The American right has something in common with the extreme left. Both chose to ignore that little something called the social market economy; both seem ignorant of the fact that there can be a kind, gentle capitalism with a social conscience.

Let's look back to when Castro assumed office. Che, for example, had seen the plight of the poor and excesses of the rich. He was (rightfully) enraged by the injustices and hardships of laissez-faire capitalism. But why did he opt for communism? As if there was no alternative, Che, Castro and the Cuban revolutionaries presented themselves with a false dilemma: socialism or capitalism. Yet, by this time the alternative that is the social market economy has already become prominent. Why did they not opt for Keynesian style reforms along the lines of Beveridge report that laid the groundwork for the modern British welfare state? Why chose the teachings of Lenin over those of John Maynard Keynes or Wilhelm Röpke? Why attempt to repeat Russia's communist revolution rather than the New Deal? Why use Stalin as role model, rather than FDR? West Germany, the UK, Scandinavia and every other industrialized country was demonstrating that the social market economy was superior to both: socialism and laissez-faire capitalism. Even in the U.S., our welfare state grew rapidly between the 40s and 70s, and was roughly comparable to those of Western Europe - had it not been for the right and supply-side economics American today would enjoy similar levels of economy security and liberty as Canadians or Brits. But no, they chose to go for the most extreme type of regime: a centrally planned economy, even in sight of a clear and proven alternative: welfare capitalism. Reminds you of anyone? Friedrich Van Hayek denounced modern liberalism's and social democracy's mixed market economy, stating that there could either be socialism or capitalism. The past half century has clearly proven him wrong. Yet, modern conservatives label each and every new intervention in the economy as a harbinger of socialism, ignoring that we have, and have had for over 50 years, a mixed market economy - they cite Van Hayek ignoring that we, and all other developed countries, have so clearly proven that its not socialism vs. capitalism; it's a capitalism with a conscience. During the Keynesian consensus such a statement would have seemed banal in the U.S., but alas conservatives have turned back the clock to the 1920s in political rhetoric, let's hope - for the sake of most Americans - they don't do so on public policy.