged in multiple interviews, Maduro’s capture, while historic, does not instantly dismantle a criminal system that has entrenched itself in every institution of the Venezuelan state. His regime was never a one-man dictatorship; it is a narco-state network that includes generals, intelligence officials, judges, governors, and foreign terrorist allies. Tren de Aragua, Cuban spies, and Iranian operatives did not disappear overnight. The Venezuelan people inside Venezuela are happy, but scared of the regime.
The next phase matters just as much as the operation itself. A successful transition in Venezuela must be orderly but also relatively fast. The oligarchs in power: Delcy Rodriguez, the nominal vice president, her brother Jorge Rodriguez, Diosdado Cabello, and Vladimir Padrino Lopez, all participate in drug trafficking, terrorism, and are under sanctions and U.S. Department of Justice indictment.
The remaining Maduro cronies in power have the chance to do the right thing. One sign of a good faith transition in the coming weeks will be the release of hundreds of political prisoners, among them my friend Maria Oropeza, a young woman whose “crime” was observing election fraud and leading the opposition in her state. The other sign would be the puppet Supreme Court declaring an “absolute absence” of the president, which would trigger elections according to the socialist constitution. Such elections would allow the most popular leader in the country, Maria Corina Machado, to run, and she would win them by a landslide.
Only with a government led by Machado and not Maduro stooges can the United States guarantee that private oil companies will fork over the billions in investment required to revitalize the oil, electric, and water infrastructure. Exxon, Conoco Phillips, Shell, and BP won’t invest in a country whose government may take their property as soon as Trump leaves office, which is exactly what will happen if a transition isn’t finished by the time the Trump administration ends.
Economically, the upside of success in Venezuela is extraordinary. A post-Maduro Venezuela could become the greatest growth story in the Western Hemisphere’s history. With secure property rights, a privatized oil sector, and a free-market framework, Venezuela could once again attract global investment. Returning to pre-socialism oil production would mean three million barrels of oil per day in additional global output, lowering energy prices for everyday Americans.
A free and prosperous Venezuela would welcome millions of its people back home, stabilizing an entire region overwhelmed by mass migration. It would also weaken criminal networks like Tren de Aragua, reducing the flow of drugs and gang violence into the United States, saving American lives.
This is why President Trump’s decision was not just moral, it was strategic.
Critics predicted catastrophe, imperialism, and endless war. They have been wrong about Venezuela for 25 years, and about Trump for his entire political career. They were wrong when they excused Chávez. Wrong when they normalized Maduro. Wrong when they claimed sanctions alone would work. And wrong now, as they once again ignore the voices of actual Venezuelans in favor of “international law.”
I pray that history will remember this weekend as the moment the world’s longest-running socialist experiment collapsed under the weight of its crimes. For Venezuelans, it is the first real chance to rebuild a country that once welcomed the world, and can do so again.
Justice is here. Freedom is within reach. For the first time in my life, Venezuela’s future feels brighter than its past. I wish that so many people, including my immigrant grandparents, were alive to see this.
Thank you President Trump.
***
Daniel DiMartino is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

US-VENEZUELA-CONFLICT-MADURO

Why Venezuelans Are Dancing In The Streets

Donald Trump

Marco Rubio

Nicolas Maduro

Pete Hegseth

Venezuela

DW Venezuela 1200×1200

Living Through A Socialist Collapse: An Insider’s Account Of Venezuela’s Demise

As conservatism splinters, Reaganism, it seems, is up next for attack. Sectors of the right are deeming it too antiquated, and, by that, they mean “too open to the world.” The late President Reagan’s brand of conservatism is not just socially conservative, it champions free markets at home, free trade with the world, and an America that’s a beacon of hope to the rest of the world and a safe haven to those who seek refuge. Reagan’s “populist” critics would have America <a href="https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawleys-speech-rethinking-americas-foreign-policy-consensus">isolate itself</a>, <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/gop-immigration-bill/550724/">shut its doors</a> to new immigrants, and <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2020/10/23/chamberlain-regulate-big-tech-to-protect-conservative-speech/">expand government control</a> over vast sectors of the economy. If populists like Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, and Oren Cass get a hold of the Republican party as they intend, America would stop being the prosperous, free nation it is today, and the world would become a darker place.
Ronald Reagan changed America and the world for the better. He was pro-life, pro-family, and pro-religion. But what distinguished him from other Republicans is what populists of the American right hate today: He consolidated support for free markets, trade, immigration, and a strong foreign policy.
It’s no secret that Reagan was a fan of tax cuts. On March 13th, 1985, as the Democratic-controlled Congress sought to raise taxes, he said “I have my veto pen drawn and ready for any tax increase … Go ahead, make my day.”
“The best social program is a job” was his mantra, and because he knew that taxes <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w13756">discourage </a>investment and job creation, he sought to reduce them. The two tax bills he negotiated with Congress over his presidency cut taxes for all Americans, and especially for investors and business-owners. Combined with his deregulatory efforts, Reagan’s policies <a href="https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/62cfde42-3fbc-4b6e-b308-c78dd32515e6/president-reagan-s-economic-legacy-great-expansion-oct-2000.pdf">lifted</a> America out of a recession and launched it into one of the longest and strongest economic expansions in history, creating tens of millions of jobs.
Reagan recognized the dangerous influence of an all-powerful government. He understood that government control isn’t something you can opt out of, and that the government will eventually be led by politicians you fear — a warning the populists should heed as they push for government regulation of social media platforms and tech companies. You may want to use the government to protect conservatives on Twitter today, but tomorrow the Left will use that power to actively silence us through government means, too.
Reagan championed free trade with all but America’s enemies. “The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations” he said in 1986. And he <a href="https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/62cfde42-3fbc-4b6e-b308-c78dd32515e6/president-reagan-s-economic-legacy-great-expansion-oct-2000.pdf">signed</a> many free trade agreements and set the <a href="https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/the-north-american-free-trade-agreement-ronald-reagans-vision-realized">foundations</a> for NAFTA, which, despite all the unfair criticisms it received, was replaced with the USMCA — an only slightly modified version. 
Protectionism protects nothing but the profits of a few well-connected companies at the expense of the rest of the country. It’s not hard to understand that America can’t grow bananas or make cheap clothes, but we sure can produce amazing steak, technology, and much more. Free trade recognizes that every country, like every person, has unique talents and that we are better off when we each focus on doing what we do best.
Reagan supported the idea that anyone from any corner of the world should be able to come to America and become an American. He welcomed <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-annual-refugee-resettlement-ceilings-and-number-refugees-admitted-united">more refugees</a> than any other U.S. President, in part by <a href="http://niskanencenter.org/private-refugee-resettlement-in-u-s-history/#:~:text=Even%20after%20the%20federal%20government,parallel%20to%20federally%20funded%20efforts">allowing</a> Americans to sponsor refugees themselves, and targeted refugee policy to welcome people fleeing socialism. Reagan knew that those who seek to come to America seek freedom, not oppression; so we need not fear cultural change.  He understood that immigrants don’t take away jobs from Americans, but rather that they help create even more opportunities through their entrepreneurship and various skill sets. 
Rather than continue the failed appeasement policies of his predecessors, Reagan took a strong stance against America’s enemies and established new alliances with other countries to counter them. He won the arms race against the Soviet Union, bankrupting them and leading to the end of oppression for hundreds of millions of people in Eastern Europe. He sought to help freedom-loving people across the world get rid of the murderous regimes that oppressed them. While critics focus on a few failures that every President has, they forget Reagan’s many foreign policy successes. For instance when he saved Grenada from a communist takeover in 1983, an operation so successful that Grenadines started celebrating <a href="https://www.legion.org/magazine/217617/thanksgiving-grenada">Thanksgiving day</a> on the anniversary of Reagan’s action. Reagan didn’t just keep America safe, he left the world a safer and freer place, too.
But populists like <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-trump-has-changed-the-republicans-11598023026">Oren Cass</a> and Senator <a href="https://www.hawley.senate.gov/senator-hawleys-speech-rethinking-americas-foreign-policy-consensus">Josh Hawley</a> think the Republican party should abandon these long-held principles. They say Reaganism only suited the 1980s. It’s out of fashion. And, they argue, the only way to amass a “<a href="https://americancompass.org/the-commons/a-multi-ethnic-working-class-conservatism/">multi-ethnic working class coalition</a>” to win elections is to adopt their policies of government control over big companies, tariffs, shutting the door to immigrants, and isolationism.
Ironically, these so-called populists promote policies that aren’t very popular, since <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/286730/americans-vanishing-fear-foreign-trade.aspx">free trade</a> and <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/313106/americans-not-less-immigration-first-time.aspx">increased or constant immigration</a> are now supported by over 7 in 10 Americans. And the success of Reagan’s policies, economic and otherwise, wasn’t due to timing, but, rather, human nature. Freedom, it turns out, works just fine.
I first heard about Ronald Reagan as a 13-year old student in Venezuela, living through the high inflation, shortages, blackouts, crime and all the disasters caused by the socialist regime of Chavez and Maduro. Among all that darkness, to me and millions of Americans and citizens of the world, Reagan represented hope and everything we loved about America: unashamed support for freedom for everyone, everywhere. That’s what the Right should always stand for. The day they don’t is a dark day for us all.
<a href="http://www.danieldimartino.com">Daniel Di Martino</a> is a Young Voices Openness Fellow, a PhD in Economics candidate at Columbia University, and a freedom activist who fled Venezuela’s socialist regime. You can follow him on Twitter <a href="http://www.twitter.com/danieldimartino">here</a>.
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
.

Ronald Reagan

Reaganism Should Be The Future, Not The Past

Josh Hawley

Populism

Readers Pass

It was February 7, 1956 when the Vera Cruz Vessel sailed from the port of Vigo in northern Spain. Among its 800 passengers was my grandfather, Vicente Novo. Like everyone on that ship, he left everything behind in his homeland to pursue his dreams in a more prosperous country. In this land of opportunity, he and the other passengers found jobs, started businesses and raised families – all while sending money back to their hungry families in Europe.
But this newfound land of opportunity wasn’t the United States of America. It was my home country: Venezuela. 
It’s hard to believe now, but in 1950, Venezuela was the<a href="https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/GDP-per-capita-in-1950"> fourth-richest</a> country on earth. Tragically, over the course of the next six decades, Venezuela was transformed from a prosperous nation of immigrants to a devastated and poor land full of people in need of refuge. 
Vicente hadn’t even finished elementary school when he immigrated to Venezuela. Yet, in that thriving nation, he found a job in a car garage that allowed him to save and send money back to his five siblings in Spain. And after years of diligently saving, he opened his own small parking garage, where he washed and parked cars.
My grandfather and the other voyagers on the Vera Cruz were <a href="https://eprints.ucm.es/2342/1/AH0012101.pdf">not alone</a>. From the 1940s through the 1970s, Venezuela was the destination of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/place/Venezuela/Immigration-and-ethnic-composition">millions</a> of immigrants from <a href="https://eprints.ucm.es/2342/">Spain</a>, <a href="https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2017/06/10/the-portuguese-community-gives-up-on-the-venezuelan-dream/">Portugal</a>,<a href="http://wlcui.com/es/2013/12/10/llegada-de-los-libaneses-a-venezuela-prof-daniel-lahoud-uclv/"> Lebanon</a>,<a href="https://www.aljadid.com/content/arabs-making-their-mark-latin-america-generations-immigrants-colombia-venezuela-and-mexico"> Syria</a>, and a host of other nations. Just like America, Venezuela became a thriving melting pot, and middle-class status was achievable for those who worked hard for it – even if they had no education.
This prosperity was possible thanks to free markets. Venezuela protected private property, had low taxation, and little regulation. Venezuela’s borders were open for immigrants who came to work, and foreign investment was welcomed, leading to a booming economy. All of this happened under an otherwise authoritarian dictator, Marcos Pérez Jiménez.
However, after Venezuela became democratic in 1958, the people elected leaders who put the country on the path of socialism.
In 1976, then-President Carlos Andres Perez nationalized the oil industry, and Venezuela’s oil production plummeted by more than<a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/crude-oil-production"> 40%</a> over the next decade. Oil nationalization led to the expansion of welfare programs funded by the new volatile oil revenue. Despite this additional government revenue, the government kept getting in debt and started printing more money to pay for more welfare. This led to inflation and the establishment of price and currency controls, as well as the nationalization of key industries. That, in turn, led to joblessness and misery. Venezuela’s real wages declined and <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c554/bf92c278562e46e52c0550d492089200a727.pdf">GDP per capita</a>, which had been soaring since the 1950s, plateaued in the 1980s and 1990s.
My grandfather was a victim of these policies. His parking garage wasn’t profitable anymore because the government capped parking prices. Thankfully, though, he had been saving. With that money, he built a small four-apartment building where he lived and rented the other three units. But the government had to ruin this for him, too. It used eminent domain to expropriate his building under the excuse that it needed to build a hospital. Not only did the government give my grandfather a below-market rate, it never even built the hospital.
In the late 1990s, politicians were <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/14/01/49/pr9638">forced</a> to apply free-market policies by the International Monetary Fund. They welcomed private investment in the oil industry, re-privatized some industries they’d taken away, demolished price and currency controls, and even <a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/government-budget">balanced</a> the budget. As a result, the economy improved, unemployment <a href="https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/VEN/venezuela/unemployment-rate">stabilized</a>, inflation <a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/inflation-cpi">slowed rapidly,</a> and oil production <a href="https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/crude-oil-production">surged</a>. But this proved to be too little too late. 
By the time election season rolled around, two years after these reforms, jobs were still scarce – and the Venezuelan people were outraged at the <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.551.6879&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf">rampant corruption</a> among establishment politicians. So, in 1998, Venezuelans elected Hugo Chávez, a radical socialist candidate who promised to crush the wealthy and redistribute oil and wealth to the poor by giving “free” housing, healthcare, education, and food.
My grandfather remembers folks saying that “Venezuela isn’t Cuba,” as they dismissed warnings from wise citizens who said that Chavez’s socialist policies would usher in destruction.
Indeed, Chavez <a href="https://economics21.org/how-socialism-destroyed-venezuela">doubled down</a> on crushing business through regulation, price and currency controls, and nationalizing companies. His policies, and those of the current dictator Nicolas Maduro, have caused the greatest <a href="https://time.com/5789570/venezuelans-struggling-hunger-un/">humanitarian crisis</a> in the history of the Western Hemisphere. Nearly <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7604881/Venezuela-exodus-set-5-million-long-term-needs-grow-officials-say.html">5 million</a> Venezuelans have fled the country already, including my family.
There’s a saying in Venezuela that before socialism took hold of our country, “We were rich but we didn’t know it.” Many Venezuelans who initially supported socialism and those who didn’t vote at all have now recognized that truth the hard way.
My family’s story, and that of millions of other Venezuelans, should serve as a warning to all those who believe America is too prosperous and powerful to fail. Socialism can and will destroy this country – unless voters curb the recent wave of popularity it’s gained in the United States and prevent radical leaders from getting elected. 
The next time someone tells you that “America isn’t Venezuela,” remind them that we Venezuelans once said something all-too similar.
Daniel Di Martino<a href="http://www.twitter.com/danieldimartino"> (@DanielDiMartino</a>) is a research associate at the Institute for the Study of Free Enterprise at the University of Kentucky, a Young Voices contributor, and a Dissident contributor.

The Sabana Grande

DIMARTINO: How Venezuela Went From A Rich Nation Of Immigrants, To A Hungry Nation Of Refugees