By the end of this year, there could be 10 socialist mayors in the U.S. That’s the most since the 1910s, when socialism was the shiny new object embraced by educated elites.

But what excuse do Democrats have today – after 100 years of socialism’s miserable, murderous failures – for embracing this toxic ideology?

Back in 1911, according to one historical count, members of the Socialist Party of America won office in 74 towns and cities, and another 32 in 1913.

Fast forward to today. As NBC News put it, “Democratic socialists are on the rise in Trump-era mayoral races … fueled by a backlash to Trump policies, economic strain and fatigue with the Democratic establishment.”

Right now, there are eight socialist mayors – the most since the 1920s – and primary voters in one-party District of Columbia virtually guaranteed a ninth when they nominated a socialist to run that misbegotten city. In Los Angeles, meanwhile, socialist Democrat Nithya Raman will face off against the Fidel Castro-loving incumbent Karen Bass. Then there’s Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, who is a socialist in all but name.

That’s the most socialist mayors in office at a given time since the 1910s.

Ashik Siddique, a national co-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America, told NBC that “people are really hungry for an alternative to the status quo” and that their candidates “are running on credible platforms of expanding public services to be universal and high-quality for everybody and taxing the rich to do it, that message really resonates.”

Our latest I&I TIPP Poll finds that almost half of Democrats now have a “favorable” view of socialism. Even among Republicans, a shockingly high 26% do. (See: “Nearly Half Of Democrats Say They Have ‘Favorable’ View Of Socialism: I&I/TIPP Poll.)

But Democrats rushing to embrace the current socialist fad should beware, because the last one was (thankfully) short-lived here in the U.S. In 1919, only five socialists won mayoral elections. Even in the middle of the Great Depression, there were only three socialist mayors in the country.

A “historical note” by the New York University Libraries says the party had trouble containing its “revolutionary wing” right off the bat. And the 1917 Russian Revolution, it says, “encouraged the left wing of the party to demand a more militant program and, when this was not forthcoming, to secede from the party in 1919 and establish the Communist Party.”

You can already see these strains among the current crop of socialists, who have spent years fomenting visceral hatred of, and violence against, their political opponents, and who, once in office, start turning off the voters who put them there. Which is why they tend not to last more than one term. (Only one of the current crop has been in office more than three years.)

Earlier this month, the Democratic Socialists of America adopted a platform that calls for things like: scrapping the U.S. Senate and the Department of War, granting amnesty for all illegal immigrants, and “replac[ing] the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.”

As the City Journal notes, “As more and more DSA members take power, the group they belong to keeps getting more radical—a tension they will inevitably have to resolve.” A separate City Journal article points out the party’s “emerging militant network.”

Republicans ignore these developments at their own peril, since they can’t fight something – even if that something is as toxic as socialism – with nothing. And dismissing it as “junk food of modern American politics,” as GOP strategist Luke Ball told Fox News recently, isn’t going to cut it.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board