FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OPINION: Socialism Comes for Kentucky
DATE: July 9, 2026
CONTACT: Jacob Ogan (jacob@commonwealthpolicy.org)
Socialism Comes for Kentucky
By Jacob Ogan
Last month, New York City shocked the world by nominating three Democratic socialists in the Democratic primary for U.S. Congress. The election has essentially secured the candidates’ general election victories in deep-blue New York.
While shocking at first sight, these events ought to come as no surprise. They are part of the larger rise of young, Democratic socialists in American politics. Most notably, this movement secured the victory of Zohran Mamdani in the New York City mayoral race last year and has also launched Democratic socialists to power in places like Washington D.C. and Seattle.
But the movement is far closer to home than many realize. In fact, Kentucky has its own share of Democratic socialists. Louisville Metro Council member JP Lyninger proudly declares in his official bio his status as “an active and engaged member of Louisville DSA, the local chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.”
Another Democratic socialist, Robert LeVertis Bell, is expected to win a seat in Kentucky’s 43rd state House district after securing victory in the May 19 Democratic primary. His words sum up this political trend quite aptly: “People no longer see socialism as this big, bad, scary thing…” Instead, Bell argues, socialism is viewed by voters as something that will “make their lives better.”
Bell puts his finger on the rationale behind the rise of socialism in America. Frustrated voters are looking to candidates who seem to have their communities’ best interests in mind. Socialism has gained traction in part because it presents itself as a compassionate answer to those concerns.
However, for all its talk of the collective, socialism is, at its root, a fundamentally selfish system—one that elevates personal entitlement over personal responsibility.
While shrouded in terms of compassion, socialism shifts primary responsibility for one’s wellbeing from the individual to the state. Rather than emphasizing virtues like personal responsibility and hard work, or the importance of institutions like families, churches, and non-profits, socialism instead looks to the government to provide for people’s needs. Whether through government-funded healthcare, tuition-free college, or universal basic income, socialism teaches that citizens ought to expect others to pay their way through life.
Furthermore, socialism is built on envy and pride. It assumes that unequal outcomes are evidence of injustice, rather than simply the result of different choices, opportunities, talents, and circumstances. It also supposes that government bureaucracies can steward funds more wisely than private individuals—and indeed that these bureaucracies have a duty to do so. However, the constant financial turmoil of institutions like the United States Postal Service ought to dispel this myth, as should the nearly $40 trillion of debt the United States currently holds.
In sum, socialism teaches citizens to expect rather than to earn. And instead of cultivating individual responsibility, it encourages people to look to government as the provider of their needs.
This raises the question: Is this kind of citizen sustainable for the American republic?
Historically, the strength of America has come from the individual. When individuals are free to pursue their own interests, it has brought about vast human flourishing—creating such marvels as the assembly line, the airplane, and the iPhone.
Undeniably, the entire world has benefited from these incredible achievements. However, the inventors of these technologies also reaped significant rewards. Their personal ambitions led them to create goods and services that improved the lives of millions while also creating great wealth for themselves and their families for generations to come.
This is the genius of a rightly-ordered capitalism. It recognizes that the flourishing of individuals and the flourishing of society are not at odds with one another. Rather, when constrained by virtue and the rule of law, capitalism channels self-interest towards widespread economic flourishing.
This is not to say that capitalism is a perfect system. Like any human system, it can be abused. Reforms are sometimes necessary to prevent selfish individuals from concentrating power through monopolies and dishonest business practices.
But the concentration and abuse of power are dangers that must be guarded against under every form of government. Socialism, however, proposes that the solution to the potential of concentrated private power is to instead concentrate power in the hands of government. History has shown the devastating consequences of such an arrangement.
What is needed is not greater government control, but a greater number of responsible citizens committed to providing for themselves, their families, and their communities. In this lies the true hope of the American people.
Indeed, this is a vision that many still believe in. While some Americans seek answers in socialism, countless individuals from actual socialist countries have fled to the United States in search of the freedoms and opportunities that come from a free society. Such individuals are not escaping a government that promised too little, but one that promised too much.
