How To Win Back The Disillusioned American Dream

Conservatives often assume socialism is easy to defeat. After all, the failing historical record of central planning and the economic success of free markets are on their side. But that hasn’t stopped socialism from gaining ground, particularly among young Americans.

A Fox News poll finds that while 72% of Democrats under the age of 45 believe capitalism is not working well, 66% think moving to socialism would be a good idea. Those numbers should concern any American who values economic freedom.

Many older conservatives immediately respond by pointing to the Soviet Union, Venezuela, or Cuba as evidence of the horrors of socialism. They’re not wrong, but they’re not addressing the question young voters are actually asking.

Young people are choosing socialism not because they hate America, but because they believe the once reliable American Dream is out of reach. Homeownership is becoming unattainable. Student debt delays major life decisions. Family formation is becoming more expensive every year. Upward mobility seems impossible when wages barely outpace inflation.

Their frustration is real, and though the promises of socialism are empty, those of capitalism — or at least what they think is capitalism — have gone unfulfilled.

The median sales price of a new home was over $410,000 in 2025, nearly five times the median household income, a ratio almost twice as high as in 1980. Student loans cost the average new graduate hundreds of dollars per month. And despite inflation coming down from pandemic peaks, 3.4% CPI eats away at weekly paychecks.

Simply put, the cost of adulthood has become unaffordable for millions of young Americans.

Socialists have recognized this reality, and though their proposed solutions are economically unsustainable, at least they acknowledge the problem. And too often, conservatives are quick to condemn socialism without addressing the underlying reasons why Gen Z finds it attractive.

Socialists blame capitalism for modern economic hardship, but the affordability crisis should not be treated as evidence that competitive capitalism is failing America’s youth. In most sectors burdening young Americans, competition has been weakened by government intervention, political favoritism, and policies that distort prices and restrict supply.

Look at housing. For decades, local governments restricted development with zoning regulations, permitting delays, and other barriers to construction. Simultaneously, government-backed mortgage policies increased purchasing power without addressing supply shortages. Then, politicians responded to rising costs with rent control and rent freezes that further distorted the market and drove up homeownership costs.

It’s no surprise, then, that the average age of a first-time homebuyer is at an all-time high of 40.

Next, look to higher education. Government-backed student lending has enabled colleges to raise prices. The result is a system that saddles students with tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt and politicians that propose student loan forgiveness or other subsidies as the solution — which neither adds value to the credential, lowers the cost of providing education, nor changes the broken mechanism behind why college tuition is so expensive.

The housing and college markets are not examples of a free market operating properly. They reflect government-created scarcity, regulatory dysfunction, and cronyism.

Therefore, cost-of-living concerns facing Gen Z should not be used as evidence that competitive capitalism is a failed model — especially when most economic problems stem from policies fundamentally opposed to the free market.

For policymakers, this means acknowledging Gen Z’s reasonable concerns and showing them how freedom, not government control, can improve life.

When conservatives respond to rising socialist affiliation only by warning about unsuccessful experiments, they fail to address the affordability problems people experience every day, which are driving this ideological shift.

The average American is not watching lectures on the historical failures of central planning or reading through textbooks comparing the economic philosophies of Karl Marx and Adam Smith. Young Americans are instead trying to make monthly rent payments, budget to buy a house, pay back student loans, and afford groceries — all while entering adulthood, starting a career, and raising a family.

So, a successful conservative strategy must both demonstrate how free-market policies solve modern problems and expose the socioeconomic failures of socialism.

This means increasing housing supply, removing government distortions in housing and other markets, lowering barriers to entrepreneurship, promoting energy abundance, reducing regulatory burdens, and making family formation more affordable. Most importantly, Americans need evidence that economic freedom reliably produces upward mobility.

The greatest victories against socialism were never won through slogans, but through prosperity. When people can afford homes, start businesses, raise families, and build wealth, socialism loses its appeal. But when those opportunities disappear, socialism gains favor.

The future debate over socialism won’t be won by arguing endlessly about 20th-century failed experiments in foreign nations. It will be won by proving that economic freedom can still deliver opportunity and prosperity for all Americans in the 21st century.

***

Nicole Huyer is a Senior Research Associate in The Heritage Foundation’s Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.