This is because Democrats need to appeal to the fears and hostilities of black Americans. They paint as evil bigots Republicans who oppose welfare subsidies, racial set-asides, or any other government entitlement program. Democrats want everyone to believe that because they care so deeply for the beleaguered African-American, it is only appropriate to reach into the pockets of the “haves” and give charitably to the “have-nots.”

The condescension aside, this is the epitome of socialism. But make no mistake: Democrats do not advocate socialist practices because they care about black Americans; Democrats prey upon and exploit black Americans specifically to retain their power at any cost -- and to further their ideal of a true socialist state in America.

My friend Andy Roth, an economist at the supply-side think tank the Club for Growth, told me recently that he honestly believes Democrats like capitalism, but they think of it as imperfect. “[To them,] capitalism is something that needs micromanaging in order to create the perfect society where no one is poor and everyone gets affordable healthcare,” he said. “Little do they realize their ideas to achieve that unattainable utopia are based on Marxism.”

Andy puts forth a strong and logical case, and I largely agree. After all, between the two of us, he’s the one with the economics degree. But I’m just not sure we should so casually accept the argument that Democrats don’t “realize” their ideology practically mirrors Marxist-Leninist theory.

According to Karl Marx, socialism is the material base for communism, which is characterized by collective ownership of property and the organization of labor for the common good of the people.

Now consider a recent speech by Hillary Clinton at a fundraiser in San Francisco, where she advocated the confiscation and redistribution of income by stating, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." If listening to a senator tell you that she’s more entitled to your own money than you are doesn’t give you the heebie-jeebies, you’re most likely a Hillary-loving socialist yourself, or extremely gullible.

But that’s not the point right now. Neither is the intent of this column necessarily to discuss to what extent Democrats take advantage of the black vote. Rather, the purpose is to explain how the Democrats’ overall reliance on socialist economic principles compromises their ability to substantively attack and defeat George W. Bush this election year.

The standard Democratic complaint is that President Bush has driven the country to the extreme rightward boundary of the political spectrum, as Lanny Davis lamented on Hannity and Colmes at the outset of the Democratic National Convention.

This assertion is laughable, inasmuch as most conservatives would die for Bush to start acting like part of the team. Apparently, Mr. Davis believes that banning racial profiling of potential terrorists, refusing to prosecute illegal immigrants, and increasing federal spending on education, agricultural subsidies, and health programs even outside of Medicare and Medicaid are typical traits of your run-of-the-mill right-winger.

Hell, if it weren’t for Bush’s insistence upon identifying true terrorist threats, waging war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and cutting taxes, I might actually be tempted to write my own name along the margin of my ballot come November. Besides, if I put a little “D” next to my name, I’m sure someone at the poll would try to count it.

In actuality, that Democrats believe Bush’s policy is so far to the right might be the best overall indicator of how far to the left the Democratic Party has flown. Indeed, Democrats are so dedicated to socialist policy that they reduce themselves to calling President Bush a liar and baby-killer monotonously, instead of logically fashioning a platform that could actually win them millions of votes.

Democrats would be most successful by simply attacking Bush the spendthrift. Mimicking the conservative impression they gave voters last week during the convention, Democrats should campaign for decreasing agricultural subsidies (which mainly benefit already-wealthy farmers, anyhow), relaxing trade barriers, championing free international trade, and reforming the prescription drug entitlement Bush encouraged and Congress recently passed. Doing so would probably attract every “moderate” in the country, not to mention 25 percent of Republicans.

But, alas, doing so would require that Democrats first concede that overspending -- and not those dastardly tax cuts! -- are truly responsible for those burdensome deficits they love to scream about. After all, Democrats can least afford to go on record advocating fiscal responsibility by cutting spending -- this in itself would be the Achilles Heel of their socialist ambitions.

And so we come right back to Bush the Fascist, Bush the Liar, and Bush the Baby-Killer (no irony there, apparently). All because these Friends of Bill would rather be Friends of Karl.

Trevor Bothwell is editor of The Right Report. He is also press secretary for Brad Jewitt's (R-Md.) 2004 campaign for U.S. Congress.