Recent electoral successes for left-wing candidates, including socialists, signal a potential shift in the Democratic Party's political landscape. However, the broader economic agenda advocated by these progressive groups faces a significant challenge in public opinion regarding tax increases necessary to fund expansive social programs.
In the past two weeks alone, four insurgent left-wing candidates, three of them socialists, have secured Democratic congressional primary victories. Notably, 29-year-old Melat Kiros defeated 15-term incumbent Diana DeGette in Colorado's first House district primary. These wins are part of a larger trend for progressives and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), who are poised to hold mayoral seats in New York, Seattle, Washington D.C., and Chicago. A left-populist candidate secured the Democratic nomination for the Senate race in Maine, and Abdul El-Sayed is favored to win Michigan's Democratic Senate primary.
To many on the left, these outcomes suggest a growing acceptance of socialist ideas, with "socialism no longer a dirty word," as noted by The Guardian. The prospect of transforming the United States into a Nordic-style social democracy appears more attainable to some.
Public Opinion and the Welfare State
Despite the electoral gains, the core economic aims of the progressive movement face headwinds. Implementing a social democracy in the U.S. requires widespread public agreement on higher tax rates in exchange for expanded public services, such as Medicare for All. This proposition has historically been controversial and has grown less popular amidst a broader resistance to middle-class taxation.
Public opinion shows some alignment with the left's platform on certain issues. Among Democrats, a majority view "socialism" favorably, while a significant portion of Democrats under 45 identify more with the progressive movement than the Democratic Party. Across the broader electorate, "anti-system" sentiment is prevalent, with a large percentage of voters believing the economic system requires major changes or a complete overhaul. Many voters also express concern about wealthy individuals and corporations not paying their fair share in taxes, and a majority believe the federal government has a responsibility to ensure healthcare coverage, though there is less consensus on a single national program.
However, this support for systemic change and taxing the wealthy contrasts sharply with public attitudes toward personal taxation. The percentage of Americans who view their federal tax burden as "too high" has increased significantly in recent years. This sentiment is not confined to Republicans; independent voters have also expressed greater concern about their tax bills. This trend is notable given that federal tax rates for the lowest-earning 80 percent of Americans are near historic lows and considerably lower than three decades ago.
The current level of middle-class taxation is seen as insufficient to support the existing U.S. welfare state, let alone a significantly expanded one. The nation's substantial deficit and the projected rise in costs for Medicare and Social Security in the coming decade further complicate the fiscal picture. Faced with choices between spending cuts and tax increases to address deficits, a larger share of Americans prefer spending cuts, particularly when it comes to their own taxes.
International Models and Tax Realities
Progressives often point to Scandinavian social democracies as models for their desired expanded welfare state, which includes universal healthcare, free public college, and increased social housing. Countries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland have implemented many of these programs. However, sustaining these benefits requires significantly higher tax revenues than in the U.S. In 2024, U.S. government revenue was approximately 25 percent of GDP, compared to over 40 percent in Nordic countries. This difference is not solely due to higher taxes on the superrich; middle- and upper-middle-class households in Nordic countries bear a substantially higher tax burden, including income taxes and value-added taxes on consumption.
While some argue the U.S. can fund a social democracy through its greater wealth and higher concentration of income among the superrich, this reasoning has limitations. Taxing the middle class is considered more effective in preventing inflation than taxing billionaires. Furthermore, there are practical limits to taxing the wealthiest, as excessively high rates could lead to reduced economic activity or capital flight.
Legislative Hurdles and Future Clout
The insurgent left's victories could influence the Democratic Party's stance on issues like Israel and make congressional progressives more assertive. However, expanding the welfare state significantly is less likely to be blocked by liberal Democrats in safe districts, who have generally supported incremental expansions, than by moderate Democrats in swing districts. The progressive movement has shown limited success in winning elections in these more competitive areas.
While a disciplined progressive bloc in Congress could exert influence, particularly in preventing legislation they oppose, moderates may retain leverage. This is because, in negotiations, the party most comfortable with the prospect of no deal often has the upper hand. If progressives are more averse to zero new social spending than moderates, the latter may continue to set the terms of policy.
Ultimately, for the progressive agenda to realize its most ambitious goals, it must not only win primaries but also gain seats in marginal congressional districts. Furthermore, making middle-class tax hikes politically palatable to a broader electorate will be crucial for American social democracy, let alone democratic socialism, to become a reality.
