Harvard Professor: Watching Donald Trump, I Understand How Hitler Came to Power

The Context

Danielle Allen, a liberal political theorist at Harvard University, recently wrote an article for The Washington Post urging fellow Democrats to register as Republicans in order to vote against Donald Trump. Why would she propose such a drastic measure?

Understanding History

There are people from all over the political spectrum sounding the alarm about Donald Trump, and Ms. Allen captured it perfectly in her article:

Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I've spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald J. Trump's rise, I now understand. Leaving aside whether a direct comparison of Trump and Hitler is accurate, that's not my point. My point is rather about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.

To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Naziism, I have generally relied on the Jewish German philosopher Hannah Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow, people can understand themselves as, quote, just doing their job, yet act as cogs in the wheel of a murderous machine.

This philosopher also offered a second answer in a small but powerful book called The Men in Dark Times. In this book, she describes all of those who thought Hitler's rise was a terrible thing, but chose internal exile or staying invisible and out of the way as their strategy for coping with the situation.

They knew evil was evil. But they too facilitated it by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of hopelessness.

The Republic Is at Stake

Ms. Allen makes the point that Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country, split by strong partisan ideologies. She also believes we have reached the moment of truth.

Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across any ideological divides. The only way to stop him is to achieve that just kind of coordination across party lines and across divisions within our own parties. We have reached that moment of truth.

Republicans, you cannot count on the Democrats to stop Trump. I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her. But it's also the case that she's a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well. The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton to Trump is unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.

Noting that Jeb Bush did the right thing by dropping out, Ms. Allen urged Kasich and Carson to leave the race if they care "about the future of the Republic."

A Suitable Candidate

While Ms. Allen makes the case that Rubio is best suited to beat Trump head-to-head, Glenn explained why he doesn’t believe that to be the case.

“She says here that Marco Rubio is the one, but she's buying into the bogus narrative, and we'll know this by Tuesday," Glenn said Wednesday on The Glenn Beck Program. "Marco Rubio is not ahead in any state. He's not going to win any state. In fact, he's running third in Florida. Ted Cruz is still at this time, still winning in a few states, including a huge, huge state of Texas. He is going to win states on Tuesday. ...But whoever doesn't win states on Tuesday must drop out. They have to drop out. And if that's Ted Cruz, then so be it. If it is Marco Rubio, then so be it.”

Common Sense Bottom Line

The chorus against Donald Trump is growing. Even the outspoken former Greek finance minister compared the popularity of Donald Trump to the rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s.

What happens to our nation when we have a totalitarian leader? After seven years of division, look at the difference in our civility toward one another. What will happen when we have a president that pits people against each other even more than Barack Obama?

"I have news for you," Glenn said. "When I said a few years ago, 'Man, I have to tell you, I didn't like Bill Clinton at all, but I'd give my right arm for Bill Clinton over this guy.' I'm warning you now, you will say after two years of Donald Trump, 'I'd give my right arm for Barack Obama.'" I know that sounds crazy, but mark it down.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Give you my analysis on what is coming here in the next week coming up in just a second.

JD in Nevada. Caucused in Nevada last night.

Hey, JD, what happened?

CALLER: Yes. I was at Silverado High School. I want to -- what I found interesting. I got there at about 4:30. I'm 71 years old, and I've been active since the Eisenhower administration in politics. So I think I know what I'm talking about.

There was 1400 yards of people in line, which you can calculate how many people. It went rather smoothly. They were running out of ballots. I sat with a woman, who was a Trump supporter, about 45 years old. She lived in Manhattan. And she had been in Vegas for 14 years. Very nice gal.

I think what Trump has tapped into, Glenn, is that we're winners. It's American nationalism. I'm 71 years old, like I said. My father won the Second World War.

STU: Wow.

CALLER: My grandparents got through the depression. All my life, I've been a winner because of this country. And I heard the chants in the last three or four times that I've seen Trump on TV, and it's, "USA, USA," like the 1980 Olympics against the Russian hockey team.

GLENN: Yep. Yep.

CALLER: I voted for Cruz. I'm a Cruz supporter. And I believe in Ted Cruz. But Trump doesn't have to say anything about how he's going to do anything. I believe the last pollster was 72 percent of the American people are against illegal immigration. So he taps into that. He taps into building the wall. He taps into making America number one again and making sure that he's a solid businessman that's going to make the government work and eliminate our debt.

I believe those are the things that Trump -- that is driving the Trump campaign. He doesn't have to talk about specifics. We're number one again. We're Americans.

He's appealing to patriotism. Build a wall. Stop the illegals. Stop paying for the schools. The police. The hospitals that all the illegal services eat up.

GLENN: I think you're exactly right. Thank you for your call, JD. He is attracting -- and it is the scariest form.

And this is why -- this is why the press is so out of control. Because they know this. Nationalism is extraordinarily dangerous. And it's why they made fun of everybody in the Tea Party: They're nationalists. They're Nazis.

You haven't heard them say this about Donald Trump, have you? And yet, let me give you this. This is from the Washington Post, written by Danielle Allen. She is a political theorist at Harvard University.

This is what she wrote: Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I've spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald J. Trump's rise, I now understand. Leaving aside whether a direct comparison of Trump and Hitler is accurate, that's not my point. My point is rather about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.

To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Naziism, I have generally relied on the Jewish German philosopher Hannah Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow, people can understand themselves as, quote, just doing their job, yet act as cogs in the wheel of a murderous machine.

This philosopher also offered a second answer in a small but powerful book called The Men in Dark Times. In this book, she describes all of those who thought Hitler's rise was a terrible thing, but chose internal exile or staying invisible and out of the way as their strategy for coping with the situation.

They knew evil was evil. But they too facilitated it by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of hopelessness.

I have to tell you, that's what I was feeling this morning when I got up. And all I kept hearing in my prayers was silence in the face of evil is evil itself.

She goes on. We can see both of this phenomena unfolding right now. The first shows itself, for instance, when journalists cover every crude and cruel thing that comes out of Trump's mouth and, thereby, help acculturate all of us and what we are hearing. Are they not just doing their jobs, they will ask, in covering the Republican frontrunner? Have we not already been trained to hear these things by 30 years of popular culture becoming more and more offensive and inciting comments?

Yes, both of these things are true, but that doesn't mean journalists ought to be Trump's megaphone. Perhaps we should just shut the lights out on offensive. Turn the mic off when somebody tries to shout down others. Reestablish some standards on what counts as worthwhile for the public debate.

That seems counter to journalistic norms, yes, but why not let Trump pay for his own ads when he wants to broadcast foul and incendiary ideas? He still has plenty of access to the freedom of expression. It's time, America, to draw a bright line.

One spots the second experience in any number of water-cooler conversations at dinner party dialogues. Yes, it's terrible. Can you believe what he said? Have you ever seen anything like it? Have we really as Americans come to this?

I know, it's terrible.

Then somebody says, "But what are we going to do?" And silence falls. Very many of us, too many of us are starting to contemplate accepting internal exile.

Are we joking about moving to Canada? Yes, but more seriously than usually. But over the course of the past few months, I've learned something else that goes beyond the ideas that were expressed in the 1940s in the Banality of Evil and the feelings of impetus in the face of danger.

Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country. The truth is, the vast majority of voting Americans think Trump is unacceptable as a presidential candidate. But we're split by strong partisan ideologies and cannot coordinate a solution to stop him.

In the same way, a significant part of voting Republicans think that Trump is unacceptable, but they too thus far have been unable to coordinate a solution. Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across any ideological divides. The only way to stop him is to achieve that just kind of coordination across party lines and across divisions within our own parties. We have reached that moment of truth.

Republicans, you cannot count on the Democrats to stop Trump. I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her. But it's also the case that she's a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well. The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton to Trump is unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.

Jeb Bush did the right thing by dropping out, just as he did the right thing by being first alongside with Rand Paul to challenge Trump. The time has come. John Kasich. Ben Carson, leave the race. You expressed a powerful commitment to the good of your country and to its founding ideals. But if you care about the future of the republic, it is time to endorse Marco Rubio.

Kasich, there's little wind in your sails, but it's not enough. Your country is calling on you. Do the right thing.

Ted Cruz, I believe is pulling votes away from Trump. For that reason, he's useful in the race. But Mr. Cruz, you're drawing too close to Trump's policies. You should change course.

Now, she says here that Marco Rubio is the one. But she's buying into the bogus narrative, and we'll know this by Tuesday. Marco Rubio is not ahead by any state. He's not going to win any state. In fact, he's running third in Florida. Ted Cruz is still at this time, still winning in a few states, including a huge, huge state of Texas. He is going to win states on Tuesday.

Marco Rubio will win none on Tuesday. Now, that could change. But whoever doesn't win states on Tuesday must drop out. They have to drop out. And if that's Ted Cruz, then so be it. If it is Marco Rubio, then so be it.

But this guy has got to be stopped. That's my commentary.

Let me go back. Democrats, your leading candidate is too weak to count on as a firewall. She might be able to pull off a general election victory against Trump. But then again, she might not. Too much is uncertain this year. You too need to help the Republicans beat Trump. This is no moment for standing by passively. If your deadline for changing your party affiliation has not yet come, reregister and vote for Rubio, even if like me, you cannot stomach his opposition to marriage equality. I would prefer Kasich as the Republican nominee. But pursuing that goal will only make it more likely that Trump will take the nomination, and the republic cannot afford that.

Finally, to all -- see, I disagree with her here because I don't think you beat a Democrat with another Democrat.

But, anyway: Finally, to all of you Republicans who have already dropped out, one more great act of public service awaits you. As candidates, you pledged to support whomever the Republican Party has nominated. It's time to revoke that pledge. Be bold. Stand up. And shout that you will not support Trump if he's your primary nominee. Do it together. Hold one big mother of a news conference. Endorse someone together. It's time to draw a bright line. You are the ones whom this burden falls. And no one else can do it.

Okay. So this is coming from a Harvard person. All right. Good. We don't like Harvard.

Let me give you this. Outspoken former Greek finance minister compared the popularity of Donald Trump to the rise of fascism across Europe in the 1930s. So we now have somebody in Harvard that's saying that this is the rise of the 1930s. I think this is the rise of the 1930s. Here is the Greek finance minister saying the same thing.

He ran Greece's economy during the crucial bailout talks and resigned last year. Monday, he spent 90 minutes asking -- asking questions on Quora.

Trump has provoked the left with his comments on Muslims. Blah, blah. But here's what he wrote when you think about Donald Trump's political success in the U.S.

Anger is prevalent. Common folks follow a good instinct when they want to punish an establishment that has lied to them for decades and treated them with contempt and considers them useful idiots to be bought by the highest bidder.

Unfortunately, this good instinct often leads fed-up conservatives to the wrong leader, camp, and campaign. We saw this in the 1930s. We're seeing it today in France with the rise of Le Pen.

Our duty as Democrats is to offer disaffected voters, including conservatives, a way to indulge their impulsive urge to punish the establishment without becoming hostage to people like Trump or Le Pen. We saw the rise of the right-wing autocratic fascist dictatorships in Italy, Spain, and Germany, while France Marine Le Pen leads in the far right national party, which recently enjoyed a boost in popularity.

Yada, yada. This is what's happening, America. And I saw it firsthand. Good Americans standing in line last night. And I talked to a lot of Trump supporters. Some I didn't. Because they were just the most nasty, vile -- I think some of the most dangerous people I've ever encountered. Some of them were reasonable. And I talked to them.

And I said, "Why Trump?" One lady said, "Well, I'm Jewish. And Ted Cruz is just going to baptize all of us." And I said, "That is crazy. That's not who he is. He's a constitutionalist." She

said, well, I am -- I said, "Who are you voting for?" She said, "I'm voting for Donald Trump." And I said, "The guy who said he's going to -- you're Jewish. He's remaining neutral between the Palestinians and Israel." She had just turned off. She said, "In the end, I just want change."

Okay. Next guy. Talking to a guy outside. Reasonable guy. I said, "Who are you going to caucus for?" And he said, "You're not going to like the answer." And I said, "It doesn't matter. We're all Americans. Who are you caucusing for?" And he said, "Donald Trump." And I said, "Why?" And he said, "You're not going to like the answer." I said, "I got it. I got it. Why?" He said, "I just want change."

Last night, the anger was more visible in Nevada than it was in South Carolina. The anger in our country is growing.

Donald Trump has already said that he's going to do universal health care. Let me ask the Republicans in the audience, how are you going to feel when Donald Trump puts through universal health care? When Donald Trump tells you to shut up and sit down, he knows what's right? What are you going to do when he starts doing the things that only Democrats would do?

And I know that's crazy. I know that's crazy. But we've seen it happen with Mitch McConnell. We've seen it happen when we have -- under George W. Bush, they have done things because we have to do it.

Donald Trump agreed with the bailouts. He even called for the nationalizing of the banks. When our economy collapses and he bails out or allows the banks to do a bail-in and then talks about nationalizing the banks, are you going to feel betrayed?

What happens when you feel betrayed by Donald Trump? Do you think he allows you to continue to speak out? For the good of the nation, should you be punished?

What do you think happens to our nation when we have a leader -- we've already seen what happens. Look at the difference in our civility to one another, between now and 2006. 2007. We had a guy who pitted people against each other, and look how vile we are to each other now.

What do you think is going to happen when you have a guy who is on the road, pitting people against each other, far more than Barack Obama ever did? I have news for you. When I said -- when I said a few years ago, "Man, I have to tell you, I didn't like Bill Clinton at all, but I'd give my right arm for Bill Clinton over this guy" -- how many of us feel this way, that I would give my right arm for Bill Clinton over Barack Obama? We all have said that. I'm warning you now: Donald Trump -- you will say in two years of Donald Trump, "I'd give my right arm for Barack Obama." I know that sounds crazy. But mark it down.

Featured Image: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a caucus night watch party at the Treasure Island Hotel & Casino on February 23, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The New York businessman won his third state victory in a row in the 'first in the West' caucuses. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

It's time for our April 29, 2019 edition of our Candidate Power Rankings. We get to add two new candidates, write about a bunch of people that have little to no chance of winning, and thank the heavens we are one day closer to the end of all of this.

In case you're new here, read our explainer about how all of this works:

The 2020 Democratic primary power rankings are an attempt to make sense out of the chaos of the largest field of candidates in global history.

Each candidate gets a unique score in at least thirty categories, measuring data like polling, prediction markets, fundraising, fundamentals, media coverage, and more. The result is a candidate score between 0-100. These numbers will change from week to week as the race changes.

The power rankings are less a prediction on who will win the nomination, and more a snapshot of the state of the race at any given time. However, early on, the model gives more weight to fundamentals and potentials, and later will begin to prioritize polling and realities on the ground.

These power rankings include only announced candidates. So, when you say "WAIT!! WHERE'S XXXXX????" Read the earlier sentence again.

If you're like me, when you read power rankings about sports, you've already skipped ahead to the list. So, here we go.

See previous editions here.

20. Wayne Messam: 13.4 (Last week: 18th / 13.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

A former staffer of Wayne Messam is accusing his wife of hoarding the campaign's money.

First, how does this guy have "former" staffers? He's been running for approximately twelve minutes.

Second, he finished dead last in the field in fundraising with $44,000 for the quarter. Perhaps hoarding whatever money the campaign has is not the worst idea.

His best shot at the nomination continues to be something out of the series "Designated Survivor."

Other headlines:

19. Marianne Williamson: 17.1 (Last week: 17th / 17.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Marianne Williamson would like you to pay for the sins of someone else's great, great, great grandparents. Lucky you!

Williamson is on the reparations train like most of the field, trying to separate herself from the pack by sheer monetary force.

How much of your cash does she want to spend? "Anything less than $100 billion is an insult." This is what I told the guy who showed up to buy my 1989 Ford Tempo. It didn't work then either.

Other headlines:

18. John Delaney: 19.7 (Last week: 15th / 20.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Good news: John Delaney brought in $12.1 million in the first quarter, enough for fifth in the entire Democratic field!

Bad news: 97% of the money came from his own bank account.

Other headlines:

17. Eric Swalwell: 20.2 (Last week: 16th / 20.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

The Eric Swalwell formula:

  • Identify news cycle
  • Identify typical left-wing reaction
  • Add steroids

Democrats said there was obstruction in the Mueller report. Swalwell said there “certainly" was collusion.

Democrats said surveillance of the Trump campaign was no big deal. Swalwell said there was no need to apologize even if it was.

Democrats said William Barr mishandled the release of the Mueller report. Swalwell said he must resign.

Democrats say they want gun restrictions. Swalwell wants them all melted down and the liquid metal to be poured on the heads of NRA members. (Probably.)

16. Seth Moulton: 20.6 (NEW)

Who is Seth Moulton?

No, I'm asking.

Moulton falls into the category of congressman looking to raise his profile and make his future fundraising easier— not someone who is actually competing for the presidency.

He tried to block Nancy Pelosi as speaker, so whatever help he could get from the establishment is as dry as Pelosi's eyes when the Botox holds them open for too long.

Moulton is a veteran, and his military service alone is enough to tell you that he's done more with his life than I'll ever do with mine. But it's hard to see the road to the White House for a complete unknown in a large field of knowns.

Don't take my word for it, instead read this depressing story that he's actually telling people on purpose:

"I said, you know, part of my job is take tough questions," Moulton told the gathered business and political leaders. "You can ask even really difficult questions. And there was still silence. And then finally, someone in the way back of the room raised her hand, and she said, 'Who are you?' "

Yeah. Who are you?

15. Tim Ryan: 21.6 (Last week: 14th / 20.7)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When you're talking to less than sixteen people in Iowa one week after your launch, you don't have too much to be excited about.

Ryan did get an interview on CNN, where he also talked to less than sixteen people.

He discussed his passion for the Dave Matthews Band, solidifying a key constituency in the year 1995.

Other headlines:

14. Tulsi Gabbard: 25.2 (Last week: 14th / 25.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Tulsi Gabbard torched Kamala Harris in fundraising!!!!! (Among Indian-American donors.)

No word on who won the coveted handi-capable gender-neutral sodium-sensitive sub-demographic.

She received a mostly false rating for her attack on the Trump administration regarding its new policy on pork inspections, a topic not exactly leading the news cycle. Being from Hawaii, the state which leads the nation in Spam consumption, she was probably surprised when this didn't go mega viral.

Other headlines:

13. Andrew Yang: 27.2 (Last week: 12th / 27.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Yang has a few go-to lines when he's on the campaign trail, such as: "The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math." Another is apparently the Jeb-esque "Chant my name! Chant my name!"

Yang continues to be one of the more interesting candidates in this race, essentially running a remix of the "One Tough Nerd" formula that worked for Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.

I highly recommend listening to his interview with Ben Shapiro, where Yang earns respect as the only Democratic presidential candidate in modern history to actually show up to a challenging and in-depth interview with a knowledgeable conservative.

But hidden in the Shapiro interview is the nasty little secret of the Yang campaign. His policy prescriptions, while still very liberal, come off as far too sane for him to compete in this Stalin look-alike contest.

Other headlines:

12. Jay Inslee: 30.4 (Last week: 11th / 30.4)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If you read the Inslee candidate profile, I said he was running a one-issue climate campaign. This week, he called for a climate change-only debate, and blamed Donald Trump for flooding in Iowa.

He also may sign the nation's first "human composting" legalization bill. He can start by composting his presidential campaign.

Other headlines:

11. John Hickenlooper: 32.2 (Last week: 10th / 32.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

John Hickenlooper was sick of being asked if he would put a woman on the ticket, in the 0.032% chance he actually won the nomination.

So he wondered why the female candidates weren't being asked if they would name a male VP if they won?

Seems like a logical question, but only someone who is high on tailpipe fumes would think it was okay to ask in a Democratic primary. Hickenlooper would be better served by just transitioning to a female and demanding other candidates are asked why they don't have a transgendered VP.

Other headlines:

10. Julian Castro: 35.7 (Last week: 9th / 36.2)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Lowering expectations is a useful strategy when your wife asks you to put together an Ikea end table, or when you've successfully convinced Charlize Theron to come home with you. But is it a successful campaign strategy?

Julian Castro is about to find out. He thinks the fact that everyone thinks he's crashing and burning on the campaign trail so far is an "advantage." Perhaps he can take the rest of the field by surprise on Super Tuesday when they finally realize he's actually running.

Other headlines:

9. Kirsten Gillibrand: 38.1 (Last week: 8th / 37.8)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Gillibrand wants you to know that the reason her campaign has been such a miserable failure so far, is because she called for a certain senator to step down. The problem might also be that another certain senator isn't a good presidential candidate.

She also spent the week arm wrestling, and dancing at a gay bar called Blazing Saddle. In this time of division, one thing we can all agree on: Blazing Saddle is a really solid name for a gay bar.

Other headlines:

8. Amy Klobuchar: 45.1 (Last week: 7th / 45.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Klobuchar is attempting a run in the moderate wing of the Democratic primary, which would be a better idea if such a wing existed.

She hasn't committed to impeaching Donald Trump and has actually voted to confirm over half of his judicial nominees. My guess is this will not be ignored by her primary opponents.

She also wants to resolve an ongoing TPS issue, which I assume means going by Peter Gibbons' desk every morning and making sure he got the memo about the new cover sheets.

Other headlines:

7. Elizabeth Warren: 45.3 (Last week: 6th / 46.0)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Elizabeth Warren is bad at everything she does while she's campaigning. I don't really even watch Game of Thrones, and the idea that Warren would write a story about how the show proves we need more powerful women makes me cringe.

Of course, more powerful people of all the 39,343 genders are welcome, but it's such a transparent attempt at jumping on the back of a pop-culture event to pander to female voters, it's sickening.

We can only hope that when she's watching Game of Thrones, she's gonna grab her a beer.

Other headlines:

6. Cory Booker: 54.9 (Last week: 5th / 55.5)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Booker is tied with Kamala Harris for the most missed Senate votes of the campaign so far. He gets criticized for this, but I think he should miss even more votes.

Booker is also pushing a national day off on Election Day—because the approximately six months of early voting allowed in every state just isn't enough.

Of course, making it easier to vote doesn't mean people are going to vote for Booker. So he's throwing trillions of dollars in bribes (my word, not his) to seal the deal.

Bookermania is in full effect, with 40 whole people showing up to his appearance in Nevada. Local press noted that the people were of "varying ages," an important distinction to most other crowds, which are entirely comprised of people with the same birthday.

Other headlines:

5. Robert Francis O’Rourke: 60.2 (Last week: 4th /62.6)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

Kirsten Gillibrand gave less than 2% of her income to charity. The good news is that she gave about seven times as much as Beto O'Rourke. Robert Francis, or Bob Frank, also happens to be one of the wealthiest candidates in the race. His late seventies father-in-law has been estimated to be worth as much as $20 billion, though the number is more likely to be a paltry $500 million.

He's made millions from a family company investing in fossil fuels and pharmaceutical stocks, underpaid his taxes for multiple years, and is suing the government to lower property taxes on a family-owned shopping center.

He's also all but disappeared. It's a long race, and you don't win a nomination in April of the year before election day. If he's being frugal and figuring out what he believes, it might be a good move.

But it's notable that all the "pretty boy" hype that Bob Frank owned going into this race has been handed over to Mayor Pete. Perhaps Beto is spending his time working on curbing the sweating, the hand gestures, and the issues with jumping on counters like a feline.

Other headlines:

4. Pete Buttigieg: 62.9 (Last week: 3rd / 62.9)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

When we first put candidates in tiers earlier this year, we broke everyone into five categories from "Front Runners" to "Eh, no." In the middle is a category called "Maybe, if everything goes right," and that's where we put Pete Buttigieg.

Well, everything has gone right so far. But Mayor Pete will be interested to learn that the other 19 candidates in this race are not going to hand him this nomination. Eventually, they will start saying negative things about him (they've started the opposition research process already), and it will be interesting to see how Petey deals with the pressure. We've already seen how it has affected Beto in a similar situation.

The media has spoken endlessly about the sexual orientation of Buttigieg, but not every Democratic activist is impressed. Barney Frank thinks the main reason he's getting this amount of attention is because he is gay. And for some, being a gay man just means you're a man, which isn't good enough.

When you base your vote on a candidate's genitals, things can get confusing.

Other headlines:

3. Kamala Harris: 68.6 (Last week: 1st / 69.1)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

There are a couple of ways to view the Harris candidacy so far.

#1 - Harris launched with much fanfare and an adoring media. She has since lost her momentum. Mayor Pete and former Mayor Bernie have the hype, and Kamala is fading.

#2 - Harris is playing the long game. She showed she can make an impact with her launch, but realizes that a media "win" ten months before an important primary means nothing. She's working behind the scenes and cleaning up with donations, prominent supporters, and loads of celebrities to execute an Obama style onslaught.

I tend to be in category 2, but I admit that's somewhat speculative. Harris seems to be well positioned to make a serious run, locking up more than double the amount of big Clinton and Obama fundraisers than any other candidate.

One interesting policy development for Harris that may hurt her in the primary is her lack of utter disgust for the nation of Israel. There's basically one acceptable position in a Democratic primary when it comes to Israel, which is that it's a racist and terrorist state, existing only to torture innocent Palestinians.

Certainly no one is going to mistake Harris for Donald Trump, but a paragraph like this is poison to the modern Democratic primary voter:

"Her support for Israel is central to who she is," Harris' campaign communications director, Lily Adams, told McClatchy. "She is firm in her belief that Israel has a right to exist and defend itself, including against rocket attacks from Gaza."

Just portraying the rocket attacks as "attacks" is controversial these days for Democrats, and claiming they are responses to attacks indicates you think the Jeeeewwwwwwwws aren't the ones responsible for the start of every hostility. Heresy!

Someone get Kamala a copy of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' before she blows her chance to run the free world.

2. Bernie Sanders: 69.2 (Last week: 2nd / 68.3)

CANDIDATE PROFILE

If Bernie Sanders hates millionaires as much as he claims, he must hate the mirror. As a millionaire, it might surprise some that he donated only 1% to charity. But it shouldn't.

It's entirely consistent with Sandersism to avoid giving to private charity. Why would you? Sanders believes the government does everything better than the private sector. He should be giving his money to the government.

Of course, he doesn't. He takes the tax breaks from the evil Trump tax plan he derides. He spends his money on fabulous vacation homes. He believes in socialism for thee, not for me.

Yes, this is enough to convince the Cardi B's of the world, all but guaranteeing a lock on the rapper-and-former-stripper-that-drugged-and-stole-from-her-prostitution-clients demographic. But can that lack of consistency hold up in front of general election voters?

If Bernie reads this and would like a path to credibility, clear out your bank account and send it here:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Funds Management Branch
P.O. Box 1328
Parkersburg, WV 26106-1328


Other headlines:

1. Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.: 78.8 (NEW)

Joe has run for president 113 times during his illustrious career, successfully capturing the presidency in approximately zero of his campaigns.

However, when the eternally woke Barack Obama had a chance to elevate a person of color, woman, or anything from the rainbow colored QUILTBAG, he instead chose the oldest, straightest, whitest guy he could find, and our man Robinette was the beneficiary.

Biden has been through a lot, much of it of his own making. Forget about his plagiarism and propensity to get a nostril full of each passing females' hair, his dealings while vice president in both Ukraine and China are a major general election vulnerability— not to mention a legal vulnerability for his children. But hey, win the presidency and you can pardon everyone, right?

His supposed appeal to rust belt voters makes him, on paper, a great candidate to take on Trump. The Clinton loss hinged on about 40,000 voters changing their mind from Hillary to Donald in a few states—the exact areas where victory could possibly be secured by someone named "Middle Class Joe" (as he alone calls himself.)

No one loves Joe Biden more than Joe Biden, and there's a relatively convincing case for his candidacy. But we must remember this unquestionable truth: Joe Biden is not good at running for president.

He's a gaffe machine that churns out mistake after mistake, hoping only to have his flubs excused by his unending charisma. But, will that work without the use of his legendary groping abilities? Only time, and a few dozen unnamed women, will tell.

Also, yes. Robinette is really his middle name.

If only Karl Marx were alive today to see his wackiest ideas being completely paraded around. He would be so proud. I can see him now: Sprawled out on his hammock from REI, fiddling around for the last vegan potato chip in the bag as he binge-watches Academy Awards on his 70-inch smart TV. In between glances at his iPhone X (he's got a massive Twitter following), he sips Pepsi. In his Patagonia t-shirt and NIKE tennis shoes, he writes a line or two about "oppression" and "the have-nots" as part of his job for Google.

His house is loaded with fresh products from all the woke companies. In the fridge, he's got Starbucks, he loves their soy milk. He's got Ben & Jerry's in the freezer. He tells everyone that, if he shaved, he'd use Gillette, on account of the way they stand up for the Have-Nots. But, really, Marx uses Dollar Shave Club because it's cheaper, a higher quality. Secretly, he loves Chic-Fil-A. He buys all his comic books off Amazon. The truth is, he never thought people would actually try to make the whole "communism" thing work.

RELATED: SOCIALISM: This is the most important special we have done

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism. They use their status as corporations to spread a socialist message and encourage people to do their part in social justice. The idea of companies in America using socialism at all is as confusing and ridiculous as a donkey in a prom dress: How did this happen? Is it a joke? Why is nobody bursting out in laughter? How far is this actually going to go? Does someone actually believe that they can take a donkey to prom?

Companies have adopted a form of socialism that is sometimes called woke capitalism.

On the micro level, Netflix has made some socialist moves: The "like/dislike" voting system was replaced after a Netflix-sponsored stand-up special by Amy Schumer received as tidal wave of thumb-downs. This summer, Netflix will take it a step further in the name of squashing dissent by disabling user comments and reviews. And of course most of us share a Netflix account with any number of people. Beyond that, they're as capitalist as the next mega-company.

Except for one area: propaganda. Netflix has started making movie-length advertisements for socialism. They call them "documentaries," but we know better than that. The most recent example is "Knock Down the House," which comes out tomorrow. The 86-minute-long commercial for socialism follows four "progressive Democrat" women who ran in the 2018 midterms, including our favorite socialist AOC.

Here's a snippet from the movie so good that you'll have to fight the urge to wave your USSR flag around the room:

This is what the mainstream media wants you to believe. They want you to be moved. They want the soundtrack to inspire you to go out and do something.

Just look at how the mainstream media treated the recent high-gloss "documentary" about Ilhan Omar, "Time for Ilhan." It received overwhelmingly bad ratings on IMDb and other user-review platforms, but got a whopping 93% on the media aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

This is exactly what the media wants you to think of when you hear the word socialism. Change. Empowerment. Strength. Diversity. They spend so much energy trying to make socialism cool. They gloss right over the unbelievable death toll. BlazeTV's own Matt Kibbe made a great video on this exact topic.

Any notion of socialism in America is a luxury, made possible by capitalism. The woke companies aren't actually doing anything for socialism. If they're lucky, they might get a boost in sales, which is the only thing they want anyway.

We want to show you the truth. We want to tell you the stories you won't hear anywhere else, not on Netflix, not at some movie festival. We're going to tell you what mainstream media doesn't want you to know.

Look at how much history we've lost over the years. They changed it slowly. But they had to. Because textbooks were out. So people were watching textbooks. It was printed. You would bring the book home. Mom and dad might go through it and check it out. So you had to slowly do things.

Well, they're not anymore. There are no textbooks anymore. Now, you just change them overnight. And we are losing new history. History is being changed in realtime.

RELATED: 'Good Morning Texas' joins Glenn to get an inside look at Mercury Museum

You have to write down what actually is happening and keep a journal. Don't necessarily tell everybody. Just keep a journal for what is happening right now. At some point, our kids won't have any idea of the truth. They will not have any idea of what this country was, how it really happened. Who were the good guys. Who were the bad guys. Who did what.

As Michelle Obama said. Barack knows. We have to change our history. Well, that's exactly what's happening. But it's happening at a very rapid pace.

We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased.

I first said this fifteen years ago, people need clay plots. We have to preserve our history as people preserved histories in ancient days, with the dead see scrolls, by putting them in caves in a clay pot. We have to preserve our history. It is being systematically erased. And I don't mean just the history of the founding of our country. I mean the history that's happening right now.

And the history that's happening right now, you're a problem if you're a conservative or a Christian. You are now a problem on the left, if you disagree and fall out of line at all. This is becoming a fascistic party. And you know what a fascist is. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican or an independent. If you believe it's my way or the highway, if you believe that people don't have a right to their opinion or don't have a right to their own life — you could do be a fascist.

Christianity might seem pretty well-protected in the U.S., but that's not the case in many parts of the globe.

On Easter Sunday, suicide bombers made the news for killing 290 innocent Christians in Sri Lanka and injuring another 500. On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre. Of course, the Western world mourned this tragic loss of life on a holy day of worship, but we forget that this isn't an isolated incident. Indeed, Christians are discriminated at extreme levels worldwide, and it needs to be brought to light. And whenever we do highlight brutal persecutions such as the Easter bombings in Sri Lanka, we need to call them what they are — targeted attacks against Christians. Sadly, many of our politicians are deathly afraid to do so.

RELATED: Hey media, there is absolutely a war on Christians!

A 2018 Pew Research Center study found that Christians are harassed in 144 countries — the most of any other faith — slightly outnumbering Muslims for the top of the list. Additionally, Open Doors, a non-profit organization that works to serve persecuted Christians worldwide, found in their 2019 World Watch List that over 245 million Christians are seriously discriminated against for their religious beliefs. Sadly, this translates into 4,136 Christians killed and 2,625 either arrested, sentenced, imprisoned, or detained without trial over the year-long study period. And when it comes to churches, those in Sri Lanka were merely added to a long list of 1,266 Christian buildings attacked for their religion.

These breathtaking stats receive very little coverage in the Western world. And there seems to be a profound hesitation from politicians in discussing the issue of persecution against Christians. In the case of the Sri Lanka bombings, there's even a reluctance to use the word "Christian."

After the horrific Pittsburgh Synagogue and New Zealand Mosque shootings, Democrats rightfully acknowledged the disturbing trend of targeted attacks against Jews and Muslims. But some of these same politicians refer to the Sri Lanka bombings with careless ambiguity.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face?

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, for instance, certainly did — calling the incursions "attacks on Easter worshippers." Understandably, the term confused and frustrated many Christians. Although, supporters of these politicians argued the term was appropriate since a recent Associated Press report used it, and it was later picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Fox News. However, as more Democrats like 2020 presidential candidate Julián Castro and Rep. Dan Kildee continued to use the phrase "Easter worshippers," it became clear that these politicians were going out of their way to avoid calling a spade a spade.

So why is it so hard for our leaders to acknowledge the persecutions Christians face? For starters, Christianity in democratic countries like the U.S. is seen differently than in devastated countries like Somalia. According to Pew Research, over 70% of Americans are Christian, with 66% of those Christians being white and 35% baby boomers. So while diverse Christians from all over the world are persecuted for their faith—in the U.S., Christians are a dominant religion full of old white people. This places Christians at the bottom of progressives' absurd intersectional totem poll, therefore leaving little sympathy for their cause. However, the differing experiences of Christians worldwide doesn't take away from the fact that they are unified in their beliefs.

By refusing to name the faith of the Sri Lankan martyrs, politicians are sending a message that they have very little, if no, concern about the growing amount of persecution against Christians worldwide.

Martyrs don't deserve to be known as "Easter worshippers." They should be known by the Christian faith they gave their lives for. Decent politicians need to call the tragedy in Sri Lanka what it is — a vicious attack on the Christian faith.

Patrick Hauf (@PatrickHauf) is a writer for Young Voices and Vice President of Lone Conservative. His work can be found in the Washington Examiner, Townhall, FEE, and more.