© Dominic Gwinn/ZUMA Press Wire, via rReuters
In the country with arguably the most successful market economy on Earth, it's not unreasonable to ask for just one major political party to favor a system of relatively unfettered voluntary exchange. And yet, the midterm elections offer Americans a "choice" between a party openly embracing socialism by name, and one that increasingly embraces state-directed economic activity in the cause of nationalism. Not every candidate running as a Democrat or Republican is on board with their parties' statist transformations, and there are certainly other issues separating the two dominant political tribes. But if you want reliable advocacy of economic freedom, you won't find it in the two major parties.
The shift in the Democratic Party's policy preferences from a heavily regulated market economy to outright government control has been well-documented, but it's worth noting Eric Bradner August report at CNN about "a growing list of victories by democratic socialists who are a prominent part of the Democratic Party's left-wing insurgency."
Before his election as mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani called for "seizing the means of production," as has congressional candidate Darializa Avila Chevalier. The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which backs many of the new breed of officeholders and candidates and organized their insurgency, boasts of its solidarity with the totalitarian regimes in Cuba and Venezuela. Just a year ago, it sent "a delegation of 40 DSA elected leaders and rank-and-file members" to Havana to learn "about the achievements and challenges of Cuban socialism."
At 65 percent support for socialism in Gallup polling, more Democrats favor a state-controlled economy than back capitalism (35 percent)—though the odd tie in favorability with free enterprise (also 65 percent, but declining) suggests the schools aren't doing a great job of explaining ideas.
Republicans nominally hold very different economic preferences, with only 14 percent favoring socialism, while 86 percent support free enterprise and 75 percent have positive views of capitalism. But when asked by CNBC's All-America Economic Survey whether government should have control of private businesses, "66% of Democrats found it not appropriate for the U.S. to take equity stakes in American companies, while only 34% of Republicans agreed."
That's likely because under the Republican Trump administration, the federal government has been grabbing a piece of the action from tech and resource firms—40 companies, at the current count—and party stalwarts are happy to go along so long as the S word isn't used to describe the arrangement. Instead, it's cloaked as top-down encouragement of domestic jobs and manufacturing.
"American political leaders on the left and right are rebelling against the market-first consensus that dominated Washington for four decades," concluded Axios's Courtenay Brown and Neil Irwin in July. "It's evident in everything from the Trump administration taking government stakes in dozens of private companies to socialist candidates winning Democratic primaries promising a more active government role in the economy."
A glimpse of a socialist future can be found not only in the rising tide of explicitly socialist Democrats, but in GOP heir apparent and Vice President J.D. Vance's repeated denunciation of free-market economic thinking and its emphasis on private choice.
"Do we serve pure, unfettered commercial freedom?" he asked in First Things in 2019. "Or do we serve something higher? And are we willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?"
In a June interview with The Daily Wire's Michael Knowles, Vance returned to the topic to criticize the market-oriented ideas of economist Milton Friedman and called for a state-directed and Christian-infused "American developmentalist" approach to escape what he called "a hyper globalized economy."
"The policies supported by both major political parties suggest a growing embrace of state ownership of the economy," warns economist Daniel J. Smith for the American Institute for Economic Research. "The range of policies widely accepted as legitimate options, referred to as the 'Overton Window,' has shifted toward greater government direction of the economy, with some conservative politicians and voters now treating partial state ownership as an acceptable function of government."
Smith pointed out that the economist F.A. Hayek had observed this phenomenon among authoritarians of the right and left in the 1930s. It was why he dedicated his book, The Road to Serfdom, "to the socialists of all parties."
Why this is important is illustrated by Smith's recent research into the correlation, or lack thereof, between socialism and political liberty: "The record, from 1789 forward, is not ambiguous. High degrees of political freedom and heavy state ownership of the economy have not been sustained together."
Smith's observation is supported by the prominent socialist writer Robert Heilbroner's admission in his 1986 book, The Nature and Logic of Capitalism, that "political freedom in modern times…has only appeared in capitalist states." He added, "democratic liberties have not yet appeared, except fleetingly, in any nation that has declared itself to be fundamentally anticapitalist."
Also important, as the Fraser Institute's recently published Economic Freedom of the World: 2026 report points out, "economic freedom tends to be associated with better outcomes." Specifically, the report indicates strong correlations between free-market economies and higher GDP per capita, higher level of income for the bottom 10 percent of earners, lower poverty, higher life expectancy, and lower infant mortality. As with the sources cited above, the report found that "personal freedoms such as freedom of speech, association, and religion are highly correlated with economic freedoms."
So, the benefits of having a major political party that believes in and supports free markets with minimal government intrusion are found not just in expanded political choice, but also in policies that promote freedom, prosperity, and human well-being. Unfortunately, both the Democratic Party and Republican Party are retreating from economic liberty and embracing state control over how we produce, work, own, buy, and sell. Democrats' explicit embrace of socialism, and Republicans' dismissal of free markets in favor of state management and ownership, promise a future of less freedom and reduced wealth.
Maybe Americans would vote against socialism—both the open kind and the implicit nationalist variety—if given the choice. But it's increasingly difficult to find a free-market option on the ballot.
The post The Midterms Offer a Choice Between Two Brands of Socialism appeared first on Reason Magazine.
There is something peculiarly unsettling about a world in which the leaders of three nuclear powers might gather to discuss the future of smaller nations without troubling to invite the nations concerned. It is a diplomatic arrangement with considerable historical precedent, although not necessarily the sort that ought to inspire confidence.
For Askold S. Lozynskyj, a New York lawyer, former president of the Ukrainian World Congress and regular contributor to EU Today, the prospect of Donald Trump sitting down with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping raises precisely this concern.
His latest opinion piece, The Thug Summit, published on 23 October, presents an uncompromising interpretation of the proposed trilateral meeting in China. In a wide-ranging conversation with EU Today publisher Gary Cartwright, Lozynskyj expands upon that argument, moving from the peculiarities of Trump’s political personality to the constitutional foundations of American democracy, the future of Europe and the increasingly precarious standing of international law.
The resulting discussion is occasionally caustic, frequently humorous and consistently concerned with a question that extends well beyond the current occupant of the White House: how resilient are democratic institutions when confronted by leaders who regard constitutional constraints as inconveniences?
Watch the full interview with Askold S. Lozynskyj and Gary Cartwright below.
The conversation begins with Trump’s political ascent, which Lozynskyj regards as one of the more extraordinary developments in modern American history.
Buddy Ebsen as Jed Clampett in the American television comedy The Beverly Hillbillies. Credit: CBS Television / Wikimedia Commons (1969 publicity photograph; US public domain).
He recalls the incredulity surrounding Trump’s original presidential ambitions and questions how a politician whose personal conduct had attracted considerable controversy managed to secure such enthusiastic support among conservative Christian voters.
Cartwright introduces a lighter comparison, recalling a photograph of Trump surrounded by his senior advisers in the Oval Office.
The only person missing, he suggests, was Jed Clampett, the fictional patriarch of the American television comedy The Beverly Hillbillies.
Lozynskyj is not inclined to defend the administration’s sophistication. Yet behind the humour lies a more serious argument about the disappearance of independent-minded advisers and the consequences of political loyalty becoming the principal qualification for high office.
“Donald Trump is not a conservative. Donald Trump is a thug,” he declares.
It is an unequivocal assessment, characteristic of Lozynskyj’s commentary, although his criticism extends beyond Trump himself to the Republican Party’s willingness to accommodate his leadership.
Much of the interview centres on the American midterm elections scheduled for 3 November.
Lozynskyj predicts that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives and potentially transform the remainder of Trump’s presidency through congressional investigations, subpoenas and impeachment proceedings.
His prediction is emphatic, although the eventual balance of power remains uncertain.
Control of the House would give Democrats substantial investigative authority, although the president would retain his executive powers. Removing him from office following impeachment would still require a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
Nevertheless, Lozynskyj believes the elections could fundamentally alter Washington’s political atmosphere.
“They will tie up Trump like never before,” he argues.
Cartwright raises a more disturbing possibility: could Trump manufacture an emergency to postpone an election or otherwise attempt to prolong his presidency?
“I think he could try, but I don’t believe that he will prevail,” Lozynskyj responds, expressing confidence that America’s constitutional institutions would ultimately resist such an attempt.
The exchange moves naturally towards the events of 6 January 2021, presidential immunity and the effectiveness of the checks and balances upon which the American constitutional system depends.
For Lozynskyj, whose public career has been closely associated with Ukrainian interests, the implications of Trump’s foreign policy are particularly troubling.
His central concern is that negotiations among Washington, Moscow and Beijing could revive the notion that major powers possess an informal entitlement to determine the political and territorial futures of their neighbours.
In his opinion piece, he raises the possibility that Ukraine and Taiwan could become bargaining instruments in a wider geopolitical settlement. These are his warnings about potential outcomes, not established agreements between the three governments.
Yet his criticism of Washington is accompanied by considerable appreciation for Europe’s role in sustaining Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s invasion.
“Without Europe, Ukraine could never have survived as long as it has survived,” he tells Cartwright.
He also ventures into the British debate over European integration, arguing that the United Kingdom should return to the European Union.
It is an intervention likely to provoke disagreement, but it reflects his broader conviction that collective institutions provide an essential counterweight to unilateral political power.
The discussion also examines political unrest in Europe, changing national identities and the relationship between elected governments and the populations they represent.
Cartwright points to social tensions in European cities and the growing importance of regional identity, including the independence debate in Flanders.
Lozynskyj approaches these developments through the history of democratic protest, citing Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, the Revolution of Dignity and more recent demonstrations over the independence of anti-corruption institutions.
For him, public opposition to governments is not necessarily evidence of democracy’s failure. It can also demonstrate that political authority remains subject to popular consent.
The conversation concludes with international law, the International Criminal Court and the difficulty of enforcing common rules when powerful states refuse to accept external constraints.
Lozynskyj’s observations are deliberately provocative, and his forecasts will be tested by events. But the interview offers something more substantial than another exchange of opinions about Donald Trump.
It is a discussion about the relationship between power and restraint, the responsibilities of democratic institutions and the uncomfortable possibility that the international order may be entering another period in which military and economic strength increasingly determine political outcomes.
As the United States approaches its midterm elections and speculation continues over a possible meeting between Trump, Putin and Xi, those questions are unlikely to disappear.
The full conversation with Askold S. Lozynskyj is available in the video above.
© Jillian Vordick/The New York Times
© Nick Oxford for The New York Times
© Damon Winter/The New York Times
© Doug Mills/The New York Times
Login