by Rev. Mark Creech
RevMarkCreech.org
Democratic socialism is having a moment in American politics.
That does not mean America is about to become a socialist nation or that the Democratic Party as a whole has embraced socialism. However, developments over the past year make it increasingly difficult to dismiss democratic socialism as merely a fringe movement.
In July, the Democratic Socialists of America announced that its membership had reached 120,000, which the organization called an all-time high. Brookings identified 282 candidates in the 2026 election cycle who had received endorsements or recommendations from DSA organizations, most of whom were running for local or state legislative offices.
Some victories have been notable.
In 2025, New York City elected democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani as mayor. This year, self-described democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George won the Democratic primary for mayor of Washington, D.C. In Providence, Rhode Island, DSA member David Morales defeated the incumbent mayor in the Democratic primary.
The trend is also sparking debate within the Democratic Party.
Democratic Reps. Tom Suozzi of New York and Adam Gray of California launched a “Promise to America,” declaring, “We are capitalist, not socialist.” Meanwhile, California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently told PBS that several ideas associated with democratic-socialist candidates have already entered the Democratic mainstream.
The issue comes close to home for North Carolina. Former Gov. Roy Cooper, now a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate, reportedly declined to sign the centrist statement declaring, “We are capitalist, not socialist,” while saying Democrats need a wide ideological spectrum within the party. His campaign has said Cooper himself is not a socialist.
But for those who understand the dangers of socialism, Cooper’s position should be no comfort. His refusal to sign a statement explicitly distancing the Democratic Party from socialism, coupled with his call for a broad ideological coalition, leaves open the question of how firmly he is willing to oppose socialism’s growing influence within his party.
What exactly is democratic socialism?
Its advocates insist it is not Soviet communism, dictatorship, or the abolition of elections. They argue that democracy should extend beyond government into economic life and that concentrations of private wealth can limit freedom. The DSA’s current program makes their objective abundantly clear. It calls for “public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries” and describes this as “economic democracy.”
In everyday terms, publicly or collectively controlled institutions would exercise far greater authority over major areas of economic life, potentially including energy, transportation, health care, finance, major industries, and investment. Its advocates say that would make the economy more democratic.
Still, this raises a profound question: Is something just or morally right simply because a majority votes for it?
Democracy determines who governs. By itself, it does not determine what government has a moral right to do.
Christian teaching recognizes legitimate civil government and taxation. Jesus said, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s” (Matthew 22:21), and Paul likewise recognized the government’s authority to collect tribute (Romans 13:6–7).
At the same time, Scripture unmistakably recognizes private ownership.
The Eighth Commandment says, “Thou shalt not steal” (Exodus 20:15). That command makes sense only if some things genuinely belong to one person rather than another.
Acts 5 is even more explicit. When Ananias sold property and lied about the proceeds, Peter told him, “Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?” His sin was not retaining private property. His sin was lying to God.
That raises the moral issue at the heart of extensive socialization. Suppose entrepreneurs spend decades building an enterprise. They risk capital, develop products, hire employees, survive failures, and create something of tremendous value. At what point does a political majority acquire a moral claim to what they built?
Democratic socialists argue that owners do not create enterprises alone. Workers contribute labor, the government provides infrastructure and legal protections, and consumers sustain the business. Therefore, they argue, major enterprises should be subject to greater democratic control.
However, contribution does not equal ownership.
Employees have a right to agreed-upon wages. Lenders have contractual rights. The government may collect legitimate taxes. Customers receive what they purchase. Yet none of those relationships automatically establishes title to the enterprise itself.
If something has been honestly earned, built, purchased, inherited, or created, its owner has a moral claim to it. Government may legitimately tax for proper public purposes and regulate property where necessary to protect others’ rights, but those powers do not erase the moral boundaries surrounding private ownership.
A majority may have the political power to vote to take someone’s property, but a ballot cannot make a wrongful taking ethically right.
America’s Founders understood this danger. They did not regard majority rule as an unlimited authority. James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10 that a pure democracy could allow a majority to sacrifice the rights of a weaker party and become incompatible with personal security and property rights. The constitutional republic they established was therefore designed not only to express the will of the majority but also to restrain it.
Democracy answers the question, Who shall govern? A constitutional government like ours answers another: What is even a majority forbidden from doing?
Another concern remains: liberty.
Private property creates spheres of independence outside government control.
A family that owns a home, a farmer his land, a tradesman his tools, a business owner his company, or a worker his savings possesses resources that are not entirely dependent on whoever holds political power.
That independence matters a great deal.
Democratic socialism holds that voters would still control government and, therefore, ultimately control publicly owned institutions.
But what happens when political and economic power increasingly fall into the same hands?
If politically governed institutions exercise substantial control over health care, energy, transportation, employment opportunities, and investment, citizens may still possess the ballot while becoming more economically dependent on political decisions.
Democratic socialists contend that public economic control would free ordinary citizens from concentrated corporate power. Nonetheless, it would also concentrate political and economic power, thereby weakening the independence on which political liberty depends.
History and human nature give us ample reason to view such a concentration of power not as progress, but as peril. It is something to fear, not to embrace. America’s constitutional system was designed to restrain precisely this kind of danger — the power of government, even when backed by a majority, to encroach upon individual liberty, private property, and the rights of those outside that majority.
Gallup’s latest analysis offers perspective. Socialism remains a minority preference nationally: 39 percent of Americans view it positively, compared with 54 percent for capitalism and 81 percent for free enterprise.
So Democratic Socialism has not conquered America. But it is no longer merely an academic theory. It’s got legs and walks upright. Its organizations are growing. Its candidates are winning elections. Its ideas are increasingly advancing within one of America’s major political parties.
The time to recognize the danger of losing fundamental rights, such as the right to private property and liberty, is before that power is surrendered, not after it has become too deeply rooted to reclaim.
How far must this advance before preachers recognize that this concern is not merely a political question but a moral one, and therefore a matter worthy of the pulpit?
