It’s easy to ridicule socialists using expensive smartphones, ordering coffee from major chains, and enjoying the convenience of modern American life.
But the policies they’re organizing around deserve a closer look.
Kent Strang, managing director for Americans for Prosperity, recently attended the Socialism 2026 conference in Chicago.
He saw the irony in people traveling across the country to criticize capitalism while enjoying its benefits. But he came away with a more important realization.
It was that making fun of socialists doesn’t address the legitimate problems drawing people toward their ideas.
Americans have good reasons to be frustrated
Housing, groceries, and health care costs are rising, taking up a large share of household budgets.
When people struggle to afford basic needs, they’re interested in anyone offering an answer.
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are offering several proposals that they say will fix these problems.
These include:
- Universal rent control
- Publicly-owned housing
- Shorter standard workweeks
- Public ownership of major industries
Supporters present these policies as ways to make groceries, rent, health care, and other necessities more affordable while helping workers earn more and work fewer hours.
Strang argues that critics need to explain whether those proposals would actually solve the problems Americans face.
Promising price controls doesn’t create more supply
Consider housing.
When rents rise faster than paychecks, implementing rent controls sounds like an immediate solution.
But rent control discourages landlords and investors from maintaining their properties or building more.
San Francisco offers a clear example.
The city’s 1994 rent-control expansion led landlords to reduce the rental housing supply by 15%. Some converted rental properties into owner-occupied housing or removed units through redevelopment.
That meant fewer rental homes for people who needed them.
Despite rent controls, the underlying shortage remained.
That’s because expanding housing supply means eliminating unnecessary zoning restrictions, permitting delays, and other barriers that make building homes more expensive.
Real solutions are lost when one side is only worried about restricting landlords.
The debate extends beyond housing
DSA’s proposals would also change how Americans work and how major industries operate.
Its platform calls for public ownership of large corporations and essential industries, along with a 32-hour workweek at full pay.
Those proposals raise several questions.
- Who decides how publicly-owned companies spend money?
- How would employers adjust staffing under a shorter workweek?
- Who covers losses when publicly-owned enterprises lose money?
The DSA’s economic proposals would change the incentives facing workers, employers, investors, and consumers.
Competition gives businesses a reason to improve their products and services. Investment helps companies expand production. New businesses introduce alternative options to dissatisfied customers.
Government ownership and workplace mandates would change how those decisions are made, potentially limiting competition and the choices available to consumers.
Making the case for economic freedom
Strang’s central argument goes beyond criticizing DSA.
He believes supporters of free markets need to explain how economic freedom improves people’s lives and offers real solutions.
That means showing how competition affects prices, why private investment matters for wages, and how removing unnecessary barriers incentivizes entrepreneurs to start businesses.
It also means acknowledging that today’s economy leaves many Americans feeling left out.
The debate over socialism is ultimately about who should make economic decisions and how everyday Americans can have more opportunities to improve their lives and pursue the American Dream.
Understanding those concerns, examining the proposals, and explaining the best alternatives makes for a more useful debate than trading insults and personal attacks.
To learn more about Strang’s experience at Socialism 2026 and why he believes free-market advocates need to make a stronger case for economic freedom, read his op-ed.
