“When Bernie Sanders entered Congress in 1991, Democrats balked at caucusing with him. Given socialism's poor record in the U.S., who could blame them? During its heyday in the first part of the 20th century, the Socialist Party of America nominated labor leader Eugene Debs for president five times, and he never won a state.
Ronald Reagan had been elected in 1980 and re-elected by a landslide in 1984 on a platform that promised to restrain expansion of the welfare state and restrict government interference with the free market. Mr. Sanders, who ran as an independent, was only the third socialist ever elected to the House, and the one preceding him had left office in 1929.
More recently, Mr. Sanders has drawn sizable crowds to his rallies and is viewed as something of a kingmaker in the Democratic Party. Candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist political organization in the country, have notched state and local victories in Colorado, Georgia, Kentucky and New York and are on the ballot in Michigan, Missouri and Wisconsin. Two of the most popular and influential figures in the Democratic Party, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Mayor Zohran Mamdani, are members of the DSA, and no one will be surprised if Ms. Ocasio-Cortez runs for president in 2028.
The mainstreaming of socialism also appears in polling, which shows that people furthest to the left tend to be younger.
A Cato Institute survey published last year found that 62% of adults under 30 hold a "favorable" view of socialism.
Nor is the trend limited to Democrats. The polling firm Echelon reported last month that, while "older Democrats are split on" socialism and "younger Democrats are very much in favor," it's "also worth noting that social democracy and socialism elicit less steadfast unfavorable views among younger Republicans compared to their older fellow partisans."
Young people are by definition less experienced and by nature more idealistic. Hence the appeal of a political system that seeks to manufacture equal outcomes through central planning and government redistribution has a certain logic. Historically, socialism's appeal has been especially notable among more educated and more affluent young people.
When Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published "The Communist Manifesto" in 1848, Marx was 29 and Engels two years his junior. Marx's father was a successful lawyer. The family owned vineyards and rental properties and employed multiple servants. Marx attended the University of Bonn, where he spent more time drinking than studying. After a year, his father transferred him to the University of Berlin, where he continued to rack up debts for his family to pay off and, according to one biographer, "became a bohemian student who merely regarded the university as his camping ground."
Engels came from an even wealthier family. His father was part-owner of textile factories in Germany and England. Throughout their 20s, both men lived off allowances and inheritances from their families. At 30, Engels finally took a job at one of his father's companies, where he complained that "I've now got to be at the office no later than 10 in the morning." He eventually made enough money to retire at 50 and support himself and Marx for the rest of their lives.
"The Communist Manifesto, written by two bright and articulate young men without responsibility even for their own livelihoods -- much less for the social consequences of their vision -- has had a special appeal for successive generations of the same kinds of people," wrote the economist Thomas Sowell. "The offspring of privilege have dominated the leadership of Marxist movements from the days of Marx and Engels through Lenin, Mao, Castro, Ho Chi Minh, and their lesser counterparts around the world and down through history."
One problem Republicans face in this year's midterm elections is that the socialist label has lost its sting. Voters may be less likely to associate central planning with lost freedom than with Scandinavia in the 1970s, even though countries like Sweden have been privatizing key industries and reducing welfare benefits for more than 30 years.
Another challenge for GOP populists is drawing sharp policy contrasts with the progressive left. The Trump administration supports trade protectionism and price controls on pharmaceuticals, and the federal government has taken significant ownership stakes in major U.S. companies. This is precisely the type of market interference that Republicans once denounced and democratic socialists wholeheartedly embrace. On Monday, Mr. Trump told reporters that U.S. oil companies are "making too much money." He took the words right out of Bernie's mouth.” [1]
1. Upward Mobility: Socialists May Prove Surprisingly Strong in November. Riley, Jason L. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y.. 05 Aug 2026: A15
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą