Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani’s win in New York City’s mayoral race was anticipated by polls but shocked many Americans. Young, college-educated Americans’ support for socialism helps explain the result. A new poll from The Heartland Institute finds that many young conservatives and Trump voters may also support socialism.
Rasmussen polled 1,200 likely voters under the age of 40-years-old. Overall, 53 percent of respondents would like to see a democratic socialist win the 2028 presidential election. More than 75 percent supported (39 percent strongly) nationalizing major industries.
Other polls find 40 to 45 percent approval rates for socialism among young Americans, in line with the 53 percent figure. The noteworthy result is the breadth of support for socialism.
For instance, 30, 43, and 35 percent of Republicans, conservatives, and 2024 Trump voters, respectively, favor a democratic socialist. And 78, 79, and 79 percent of Republicans, conservatives, and Trump voters, respectively, support or strongly support nationalizing major industries, virtually identical to levels among Democrats, liberals, and 2024 Harris voters.
The MAGA movement has never seemingly embraced socialism. Does this portend a socialist future?
Perhaps not. Economic intuition is often faulty. Many Republicans instinctively support decisive government action. If rent is too high, outlaw high rent!
I view such policy proposals as learning opportunities. Economics is a complicated subject with many counterintuitive results. Do not judge but instead patiently explain the drawbacks and limitations.
One factor leading young Trump supporters and conservatives to view socialism positively could be the president’s interventions in markets. The administration’s ownership stake in Intel, for example, suggests an acceptance of government entanglement with business among conservatives.
The Heartland poll also finds frustrations with the economy. Those favoring a democratic socialist were asked for “the biggest reason you would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win.”
The most selected response overall and across subgroups was “Housing costs are too high,” at 31 percent. This easily outpaced the long-standing socialist project of single-payer health care (8 percent). More than half thought that corporations or the wealthy paid too little in taxes (23 percent) or received unfair benefits (32 percent).
Housing affordability is pushing young people to socialism. Konstantin Kisik observes this trend across cities in wealthy nations.
Free market criticisms may also be ineffective. For example, we often use communism’s horrific twentieth century death toll to discredit socialism. But American socialists cannot fathom perpetrating the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, so this sways no one.
We also observe that more government control seems unlikely to reduce government favoritism. Returning to a laissez-faire economy where corporations receive no special privileges would eliminate government favors.
This valid observation does not demonstrate, however, that a small reduction in government intervention will improve fairness or lower the cost of housing. More government control may be needed to eliminate favors.
Let me elaborate. America does not have free-market health care. The federal government spends trillions of dollars per year on health care through Medicare and Medicaid. Health insurance and new drugs and medical devices are regulated and direct controls like the licensing of doctors and certificates of need for facilities stifle competition and innovation.
But we have for-profit hospitals, drug companies, and insurance companies and market-based salaries for doctors. On a scale of a true free market at 0 and fully socialized medicine at 100, our system might be at 70, or more government than market.
Moving to 0 would be enormously beneficial. But 60 may not be preferred to 70 or 80.
Government intervention aiding for-profit health care businesses fuels both inefficiency and unfairness. Lobbying, campaign contributions, and the revolving door for politicians and bureaucrats gives the health care industry significant political influence. With government help, businesses can profit in ways that are not possible in a free market.
Yet free market economists consistently argue for tiny movements toward the market ideal even though they lack any political formula to attain the ideal. The “market” we defend is private companies profiting due to government.
Business in the voluntary market economy generates prosperity and is highly moral. But government selecting winners and losers erode markets’ moral capital stock. Growing support for socialism may reflect a belief that businesses benefitting from government favors should be fully under government control.
