A survey released by The Free Press indicates that only one in three Americans holds a positive view of capitalism. The poll utilized a method designed to surface opinions that individuals often keep to themselves, a finding that the author, a naturalized U.S. citizen and immigrant from Colombia, describes as a source of particular alarm. The author notes that this statistic refers to all Americans, rather than only Democrats, and argues that the result should not be interpreted as a victory for the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
Contradictory data points from other sources suggest that American sentiment toward economic freedom remains strong. Gallup data cited in the piece shows that while capitalism received 54 percent approval, free enterprise drew 81 percent approval and small business 95 percent. In contrast, big business received only 37 percent approval. The author contends that this gap between public faith in free enterprise and the electoral successes of DSA candidates represents a real vulnerability for the current political landscape.
The author, who spent time in a country torn apart by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), argues that there is no meaningful difference between socialism and communism. Citing Vladimir Lenin's work The State and Revolution, the piece asserts that socialism was historically the on-ramp to communism rather than an alternative to it. The author cites estimates placing the death toll of communist regimes near 100 million across Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Africa, and South America. Additionally, the text references the 4,300-mile Iron Curtain across Europe as evidence that communist states were primarily concerned with preventing citizens from leaving rather than attracting them.
Despite this historical record, the author acknowledges that the appeal of communism stems from its ability to identify genuine pain points within American capitalism. The argument posits that modern capitalism has become dominated by large, consolidated businesses, leaving households and small business owners feeling weak and less important. This perception of a shrinking future and a loss of control allows communist rhetoric to offer a bargain that promises to address these grievances, even if the historical outcome has been the abolition of economic freedom through central planning.
The piece distinguishes between materialist views and what it describes as a Christian account of the human person. It argues that human dignity is divinely endowed and protected through economic freedom and personal agency, rather than granted or revoked by the state. The author asserts that work is noble and ownership is a form of stewardship, concepts that materialism cannot adequately explain.
In closing, the author urges fellow Americans to reject the political bargain offered by communists and to elect leaders who expand economic freedom. The text specifically addresses college and university presidents, calling for campuses to be spaces where these arguments are discussed publicly without censorship or indoctrination. The final statement emphasizes the need to maintain America's status as a symbol of freedom and opportunity.