Milton Friedman: The Four-Part Series

There is one man who embodies the spirit of capitalism, but most have never heard of him. That needs to change. It's time for Americans to remember and get to know Milton Friedman, the father of modern economics.

Milton Friedman was a brilliant champion of the free market, capitalism and the American way of life. He was not a politician, just a man who looked at things in a radically different way --- and articulated them simply and persuasively.

The four-part series is compiled below for your convenience.

Part I: Economics 101

Bloomberg Money recently printed an article extolling the “helicopter money” theory from a man many consider to be the greatest economist in the 20th century — Milton Friedman. Friedman was a brilliant defender of the free market — or capitalism.

Milton Friedman was the son of poor, immigrant parents. His father died when he was 15, forcing him to creatively supplement a scholarship to Rutgers University. Capitalizing on the tradition that all freshmen must wear green ties, he and a friend went door to door, selling them in the dormitory. There he learned early the benefits of a free market — offering products at a lower, competitive price while making a profit.

After graduating from Rutgers, Friedman earned his Master’s Degree from the University of Chicago and later his Ph.D. from Columbia University. He married his college sweetheart and went on to teach at Columbia, Cambridge, the University of Chicago and the Hoover Institution.

Before Friedman rose to prominence, the preeminent economist of the 20th century was Englishman John Maynard Keynes, who advocated for more government intervention in the economy. Friedman however, was a rare breed and didn’t think inside the box. He was thrilled in 1947 to receive an invitation from the Nobel Prize winner Friedrich von Hayek to meet in Sweden with some of the brightest minds in the world. Decades later, in 1976, Friedman himself was awarded the Nobel Prize in economic sciences.

Friedman was unafraid and unashamed in the goodness and rightness of capitalism. He often engaged detractors on college campuses, stating that “a society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither equality nor liberty.” In 1979, he sat down for an epic interview with Phil Donahue, addressing the talk show host’s concerns about capitalism.

Today, Friedman would no doubt be labeled an uncaring, hateful racist for his straightforward thinking. For example, when asked at a college forum what role the government plays in helping the poor, he spoke decisively on the matter:

“First of all, the government doesn’t have any responsibility. People have responsibility. This building doesn’t have responsibility. You and I have responsibility. People have responsibility,” Friedman said. “How can we as people exercise our responsibility to our fellow man most effectively? That’s the problem. So far as poverty is concerned, there has never in history been a more effective machine for eliminating poverty than the free enterprise system and the free market.”

Friedman’s ideas would eventually become hugely influential in the thinking of Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, President Ronald Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and later, Ron and Rand Paul.

Milton Friedman died in 2006, at the age of 94, silencing a voice that strongly defended the virtues of capitalism and a free market system that has richly blessed as the United States.

Part II: Evils of Collectivism

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman was a staunch and brilliant defender of capitalism. He understood that without America and the free market system, the world would still be languishing in the Dark Ages. He very often took on socialists and their distortions of history and reality. In a forum at the University of Chicago, Friedman took on Michael Harrington of the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee.

MICHAEL: I think people over 65 years of age in the United States today are freer now because of Medicare. I do not think that the freedom to die from the lack of medicine was a very good thing. Secondly, related to industrialists, I think that one of the startling things about American history is that when Franklin Roosevelt was saving the system from itself, the main beneficiaries were screaming bloody murder at him for being a traitor to his class, when he was, in fact, the salvation of that class. And I think if you — therefore, if you look at our history, I do think you find a tremendous myopia on the part of industrialists, and you find that the positive increments to our freedom, interestingly enough have not come from the college graduates, but often from people — not from the best people. It’s come from working people. It’s come from poor people. It’s come from blacks and Hispanics and the like.

MILTON: Unaccustomed as I am to agreeing with Michael Harrington, I will agree in part with what he’s just said. I do not believe it’s proper to put the situation, in terms of industrialists versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I am in favor of less government is because when you have more government, industrialists take it over, and the two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. I think business is a wonderful institution, provided it has to face competition in the marketplace and it can’t get away with something, except by producing a better product at a lower cost. And that’s why I don’t want government to step in and help the business community. Now, I want to go to your question about Medicare. There are many people who benefited from Medicare, but you’re not looking at the cost side. What has happened to the people who are paying for it? It isn’t — we don’t have a free good. It isn’t coming from nowhere. And are they benefiting from it, in a cost-effective way? Those are the questions. It’s demagoguery, if you’ll pardon me, Michael Harrington, to say the people who have Medicare are freer. Of course, in one dimension. But they themselves had been paying all their life, and have they gotten a good bargain? At the moment, they have. The young man, the young working people who are going into Social Security now, they’re going to get a very raw deal indeed.

Milton Friedman boldly argued against government-controlled fairness and “social justice.”

MILTON: Social injustices are clearly greatest where you have central control. The degree of social injustice and torture in a place like — and incarceration, in a place like Russia, is of a different order of magnitude than it is in those Western countries where most of us have grown up and in which we have been accustomed to regarding freedom as our natural heritage. Where do you have the greatest degree of inequality? In the socialist states of the world.

Don’t look at what the proponents of one system or another say are their intentions, but look at what the actual results are. Socialism, which means government ownership and operation of means of production, has appealed to high-minded, fine people. To people of idealistic views because of the supposed objectives of socialism, especially because of the supposed objectives of equality and social justice. Now, those are fine objectives. And it’s a tribute to the people of good will that those objectives should appeal to them, but you have to ask the question: Does a system, no matter what its proponents say, produce those results? And once you look at the results, it’s crystal clear that they do not.

According to Milton Friedman, the motives of those involved in oppressive nations may even be good, but it doesn’t matter. He argued to look beyond the motives and assess the results.

MILTON: The most harm of all is done when power is in the hands of people who are absolutely persuaded of the purity of their instincts and the purity of their intentions. Thoreau said that philanthropy is a much overrated virtue. Sincerity is also a much overrated virtue. Heaven preserve us from the sincere reformer who knows what’s good for you and, by heaven, is going to make you do it whether you like it or not. That’s when you get the greatest harm done. I have no reason to doubt that Lenin was a man whose intentions were good, maybe they weren’t, but he was completely persuaded that he was right and he was willing to use any methods at all for the ultimate good.

Friedman tried to reason with the collectivists who believed in socialism and wanted more of it, including more health care.

MILTON: I say to people who say we have to have government medicine in there. I say, would you mind first telling me which of the other great reforms of government have achieved their objectives? I take it you mean the federal housing program has solved the problem of housing for the low-income groups. I take it you mean that the federal welfare program has solved the problems of welfare of indigents and dependents, that federal urban renewal and housing — and reconstruction programs have solved the problem of urban life.

Despite the pressures from socialists and communists, Friedman never lost hope — and neither should we.

Part III: Friedman vs. Liberal Detractors

Milton Friedman was a powerful, passionate, cheerful and reasoned defender of what America and capitalism has done for the country and the world. Friedman’s handling of radicals and leftist was done with calm logic grounded in facts and common sense. Many today might be thinking, “Mister, we could use a man like Milton Friedman again.”

When Friedman encountered radical extremist Frances Fox Piven, who co-authored the Cloward-Piven plan to overload the welfare system in this country and bring down our economy, he challenged her irrational logic with facts and direct questions.

FRANCES: That so-called free enterprise system has always used government. The entrepreneurs of that free enterprise system have always used government. And the question that you raise is whether other people can use government to achieve their ends.

The free enterprise system, as it is spread around the world, as it is spread to Asia and Africa and Latin America, has spread through the force of alms, among other things. And those alms were wielded by governments. That was government intervention under the name of the free enterprise system, but a government intervention which destroyed the freedoms of many people.

MILTON: You always are talking about mixed systems, and I challenge you to find a single example in history at any time of any society where people have been relatively free, and I don’t mean merely — what you call merely — economic freedom. I mean freedom in the full sense. I mean freedom of individuals to pursue their own objectives, their own values, to live their lives. I want you to name me any society in which you’ve had any large measure of that freedom, where capitalism and free enterprise has not been the predominant mechanism for controlling economic activity. Not the sole mechanism, but the dominant one. I want you to name me one exception.

Friedman was continually attacked by leftists who believed socialism or communism were superior to capitalism and the free market. And he continually rebutted their claims with a clear truth based in facts.

Friedman also educated college students who believed the free market to be inferior. When challenged by one student that in a free market system the poor remained poor and the rich remained rich, Friedman had plenty to say.

MILTON: This is not built into the system at all. It’s never been true. It’s simply a false. If you look at the evidence, there is an enormous amount of mobility from one class to the other. In fact, there used to be a saying, three generations from church leads to church slaves, which reflected the exactly opposite affect. So it’s simply not built into the system. On the contrary, there’s a great deal of mobility within generations and between generations, and we shouldn’t argue on the basis of false factual premises. In my opinion, a society that aims for equality before liberty will end up with neither equality nor liberty.

Contrary to what most economists of his day — and of this day — believe, Friedman also felt government was the problem, not the solution for education and unemployment.

MILTON: Why do we have a black teenage unemployment rate from 30 to 40 percent? Because of two failures of government. One, a failure to provide decent schooling, which is a governmental responsibility. Has been. Whether it should be or not, it has been. And second, because of a minimum wage rate, which prevents those kids who haven’t had decent schooling from getting jobs at low pay at which they can earn the skills on the jobs that would enable them to ride to higher pay. If you look at the sources of poverty, you will find a very — most of them are derived from what I regard as wrong-headed government policy.

Rather than just citing problems, Friedman also offered solutions to things like education.

MILTON: In my opinion, there is not a single thing you could do in this world that would do more to improve the condition of the black people who are in the lowest income classes, of the black people who have been most affected by discrimination, there is not anything you could do that would be more affected than the voucher scheme. Why? Because as I said to you before, and I challenge anybody to deny it, that there’s no respect in which the black and the slum is more deprived than in the quality of schooling he can get. He’s much worse off in that respect than he is even in the quality of the housing he can get and in the quality of the automobile he can buy and the quality of the job he can get with given education.

The only effective device that there is for improving his schooling that anybody has suggested is to give the parents more control, to introduce the competition and the drive of private — of private market, to improve the quality of the schooling that is available to them.

During a Free to Choose discussion, Friedman was confronted regarding the morality of capitalism.

VOICE: Dr. Friedman, is there an economic system now or historically that has allowed free enterprise alone to determine which direction the economy goes? Secondly, in economics, you have resources. And how to best use these resources is a value judgment. But it seems to me you can either have free enterprise decide or a government decide or some combination. And don’t you think combination would be the best alternative? And thirdly — if I can remember it — isn’t there some benefit to having the government steal our money, which is what they do effectively. They hold a gun to our head and say, “Pay us 40 percent of your income and go to jail.” They take this money, and they give it mostly to government employees. Well, the government employees spend it. The marginal propensity to consume is pretty high. So the people who were robbed have to do something creative to get the money back. And isn’t this creative activity the real wealth —

MILTON: I take it that they would have to be still more creative if 98 percent were being spent by the government.

No, the third part of your thing is just pure fallacy from beginning to end. Because if those people who are now government employees, who are employed in creative activity and productive activity, they would also be spending their money. And we would have a greater total around. All you’re doing — let’s suppose for a moment — take the extreme case that that 40 percent is being used just to have people sit around. The fact that they spend their money doesn’t alter the situation. The only product there is, is what the 60 percent produce. And that 60 percent is divided among 100 percent. If those 40 percent are also producing goods, then there are more goods to go around among everybody.

You are just involved in a fallacy of looking at dollars, which is important sometimes. Instead of looking at the real product, the goods and services that people produce and people consume.

Spending isn’t good. What’s good is producing. What we want to have is more goods and services. And as I say, the obvious indication that that’s clear is that if your logic were right, it would apply at — for 50 percent. 60 percent. 70. 90. 98. 100 percent. And, obviously, you would see that that would be a bunch of nonsense at that stage.

It is desirable to have some money spent by government for those things, those services that we believe we can get more usefully and more effectively through government. If people are getting their money’s worth, fine. That’s why it’s very desirable to have governmental expenditures take place at as local a level as possible. Because you, as a citizen of a small community, can judge whether you’re getting your money’s worth. You can decide that you want to spend it. But when it comes to the federal government, you tend to think that you’re spending somebody else’s money. And you are in a way. But he’s spending yours.

Friedman always went back to people and production being the answer — not government control or programs.

MILTON: The real problem is, in my opinion, that as we move from the local community to the state and from the state to the federal government, it becomes increasingly difficult for us to control the mechanism we have established. And that mechanism tends to control us. That was the great wisdom of the Founding Fathers of this country, of the people who wrote the Constitution. That Constitution was designed to limit government’s powers, in order to preserve the freedom of the individuals. And what has happened in the past 50 years is that the fundamental character of the Constitution has really been changed. We have broadened enormously the conception of what is a government mental power and what is not and have departed from that limited government until we have created a Frankenstein, an unlimited government that threatens to destroy us.

Part IV: Unapologetic and Unafraid

Through recordings left behind, we’re able to have a conversation, if you will, with the greatest defender of capitalism in the past century: Milton Friedman. He was unapologetic for the free market because he knew and understood its amazing benefits — the ability to lift billions of people out of poverty. That confidence enabled him to be unafraid when defending wealth.

VOICE: Why is it that we have so many millionaires and everything in the United States and we still have so many impoverished people who try to get up into the world? Why is it that we have this lack of money, where people who can’t support themselves decently and get a decent job, where all these big men are up on top making oodles and oodles of money — they don’t need it. They can only eat that much. Eat, you know, sleep in the bed . . .

MILTON: And what do you suppose they do? If they don’t eat it and don’t use it, what do you suppose they do with it?

VOICE: They hoard it. They hoard it and invest it. MILTON: What do you mean hoard it? You mean they put it under their pillows?

VOICE: No. They keep investing it.

MILTON: Investing it in what? What are they invested in?

VOICE: Well, they invest it in a lot of different things that the little people need.

MILTON: Well, do they invest it in factories?

VOICE: Yes. MILTON: Does some of that money end up in machines?

VOICE: Yes.

MILTON: Do those factories and machines provide ordinary working people with jobs or not? Where do you suppose the improvements and productivity come from except from the investment by people of their savings? But if you look at it over time, if you get a sense of proportion, the well-being of an ordinary people has been the main thing that has been improved by economic progress and economic growth and development. And residual, most residual hard cases of poverty today are the result, again, of a failure of government.

When Friedman appeared at a conference of bankers, he set them straight on the real cause of the Great Depression — and took on the Federal Reserve.

MILTON: There is hardly any view that is more widespread than the view that somehow or another the Great Depression was produced by a failure of private business. That view is held, not only by those who are in favor of greater role of government, it is held by almost everybody. I venture to suggest you that if you go to any bankers, the people who are here today at this banking conference, and if you talk to them, I’d venture to say, nine out of ten of them, if they didn’t, hadn’t heard what I’m going to say, that nine out of ten of them would say, “Well, of course, the Great Depression was a failure of private business. It was due to an overextension. Over speculation of the 1920s. Or it was due to an excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy at the expense of the poor in the 1920s. Or it was due to speculative investment abroad or whatever. But it was a failure of private business. And government had to step in in order to rescue private business from its own failure.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. …The Great Depression was not produced by a failure of business. On the contrary, it was produced by a failure of government and a failure of government in an area in which responsibility had been assigned to governments since the founding of this country. The Constitution of the United States, it gives Congress the power to coin money and set the value thereof. And it was in the management of this fundamental function of government that governments failed and produced the Great Depression.

When confronted by a college student who strongly believed in the redistribution of wealth, Friedman torpedoed his points calmly and rationally.

MILTON: There’s no justice in the distribution of income and wealth. I never would argue there is. Those who are wealthy don’t deserve to be wealthy anymore than those who are poor deserve to be poor. It’s pure accident. And we — but if you start to look at things that way, you’re going to go down the wrong line. Because you’re going to get back into this kind of a situation of destroying the good things, destroying what is possible, in the search of an impossible ideal. The only way in which you can redistribute effectively the wealth is by destroying the incentives to have wealth. And the question is: What is the way, what is a system which will offer those people who are so unlucky as to be born without good positions, what is a system which will offer them the greatest opportunity?

VOICE: Well, one possible way of redistributing the wealth without affecting the incentives to earn as much income as possible is simply to have a 100 percent inheritance tax. That won’t affect the incentives. It’s only after the person is dead.

MILTON: I beg your pardon. I’m afraid, I don’t know the family you come from. I don’t know. But as you grow up, you will discover that this is really a family society and not an individual society. We tend to talk about an individualist society. But it really isn’t. It’s a family society. And the greatest incentives of all, the incentives that have really driven people on have largely been the incentives of family creation, of family — of pursuing of — of establishing their families on a decent system. What is the effect of a 100 percent inheritance tax? The percent of a 100 percent inheritance tax is to encourage people to dissipate their wealth in high living.

VOICE: What’s the harm in that?

MILTON: The harm of that is, where do you get the factories? Where do you get the machines? Where do you get the capital investment? Where do you get the incentive to improve technology, if what you’re doing is to establish a society in which the incentive is for people if they have by accident accumulated some wealth, to waste it in frivolous entertainment? You know, the thing is that the thing that is amazing that people don’t really recognize is the extent to which the market system has, in fact, encouraged people and enabled people to work hard and sacrifice in what I must confess, I often regard as an irrational way, for the benefit of their children. One of the most curious things to me in observation is that almost all people value the utility which their children will get from consumption, higher than they value their own. Here are parents who have every reason to expect that their children have a higher income than they have. And they scrimp and save in order to be able to leave something for their children. I think you are sort of like a bull in a China shop, if you talk about the — the 100 percent inheritance tax having no incentive effect. It would destroy a continuing society. It would destroy a society in which there are links from one generation to the next.

Those who believe in income inequality and wealth redistribution have ample and vocal advocates today. Unfortunately, for capitalism and free market principles, it seems that since Friedman’s death in 2006, there hasn’t been anyone quite like him to defend its benefits and virtue.

Listen to the Full Series on Milton Friedman

Part I: Economics 101

Part II: Evils of Collectivism

Part III: Friedman vs. Liberal Detractors

Part IV: Unapologetic and Unafraid

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.