Posted on 07/15/2026 6:07:52 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Finding out that, by a 3-to-2 margin, Americans think the country is “evolving into a big government socialist state” is bad enough. Far more worrisome is finding out how many Republicans and self-styled conservatives are on board with one of socialism’s central tenets.
The latest IBD/TIPP Poll, which we are reporting on today, finds that nearly half of Americans agree that we’re sliding into socialism, and less than a third disagree. (See: “By 3-To-2 Margin, Americans Believe U.S. Is Turning Into A ‘Socialist State’: I&I/TIPP Poll.”)
It also finds that Republicans are more pessimistic about the future than Democrats, which strikes us as defeatism on the part of the GOP and willful ignorance by Democrats, whose party is now controlled by the Democratic Socialists of America.
The really disturbing findings in the poll were when we started asking about policy positions endorsed by the DSA.
We’re not too surprised that 51% of liberals say they’re “willing to pay higher taxes to support more social programs.” (Although the number should be 100%.)
But why do 30% of Republicans feel this way? And why in the world would more than one in five “conservatives” say they’d pay higher taxes for more services?
It gets worse.
The poll also asked whether respondents “believe the government should own key industries such as health care and energy.”
Incredibly, 43% of Republicans agree, as do 41% of conservatives. That’s barely higher than the share of liberals who want government ownership of key industries. (See the chart above.)
What in God’s name is going on here?
Does this reflect the rise of “nationalist” conservatives, who distrust the private sector and like big government almost as much as liberals? (Vice President JD Vance, who has described himself as “postliberal” conservative, was last seen bashing Milton Friedman in an interview that our friend Steve Moore described as “anti-free-market, big government gobbledygook.”)
Is it the result of President Donald Trump’s push to have the government buy up shares in companies? The New York Times reported this week that “over the past year, the Trump administration has made deals to acquire equity stakes in more than two dozen firms, an unusual practice that has extended the government’s influence over industries including semiconductors, nuclear energy, minerals, quantum computers and steel.”
Is it something in the water?
The only good news we can find in this poll is that your average Democrat isn’t at all on board with the socialists taking control of their party, which will become clear when we report on support for other DSA policy positions next week.
But what hope is there for the country if Republicans – and even more alarmingly, conservatives – have bought into a major plank in the socialist agenda?
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Quod erat demonstrandum.
It’s all pretty clear for those able to keep their eyes on the actual ball. The key is to to remove any names/race/religion/history disparities when analyzing things, to avoid getting tapped in the emotional distractions and peer pressure to love this person or group, because you hate some other person or group, that those in control try to saddle us with.
We live in a MIXED ECONOMY. Most societies have a MIXED ECONOMY.
Most discussion of socialism vs capitalism acts as if it is a distinct choice. The US Post Office is socialism. Trump buying partial ownership of companies is socialism.
Education movement to eliminate the Dept of Education and promote non-government schools and education is a direction towards capitalism.
DOGE could be a popular movement toward capitalism.
Development of the technology sector was mostly capitalist but had some socialist minor players.
DHS did not exist in 2002. Now it wastes almost as much money at HHS. Under Noem DHS was very socialist.
We live in a mixed economy, as do most countries. The practical action is at a specific agency, a specific activity.
Except if it's a "D". They are united. No matter how batshiite crazy it gets.
Nope, these people had to die out. I knew some old people here in the late 90s who were white democrats but they're now dead. All whites in Southern suburbia and rural vote Republican. All blacks everywhere in the South vote democrat. And white city dwellers, the few who are, also vote democrat. Charlotte, Nashville, Atlanta, Savannah, Birmingham and New Orleans have some gay and trans whites who live there and their ? supporters.
I'm hoping the Callais decision by the Supreme Court will get rid of those on purpose black democrat districts and we may see some decent people voting for black Republicans!
The hospital-medicine-nursing system that existed in 1980 and as late, in many places as 1995 has been disabled and is now being destroyed.
All currently debated replacements are of a “Unicorns pooping skittles” variety - but some sort of soft nationalization is inevitable at this point.
Why does this surprise anyone? Socialism is simply the next step in the Welfare State. Its truth in advertising about what has been going on in the US for decades. The US has a massive system of transfer payments and regulations that gets us pretty damn close to Socialism. All that is missing is the government owning the means of production, and that really isn’t necessary if government regulates the Hell out of private industry. Republican presidents were on board with TARP and buying GM stock. Republican presidents never touched the industries that the government has owned for decades like Amtrak and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. “Socialism” used to be the dirty word that you applied to government handouts that someone else was getting but your handouts were earned. Now even that pretense is gone.
Wages have not kept pace with productivity, let alone inflation, since the 1970's. Time to pay workers fair market value for their labor. 
There are two very different views of American greatness, and I'm afraid Trump shares the view that globalists and other enemies of freedom have. They understand American greatness in terms of imperial power, of armies and navies dominating the globe militarily, crushing all opposition and using force to impose the will of the elites in Washington on the world.
But there is another vision of our greatness that I call "de Tocquevillian greatness," after Alexis de Tocqueville. This vision says that our greatness was in the liberty that was given to the American people. Rather than being plundered and used as slaves by an elite class, people were allowed to retain more of their wealth, which they could then use in myriad ways to improve the world around them. Rather than corrupt, inefficient government initiatives that commonly make problems like poverty and poor education worse, individuals and private cooperatives can respond to solve problems far more effectively. But they can only do that if they have personal freedom, and retain more of their wealth to fund their own projects.
Needless to say, things are moving in the wrong direction. I hoped when Trump started fighting the bureaucracy in Washington that he would strike a blow for freedom, but increasingly it just looks like a factional fight between different bands of collectivists.
The question is too general.
Own or control is such big range, and if you include sectors such as high tech, or energy, of course I would want the government to have some level of control for national security purposes. Such as telling high tech firms they cannot sell the top of the line chips to China, for example.
Does not make me a socialist because I answered yes to that question? I would say the person wrote a real bad question, so bad that it’s impossible to tell from the answer what the respondents’ actually opinions are on government intrusions into the private sector.
The problem with the de Tocquevillian view is that it was possible to achieve this in the 1700s on an isolated continent far away from all the great powers of the world.
It is not really possible in the 21st century when other powers who seek hegemony and domination can inflict harm on you from across the globe. You have to protect yourself, and some times preemptively, sometimes with a show of strength (both militarily and economically) as deterrent that requires the ability to act in ways that are indistinguishable from an imperial power.
Truly excellent post. I very much see it the way you do.
America being great again depends on what a person thinks made it great for the citizens of America. Projecting world power is nice, but it only works if the people believe in their countries internal greatness.
The problem is that what is happening has left out the average middle class people who are just getting nothing that makes any improvement in their lives. I see old people having to move out of apartments with nowhere to go because rents and housing have risen way beyond their means. Crushed by rising costs, the people aren’t asking for free stuff, just to bring the costs to being real as to what people can make. They don’t want to marry, have kids, if they have to work a bunch of crappy jobs never owning a home and struggle just to keep a roof over their head and an old beater in the parking lot.
People under pressure of being broke brings about the push for socialism. It will continue until someone makes it possible for people to live with a degree of affordability.
Schools are horrible, prices are terrible. We back down on immigration and other policies.
The high hopes are diminishing for a good future. 80’s and 90’s are looked back on with awe now. Although they were not perfect at all.
Socialism truly stinks. Unfortunately, it sells when people see the rich getting richer and everyone else can hardly make it.
I think Germany had two factions like that in the early 30's...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.