The Swedish government’s own website says that 79 percent of people looking to see a specialist are able to within 90 days, “or are operated on within a further 90 days.” They want you to think that sounds good, but don’t be fooled. Because the other 21 percent of patients - more than one in five - wait more than six months for their treatment. Their health care isn’t even “free,” anyway. On top of the overly burdensome taxes levied against citizens, these governments impose copayments and cost-sharing on patients for most procedures, visits to the doctor, prescriptions and more. Look no further than the southern neighbors of the Nordic countries to see how the socialism that Democrats are vying to implement in America actually fares. Italy and Spain, for instance, impose Nordic-style high-income and sales taxes and provide generous welfare programs. But they also have onerous red tape, high taxes on corporations and unbalanced budgets. What’s the result? Unemployment sits at 10 and 14 percent in each country, and young people can’t find any jobs. The average Spanish or Italian household makes $24,000 and $26,500 per year respectively - half of the $50,000 of the average American household. Clearly, these aren’t the policies America should copy. And the reason Nordic countries aren’t imploding under those policies is because they have conservative ones keeping them afloat. So the next time a leftist tells you that they want America to be more like the Nordic countries, ask them if they want to lower corporate taxes, repeal the minimum wage, deregulate the economy and implement school choice. If they say no, it means they’re just coming for your paycheck.

But these aren’t the policies the left tout as successes. Instead, they’re always pointing to Nordic nations’ h‘eftier indiv‘idual and sales taxes, which are used to spend more on things like nationalized health care and education. What they don’t tell you is that the middle class and the poor bear the brunt of these heavier taxes. Indeed, all five Nordic countries impose value-added taxes (similar to American sales taxes) greater than 20 percent, which tax the poor more than the rich. Income and payroll taxes are somewhat higher for the wealthy, but they’re much higher for the poor and middle class. Not very progressive, is it? Higher taxes, of course, mean more people have a lower disposable income. An average American household makes over $50,000 per year, but a Danish or Swedish household makes about $30,000. And what do Nordic people get in return for their tax money? Well, not too much. Nationalized health care has a lot of problems, which Nordic countries try to overcome by having a decentralized system managed by municipalities that compete with each other and with private providers. Additionally, the five Nordic nations have a combined population smaller than that of the state of Texas, making administration simpler for governments. Yet, the wait time is long for many types of surgeries, and the number of people who choose to spend additional money on private insurance is growing, because people don’t like the government’s service.

In an effort to explain how beautifully their socialist policies would work, leftist Democrats like Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others often point to Nordic Europe. These nations, of course, give health care, college and other goods for “free,” so they consider them paradises. And it’s true: The Nordic countries like Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden are doing pretty well ? by some measures, even more so than America. Poverty is lower there, and self-reported quality of life is higher. Copying the policies that work isn’t a bad move. In fact, all countries should do it. But what leftists get wrong is which policies to copy. Nordic countries have some excellent policies that are working well for them. As it turns out, they’re the same policies that conservatives are always pushing for here in the States. For instance, nearly all Nordic nations make it easy to open a business. They have simple tax systems, less burdensome red tape, no government-set minimum wages and more school choice for parents. Their simple tax systems and reduced red tape mean entrepreneurs spend less time filing forms and complying with unnecessary regulations, and more time innovating and creating jobs. Their lower corporate taxes facilitate job creation. Their lack of a minimum wage allows workers, unions and employers to have more room negotiation wages that reflect productivity. And of course, school choice for parents allows them to take their children to the best school possible. Moreover, Nordic governments spend within their means, running nearly balanced budgets every year.

Much of Europe was asleep, or in denial, when the Nazis took power and began rebuilding their military in violation of the Versailles Treaty that brought World War I to an end. Now, after years of virtually unlimited migration from predominately North African and other Muslim regions, some European nations are awakening to what this could mean for their countries and are responding, hoping it’s not too late. Sebastian Kurz, the far-right chancellor of Austria, has plans, according to the Daily Mail, to “expel up to 60 Turkish-funded imams and their families and shut down seven mosques as part of a crackdown on ‘political Islam.’” These mosques, Austria says, are being subsidized by the Turkish government, which is becoming more radical after the recent election, which granted President Recep Tayyip Erdogan new powers as he seeks to create a more “pious generation” in order to change the country and make it more Islamic. Justification for Mr. Kurz’s move comes from a 2015 law banning foreign funding of religious groups. The chancellor told a recent news conference: “parallel societies, political Islam and radicalization have no place in our country. This is just the beginning.” President Erdogan reacted by warning of a “war between the cross and the crescent.” That war started centuries ago and manifests itself today in ways not limited to terrorist acts. Czech Republic President Milos Zeman has said it is “practically impossible” for Muslims to integrate into modern Europe. Recent opinion polls show a majority of Germans now oppose a virtual open-door policy for Muslims as the burden on social programs increases in direct proportion to the overwhelming majority of immigrants unable to find jobs.

The country’s life expectancy, particularly for men, is the stuff of third world countries. While it’s ticked up marginally in recent years, the average Russian man doesn’t even make it to 70. As of 2014, fully a quarter of Russian men were dying before they rang in their 55th birthday. It’s little wonder that, with high emigration, low life expectancy and a meager birth rate, Russia’s population is falling. Today it stands at 144 million, down about 2 million from the year Mr. Putin took office. And projections suggest the number of Russians will continue to fall throughout this century. Mr. Putin’s foreign policy may, in the imagination of Washington Democrats, be the stuff of diabolical genius. Congressional Democrats blame Mr. Putin for everything from Donald Trump’s election to the existence of the NRA to Brexit. But the truth is more prosaic. In 2014 Russia invaded Ukraine, annexed Crimea, and has continued to engage in a costly and bloody proxy war with its neighbor. The Kremlin has spent billions propping up its client in Syria, the bloodthirsty dictator Bashar Assad. What this reckless foreign policy has accomplished amounts to little for Russians or anybody else. Russia is a cultural treasure trove, home to a warm and generous people. St. Petersburg is one of the world’s great cities. The Hermitage is one of the world’s great museums. Even the Kremlin is an architectural marvel. But Vladimir Putin is a disgrace to the country that produced Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Turgenev and Tchaikovsky. His regime has brought nothing but disaster.

In 1999, Boris Yeltsin shocked the world by resigning the Russian presidency. Replacing him was a largely unknown former FSB agent named Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin’s 20-year reign as president and, for a brief interregnum, prime minister, has been disastrous for Russia. Democracy has withered on the vine; dissident political figures are routinely locked up on specious charges. The media are muzzled. The economy is not free market or even really capitalist. It’s pure cronyism, with Mr. Putin’s friends and associates dividing up the spoils. Russia’s economy is also driven almost entirely by drilling for oil, not a recipe for long-term growth. The promised diversification has never come. Corruption, meanwhile, is endemic and opportunities to break into the middle class are scant. But don’t take it from us. Ask the Russian people. They’ve been voting with their feet by fleeing in droves. Not only has there been a steady exodus from Russia during Mr. Putin’s rule, but more people than ever want to hop the next train or plane abroad. “A record one-fifth of Russians would like to leave the country if they could, a threefold increase from five years ago, the Gallup pollster said Thursday,” reported the Moscow Times, one of the few remaining independent news sources in the country. “Official data, which has been criticized for downplaying immigration figures, says Russia’s emigration numbers have reached a six-year record.” Those who can’t emigrate, unfortunately, die young. Russia is a public health disaster, with shoddy medical care and appalling alcoholism and smoking rates.

China can also significantly increase the number of Chinese nationals working at UNESCO because the number of staff from a particular country is linked to the size of its annual donations. Now that the United States has withdrawn from UNESCO, China may be its biggest funder. And China’s recent $30 million pledge to the WHO demonstrates that even more funds will be available for organizations willing to do its bidding. But this is not new. Chinese sympathizers at UNESCO have long been sensitive to China’s Communist government’s objectives. At a meeting I attended on freedom of the press, a list of “all” the journalists killed in one year was handed out. There were few Chinese journalists on that list, despite numerous bulletins all year from the then-director-general expressing sympathy for the deaths of Chinese journalists. When we asked about those omissions, we were told that it was, of course, a mistake ? so sorry ? and a new list was handed out. Try not to upset the Chinese. And do not upset China now by demanding an independent investigation of the lab in Wuhan, criticizing the Chinese response to the coronavirus, condemning the takeover of Hong Kong, challenging its activities in the South China Sea … the list goes on. But despite aggressively playing the influence game, China is now seen as irresponsible and untrustworthy due to its deliberately misleading statements and disastrous actions following the COVID-19 outbreak. Trying to rehabilitate its international reputation will be at the top of its foreign policy agenda, and its efforts will include making strategic use of U.N. agencies such as the WHO and UNESCO.

Under the auspices of UNESCO, China can use space technologies to examine the 1,121 World Heritage sites conveniently located all over the world. This “examination” includes assessing the conservation of sites and documenting land use ? as well as anything else that the Chinese-funded-and-staffed center might like to observe from space for other purposes. China hosts other UNESCO Category 2 centers (independent partner organizations) - including five more in Beijing - that work in areas like theoretical physics, engineering, geochemistry and technology. Their relationship with UNESCO gives these centers international prestige and enables them to collaborate with top scientists and institutions in other countries. For a country with global ambitions like China, the value of its UNESCO-associated organizations cannot be overstated. Because of the important role that management and staff play in multilateral organizations, China tries to get its candidates into positions of power. By now we all know that Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ candidacy for director-general of the WHO had strong Chinese support, which explains why he has been defending that government for not revealing critical information regarding COVID-19. China is using the same tactic to increase its influence at UNESCO. In 2017, China tried to get its preferred candidate elected as the organization’s new director-general. After failing in that attempt, it successfully targeted the second-most powerful position at UNESCO: Current Deputy Director-General Dr. Xing Qu is an effective and experienced diplomat with close ties to China’s Communist government.

China has been playing the international influence game for years, but only recently have we seen how deadly the consequences can be. It’s clear that China treats the World Health Organization (WHO) as its own tool for “managing” whatever crisis situation arises. Is the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) destined to join China’s foreign policy tool belt? In July 2004, when I was U.S. ambassador to UNESCO, I participated in a cultural excursion to a scenic village near Suzhou, China. The excursion was part of a UNESCO World Heritage Committee meeting. Having missed the official bus, I had to reach the village by taxi ? which increased the distress I’d already caused my Chinese “chaperone” by switching hotels without informing my Chinese hosts. We were invited to walk along the clean, relatively empty streets to canals where small boats decorated with flowers, and guided by smiling Chinese, serenely floated past us. Where were all the village residents? That mystery was solved when I peered in the window of a nearby house and saw a roomful of people crammed inside. It seemed that residents were to be kept out of sight. China knows that World Heritage sites have enormous economic and cultural value, which is why it now has 55 such sites ? more than any other country. These sites are invaluable for promoting China’s own version of its history and culture to tourists, being catalysts for regional economic developments, and enabling it to host the UNESCO-affiliated International Centre on Space Technologies for Cultural and Natural Heritage in Beijing.

Economists are having fits about President Trump’s trade and immigration policies. For good reason: The profession is ignoring what the textbooks say about open commerce and migration. The theory of comparative advantage demonstrates free trade encourages specialization - America designs iPhones, China assembles them - and should raise living standards but is built on a pyramid of assumptions often not met in the real world. Comparative advantage assumes balanced trade and full employment, but under the trade deals Mr. Trump inherited America has a huge deficit. Unemployment is at 3.8 percent. Comparative advantage assumes all countries and businesses are equally endowed with technology. Hence, it ignores the principal source of American advantage - intellectual property - and Beijing’s requirements that foreign firms locate in China and transfer technology to domestic joint venture partners to make sales there. The trade deficit with China alone comes to $350 billion a year and falls most heavily on manufacturing and technology-oriented services. If we sliced the trade deficit in half, domestic GDP growth would be lifted from the 3 percent accomplished by Mr. Trump to 4 percent to 5 percent a year, more or less permanently. Finally, in the modern economic theory of comparative advantage trade and immigration are substitutes, not complements - yet look at what globalization has wrought. Neither the European Union nor America can control the flood of immigrants, and many are not employable in the skills categories advanced industrialized economies need most. The hard reality is that most economists are ignorant and ought to be hoisted from their cossetted lives.