Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

Alexis de Tocqueville, Essays in Democracy

For too long, it seems, democracy has been under assault. For some, this assault is entirely a new phenomenon – though history proves otherwise. In Greek history, the story is told of sea nymphs, part female and part bird, who lure mariners off course with a seductive song to crash into the rocky coastline, meeting their death. Socialism is the modern version of the siren’s song.

On its face, socialism seems reasonable. No sensible person rejects the notion that government should be about the business of equality, justice, and equitable treatment in all things related to its citizens. Even the least compassionate, most indifferent know intuitively there are people in far worse condition than their own. Allowing an impartial and dispassionate government to distribute wealth, position, and property ownership can not wholly be without merit. When left to their own devices, humans will not satisfy their wants, reject any notion of the common good, and hoard wealth to the disadvantage of others.

Moreover, collectivism appears very democratic. What can possibly go wrong in a system where everyone owns everything equally and where the governing authority makes those decisions for you? Isn’t everything produced in a sense a social product? Does not society benefit from the contribution of everyone in the society and, therefore, entitled to at least partial ownership of what is produced? And while the modern progressive, neo-Marxists, democratic socialists, or social reformer distorts language to articulate the dissolution of the democratic capitalist state in the name of equity, they all understand full well the ultimate goal – the end of democratic state sovereignty and personal liberty. Marx wrote, “If you can cut the people off from their history, then they can be easily persuaded.” Persuaded to what end, you may ask – the siren’s song.

Are we not living in a time when history is not presented as a series of facts, but rather as a series of interpretations, political in nature. If we are to take history at its word, then history demonstrates the difference between the progressives in the nineteenth century and those who claim their position today. The progressives of the old are not of the same character or ilk of the neo-progressives of our time.

Unlike their modern progeny, the early twentieth-century progressives were sincere in their desire to reform society. Though some would prefer socialism over capitalism, the conflation of democracy with capitalism did not require dismantling the ballot box, the wholesale destruction of representative government, or penalizing the entrepreneur. On the other hand, the modern progressive has little qualms or hesitation in dismantling the guardrails of democratic practice. Under their utopian vision, society has little need for law enforcement, a Constitution, freedom to express an oppositional position, or basic civility. While they constantly harp on the oppressor, they don’t hear the siren’s song, whose lyrics lead them to be dashed upon the rocks. They are deaf and blind to comprehending the destruction of democracy can only end in one way – more oppression, not equality.

The only path to liberty is equality. But, how then can freedom and equality be best progressed? Is it through an artificial system of forced communal sharing? Or through free men and women expressing their unheeded common interest and desire for a better future through the democratic process? One might propose a socialist revolution will bring upon the desired change more rapidly than the glacier pace of democracy. But, history yields a far different conclusion. Social revolution stoked by Marxist ideology, even covertly packaged for media consumption as social democracy, social justice, equality, or progressivism, replaces the people’s choice with the oppressor.

No time in history or no place on this planet has socialism produced anything other than oppression. Nowhere is economic disparity, social degeneration, oppression of thought, and opportunity greater than in countries where democracy is a shell for socialist or communist regimes. If equality is the goal, then why would you trust the very people to look out for your best interests once they are isolated from the prospect of being removed from power by the democratic process?

Liberty and equality only exist where democracy is treasured. Yes, the democratic process takes time. Yes, the democratic process sometimes results in less desired and ineffectual outcomes. Yes, there is inequality that must be rooted out. Yes, democracy has failures, but not of the process or system. Rather, democracy’s failures of human nature. “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite,” wrote Thomas Jefferson.

Notice the difference. Do we choose equality in liberty or equality in restraint and servitude? The answer is clear. Do not heed the song of the socialist siren!