Progressive candidate Abdul El-Sayed won his Michigan primary Tuesday night, defeating a more moderate Democrat in a race that could end up saying a great deal about where the Democratic Party is headed. El-Sayed, who has become a favorite of the growing Democratic Socialists of America movement, will now face Republican Mike Rogers in a contest that could help determine control of the Senate.
At first glance, Republicans have plenty of reasons to be pleased.
El-Sayed is not the only openly socialist or far-left candidate gaining ground. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani has become a national figure in his own right, while younger Democratic Socialists are showing up in races across the country. Ideas that would have been considered politically radioactive a generation ago are now being discussed openly by serious candidates.
For Republicans, it is easy to look at all of this and laugh.
Surely candidates talking about seizing the means of production, abolishing the Senate, radically restructuring policing, or dramatically expanding government control of the economy are going to hand Republicans easy victories. Surely voters in swing states will recoil. Surely this is the beginning of a Democratic collapse.
Republicans should be careful about celebrating too soon.
The rise of socialist candidates may help Republicans in the short term, especially in competitive races like Michigan. But it also reveals something deeper and more troubling about the country. Socialist ideas are becoming more acceptable to a larger share of Americans, especially younger voters, and that shift will not necessarily disappear after one election cycle.
John Rogers, a pollster at Cygnal, raised this concern during a recent appearance on “Washington Watch.”
“I think this is kind of a monkey’s paw scenario where I think we need to be careful about what we wish for, right?” Rogers said. He argued that El-Sayed’s nomination could improve Mike Rogers’s chances of winning the Michigan Senate seat, but he also warned that “the rise of the Democratic Socialists and people like El-Sayed is not a good thing for the country.”
That is the distinction conservatives should keep in mind.
Something can be politically useful to Republicans and still be unhealthy for the country.
The deeper question is whether socialism’s growing popularity is a temporary reaction to current political conditions or the beginning of a lasting ideological change. I recently discussed that question with investigative reporter Mark Tapscott and FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter on the “Outstanding” podcast. We agreed that there are good reasons to believe the movement is not going away anytime soon.
Polling appears to support that concern. A recent CNN poll found that roughly one-third of Democrats identify as Democratic Socialists. More broadly, the stigma once attached to the word “socialism” has weakened considerably. For many younger Americans, it is no longer a frightening label associated primarily with the failures of the Soviet Union, Cuba, or Venezuela. It sounds instead like a promise that someone will finally address problems they believe the existing political and economic system has ignored.
That is where Republicans need to pay attention.
It is easy to lecture people about the dangers of socialism. There are plenty of historical examples to draw from. Governments that centralize economic decision-making often produce shortages, corruption, declining productivity, crushing debt, and a loss of individual freedom. Conservatives can point to Venezuela, Cuba, or the former Soviet Union and make a strong case against placing more economic power in the hands of government.
But those arguments do not automatically persuade someone who believes the current system is already failing.
A young person buried under student debt, unable to afford a home, watching rent and groceries climb faster than wages, may not be thinking about twentieth-century economic history. He may simply be asking whether he has a realistic path toward the kind of financial stability previous generations took for granted.
If he thinks the answer is no, then socialism starts to sound less radical.
That is the real problem.
Republicans should not confuse the unpopularity of certain socialist policies with the permanent unpopularity of socialism itself. Political movements often look absurd right up until they start winning.
Democrats learned that lesson the hard way with Donald Trump.
For years, liberal commentators treated Trump as entertainment. He was outrageous, unpredictable, good for ratings, and supposedly incapable of winning a general election. In 2013, John Oliver famously begged Trump to run while guest hosting “The Daily Show,” as the audience laughed along.
Hillary Clinton’s campaign later pursued what became known as the “pied piper” strategy, believing that elevating Trump and other unconventional Republican candidates would make Democrats more likely to win.
Then November 2016 happened.
Republicans should remember that experience before assuming that every socialist candidate is simply another gift to the GOP. Perhaps El-Sayed loses badly. Perhaps socialist candidates help Republicans win the Senate this year. Perhaps Democrats suffer because their nominees move too far left for swing voters.
But politics does not stop after one election.
A movement that loses today can organize tomorrow. Candidates who seem extreme in one decade can become mainstream in the next. Ideas that once sounded ridiculous can become normal through repetition, cultural acceptance, and generational change.
That is why conservatives should resist the temptation to treat the rise of socialism as nothing more than an electoral opportunity.
If younger Americans are struggling with housing, wages, debt, education costs, and the ability to build wealth, the answer should not be to enjoy their frustration because it might produce Republican votes. The answer should be to solve those problems in ways that preserve economic freedom rather than replace it.
Republicans should be asking why socialism is becoming attractive in the first place.
If people believe they will never own homes, never escape debt, never build savings, and never achieve financial independence, then warning them that socialism might take away their prosperity is not going to be enough. They do not believe they have prosperity to lose.