Yesterday I wrote about the unfolding problem of young people seemingly enamored with socialism. Though that is conventional wisdom, based on an increasing number of polls and surveys, I remain skeptical.
It's not that I believe the pollsters or agencies conducting the studies are being dishonest. It's that I don't think these young people even have a firm grasp on what socialism is. Further, without a logical grounding in God's existence and authority, they are inclined to see government as the best way, if not the only way, to bring about the social change they are passionate about achieving.
But socialism is about centralized control, the deprivation of individual freedom and choice, all of which are anathema to the very essence of youth.
So how do we reverse the trend?
Here are a few ideas to start with:
First, in deference to the prudent warning I mentioned yesterday, we should stop labeling everything Democrats do or advocate "socialism." Granted, most all of their proposals are unquestionably unwise, but the unfortunate consequence is that it wrongly convinces a young person who believes there should be a larger social safety net that they are a socialist.
Discussing and even debating the merits of some of those Scandinavian-style welfare programs, acknowledging that they only function because of the capitalist system those countries embrace, is a far wiser approach. It may take time and not fit nicely into a soundbite, but what is needed is a robust explanation that conservative opposition to the idea is rooted in what it would cost – and who it would cost. Such policies may sound really nice until you understand that they necessarily depress the job market, reduce wages, stifle productivity, and crush many small business and entrepreneurs – something many young people hope to become.
Second, once we stop overusing the label, let's try a concerted effort to properly define it. In 2018, Gallup found that only 22% of respondents understood socialism to mean "government control." Nearly one-third of them thought it meant "equality" and an additional 13% said that it meant increased benefits and services.
The great fear that young people are being trained by Marxist high school teachers to buy into collectivism is, admittedly, quite humorous to me. I teach in a school that by most standards would be regarded as high-performing, but I can assure you that even there, any attempt on my part to indoctrinate kids with any worldview is going to run headlong into a brick wall of apathy; one where 17-year-olds are far more concerned with snapping selfies than reading anyone's manifesto. They wear Ché Guevara shirts because they look cool, not because they're revolutionaries.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not diminishing the importance of curriculum vigilance or teacher accountability. I'm just saying that the kids who embrace progressive economic ideas have learned those from their true teachers – the culture – before they ever walk into my classroom.
So that's where the conversation must change, and it's done by having conservatives combat theories and hopeful-sounding promises with actual examples. For instance, the Democrats have attempted to defend their recent proposed $3.5 trillion spending bill as "costing nothing." The claim has been repeated profusely throughout social media, as was the explanation that it would be "paid for" by new taxes placed on businesses.
But anything that must be "paid for" clearly can't "cost nothing." And while it may sound appealing to tax businesses to pay for all the new spending, it's not rocket science to understand if a jewelry store that turns a $10,000 profit each month sees its taxes go up by $11,000 each month, it will have no alternative but to raise prices on its product. If that reality is replicated throughout the economy, who is really paying those tax increases?
We are – people, not "businesses."
Next, don't hesitate to find points of agreement with socially concerned youth, like when they complain about the evils of capitalistic greed. We should freely acknowledge that this exists, and that it is facilitated and fueled by both parties in government, who profit substantially off the ability to pick winners and losers in the business world. The same reason they think Republicans are in the pocket of Big Oil is the same reason they should know Democrats are in the pocket of Big Tech. Government officials play favorites, and it's never the little guy.
Professor Ed Glaeser of Harvard explains,
"If a Harvard undergraduate wants to launch an Internet firm in his dorm, it might accumulate 1 billion users before regulators start paying attention. If a Haitian immigrant wants to start a grocery in Harvard Square that, say, sells milk, he must cut through a dense thicket of local regulations."
So then, the solution to social problems isn't going to be giving Republicans and Democrats more power, but rather divorcing both groups from it by weakening government and returning the power it abuses to individuals.
The lure of socialism is largely predicated in an unease or even fury towards a system that leaves vulnerable people behind. But government has one of the worst track records when it comes to caring for the poor. One need only visit an Indian reservation for proof of that. Further, nonprofits and charities struggle immensely to do good work in underprivileged communities because of onerous government regulations. Increasing those regulations, as socialism does, would not help anyone.
Finally, the best solution remains evangelism. Senator Bernie Sanders labels himself a socialist and proclaims that it's due to his "very strong spiritual feeling" that things must change "when children go hungry, when veterans sleep out on the street." We all can (and should) agree with that sentiment. But is government the best conduit of our "spiritual feelings?"
Christianity teaches the proper view of fallen humanity – depraved apart from a saving relationship with Jesus. It teaches that our human instincts and impulses are self-serving and self-absorbed, and therefore the consolidation of earthly power will not bring any solution to our problems, but only exacerbate them.
I understand these suggestions only scratch the surface, but it's a start. I've heard often that the idealism of youth is "both a blessing and a curse." Okay, but it's also a reality. So doesn't it make more sense to engage their minds and harness their passion for good than to write off their entire generation as budding Marxists when they're not?
