Caffeinated Politics

I am quite sure that Francesca Hong has cracked a history book. But I must wonder what parts of world history failed to resonate with her. I write that line as it is concerning to me that the leading candidate in the Marquette Law School poll for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination stands next to a rhetorical flamethrower who shrugs off mass death in China. It’s the kind of moral blindness that makes me wonder whether the candidate skipped over the 20th century that semester or simply treats human suffering as an abstract concept.

Let me be perfectly clear about one of Hong’s big-name backers and endorsers. Hasan Piker’s casual dismissal of the 40‑plus million deaths under Mao Zedong makes him historically illiterate. Mao’s rule was not a quirky chapter in political experimentation. It was one of the deadliest human catastrophes ever recorded. The Great Leap Forward alone produced famine on a scale so vast that entire provinces starved. The Cultural Revolution shattered families, destroyed cultural heritage, and unleashed waves of violence that scarred generations. I am stunned that anyone would seek to trivialize human suffering on such a scale.

And I am embarrassed that Hong, the purported leader in the Democratic primary, chooses to campaign alongside someone who treats Mao’s atrocities as a shrug. If Piker is so adrift from factual history, that is one thing. But for a candidate who wishes to sit in the East Wing of the state capitol to align herself in such a ludicrous alliance alerts us with a bright red blinking light about what is wrong. What is just unacceptable.

Historical truth is not optional; moral seriousness is not negotiable. And we should not need to inform a candidate for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination of this truth.

Caffeinated Politics was tough on Donald Trump in November 2022 when he had dinner with white nationalist Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes. Yes, that comparison is most apt for this column. The underlying rot is the same: a willingness to treat the worst crimes in human history as props in a political performance. When Hong associates herself with someone who excuses genocide, famine, or state‑engineered terror, she is sending a clear signal about her character.

Associating with someone who trivializes Mao’s death toll is disqualifying for public office. Hong is telling Wisconsin voters that she either doesn’t know history or is willing to overlook it for political convenience. None of those options inspire confidence.

If Francesca Hong can’t draw a line at who she stands alongside on a rally stage, voters have every right to question what other lines she won’t draw.