Should Americans Worry About Democratic Socialists Winning Elections?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns socialism and “the recent rise in democratic socialists winning primary elections.” In an article published at the Deseret News, opinion editor Jay Evensen wrote the following: 

I’ve been around long enough to see how most long-term political plans eventually crack and disintegrate under the harsh heat of reality. So, I try not to get too worked up over the recent rise in democratic socialist winning primary elections, or over the movement’s supposed aims, which sound closer to Marx than to Jefferson or Madison.

But those who hope a post-Trump future might revert to the calmer political days of our youth may be disappointed. The far left seems to be on the rise to compete with the far right.

And while that rise is still small, if politicians don’t stem the fearsome rise in the national debt, a possible economic collapse and the chaos it could cause might bolster all kinds of radical ideologies….

Democracy has a way of taking the sharp edges off radical ideologies, eventually. The MAGA movement benefited from a charismatic leader, which the far left currently lacks.

A Gallup poll last year found a majority of Americans still feel favorably toward capitalism, but support is waning.

As I said, that trend could accelerate if the economy collapses under the weight of the national debt and its annual interest payments, which already exceed the nation’s military budget.

Samuel J. Abrams (professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a scholar with the Sutherland Institute) agreed with Evensen in his column for Deseret News. “… Evensen is right not to panic [about] the recent string of democratic socialist primary victories nationwide.” Why young Americans are turning to socialism | Opinion – Deseret News

This is all true, but there is a deeper story that must be told as to why these radical ideologies have begun to win and why these politicians have been able to organize so effectively. It begins with the question of why so many young Americans are drawn to them.

The answer can be found in a book published a quarter century ago by a late mentor of mine – Seymour Martin Lipset. Writing with Gary Marks, Lipset wrote “It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in the United States” and asked why America, alone among industrial democracies, never developed a serious socialist movement.

The socialists trying to reshape the Democratic Party

The answers Lipset and Marks offered were partly structural – our two-party system and winner-take-all elections punished third parties – but they were also, crucially, experiential. So many Americans lived capitalism’s promise and positive realities.

America’s workforce saw real mobility for themselves and their children and an individualist, antistatist creed ran deep. Moreover, Americans were formidable joiners – as observed by Alexis de Tocqueville decades earlier – and they were deeply embedded in churches, lodges, unions, clubs and neighborhood associations that gave them belonging, status and voice without any need for a revolutionary party to supply it.

Lipset and Marks argued that socialism did not fail in the United States because Americans read the right rebuttals to Marx. Rather, it failed because the conditions present nationwide never let it take hold. This points to the uncomfortable truth of 2026: Almost every immunity Lipset and Marks identified in their book has now degraded – particularly for young adults.

A misunderstanding of market economics

Start with young Americans’ lived experience of markets and capitalism. In cities where socialism has gained political traction – Chicago, Seattle, New York and San Francisco – many younger Americans are living through soaring housing costs, shrinking opportunities and dysfunctional markets. Their frustrations are real.

This mistake is not in recognizing the problems but in misidentifying their causes. Too often, however, they are seeing the consequences of regulation, restrictive zoning and poor governance as if they were failures of capitalism itself.

That confusion is hardly surprising. Most young Americans have never been taught how markets create prosperity. Significant numbers graduate from college without taking a single economics course….

A lack of strong social structures

Moving beyond economic systems, Lipset and Marks would point to the recent real decline of associational life as a major cause of socialism’s ascent. Theorists from Alexis de Tocqueville and Edmund Burke to Robert Nisbet and Richard John Neuhaus have long marveled at Americans’ art of association. Lipset understood that these institutions kept radicalism marginal by meeting fundamental human needs for fellowship, purpose and recognition.

Those institutions have been hollowed out, and young adults are the loneliest Americans on record. They may be digitally connected and habitually online, but few join congregations, civic clubs, scouting or recreational leagues. They are not merely under-informed; so many younger Americans are isolated, under-formed, unattached and without a social core….

What can be done?

If we consider this framing, it radically changes how we think about this so-called socialist surge. If the problem were socialism as an ideology itself, the answer would be rebuttal with more op-eds, more education and public-focused work, and more warnings about Venezuela and countless failed states. But reason and evidence alone do not persuade or work on people whose initial attraction was rooted less in ideas than belonging.

If the problem is formation – and that certainly appears to be the case – the real answer is to rebuild what once formed young Americans into confident, connected participants in a free society.

That means teaching economics so that graduates understand scarcity, trade-offs, incentives and the astonishing record of market economies, along with their real failures. It also means rebuilding our social associations where young people find the belonging they now seek in ideological movements like the DSA….

Finally, I should note that Lipset’s title contained a quiet warning that his admirers sometimes miss. Socialism didn’t happen here in the past tense because a particular America existed: prosperous, mobile, religious, fraternal and thick with institutions that formed citizens and demonstrated capitalism’s promise in daily life. That America was not an accident, and its immunities are not permanent as we see now – our nation’s immunities to socialism were built and then regularly reaffirmed.

Evensen is right that we need not fear the socialists. What we should fear and then fix is the loneliness and disconnection as well as the ignorance that make socialism feel like an answer for so many young people. Restore formation, purpose, community, and belonging and this socialist impulse will fade the way of every American socialist movement before it did.