All right, for the sake of argument, let us imagine a clean sweep by the Democrats in 2020 – White House, Senate and House. In the Bible (Ephesians 6:11-12), we are advised that, when entering battle, one should “know thy enemy.” So, as conservatives, it behooves us to fully examine the liberal/progressive plans for our country when they, for the sake of argument, control the country.

There are myriad possibilities for a Democratic president, so let us start with the five leading contenders who nicely represent the Dems’ insistence on identity politics – young, tech-savvy Beto; old white guy Bernie Sanders; latecomer, also-old white guy Joe Biden; mature, beer-drinking woman, Elizabeth Warren (who has relinquished her minority status); and real minority woman, Kamala Harris. In our scenario, Beto is eliminated because he is viewed as the ultimate participation-trophy candidate. In the spirit of “leave the Dems alone while they’re eating their own,” the politically correct on the left throw Biden on the Me-Too ash heap, and Warren is doomed because of a lack of billionaire support. The result is the presidential dream team of Sanders and Harris.

As he promised, on his first day in office President Sanders mandates “Medicare for all.” Democratic majorities in the House and Senate quickly pass legislation that makes private health insurance illegal. Two reactions are immediate – health insurers flood the courts with breach-of-contract lawsuits, and the Office of Management and Budget quickly issues an analysis showing that not only are there insufficient taxes to pay for the first year of the plan, but in eight years the resultant trillion-dollar cost will render the United States essentially bankrupt. Sanders disagrees. He persists that the new capitalist-socialist system will somehow prevail.

Meanwhile, Vice President Harris is ardently pushing the Green New Deal, with proposed legislation championed by new House Speaker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who easily defeated rival Jerrold Nadler, who is suffering from clinical exhaustion while attempting to beat Joseph McCarthy’s record for congressional investigations. The GND legislation stipulates that all coal mining and fracking operations cease immediately, federal gasoline taxes are tripled, a carbon tax on all non-electric vehicles is established and a 50 percent government subsidy on the consumer purchase of solar panels and windmills is introduced.

Now some blue-state backbenchers are in a tizzy. Many of them ran on promises of a guaranteed income and free college tuition. One congresswoman from California laments that a third of her constituents who are unemployed and unwilling to work are demanding their promised incomes. Another blue state liberal warns that, with the recent passage of legislation giving voting rights to 16-year-olds, she is fearful of a youthful uprising if free college tuition is not granted soon.

Amidst this socialist frenzy, a Republican from a fly-over state rises in the Senate to ask how all these new programs will be financially supported. He also references a Federalist Society analysis that reveals the GND alone would subject 30 percent of the nation's gross domestic product to direct government control and that the elimination of private health insurance would result in a further 18 percent of GDP run by the government. He also has the temerity to point out that the new tax rates extending to 70 percent on top earners is insufficient to fund these socialist programs. In fact, he cites Treasury Department officials who have calculated that even a 100 percent tax would fail to support the combination of Medicare for all, the GND, free college tuition and a guaranteed minimum income.

Now while some of this “future history” is treating a serious matter with humor, there are some grave insights here. For example, the 30 percent government control of GDP, which the Green New Deal would require, is based upon actual economic projections. Moreover, the interconnected policies of Medicare for all, free college tuition and a minimum guaranteed income would be ruinous to the financial viability of the country, to say nothing about the deleterious effects upon the cherished social condition which Americans currently enjoy.

While this conservative view begins with the underpinning of Biblical scripture, let us conclude with some homespun wisdom that could serve to warn us about the lure of socialism: “Be careful what you wish for.”