With Election Day less than a month away, voters should look beyond campaign slogans and ask what the policies on the ballot would mean for families who built their lives around work, homeownership, savings and the hope that their children can do better.

A growing socialist movement promises to make life fairer by putting more of the economy under government control. The Democratic Socialists of America’s 2026 program calls for publicly owned housing, universal rent control and public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries. Those proposals deserve serious scrutiny. They would shift decisions about housing, investment and production away from individuals and businesses and toward government.

That shift in control carries real risks for the middle class. Rent control may protect some tenants from increases in the short term, but it cannot create the homes a growing community needs. Research on San Francisco found that rent control reduced displacement for covered tenants while also contributing to a loss of rental housing that pushed market rents higher over time. Policies that discourage construction can leave more families competing for fewer homes.

Public ownership raises an equally basic question: Who decides what gets built, what it costs and who gets access? Government programs can serve essential needs, but concentrating control over major industries in government would give political leaders enormous influence over people’s jobs, choices and livelihoods. Calling that “democratic control” does not guarantee competent management or protect citizens from political favoritism.

The middle class already feels squeezed by housing costs, healthcare bills, energy prices and taxes. The answer should be to make it easier to build homes, start businesses, find good jobs and keep more of what families earn. An agenda that expands government control while discouraging private investment could narrow opportunity and make everyday necessities more expensive.

Warnings about socialism aren’t just coming from Republicans. Sen. John Fetterman has said in fundraising appeals in recent weeks: “I’m always going to reject Socialism and the Anti-American way of life.” Voters should consider why a senator willing to cross partisan lines draws such a clear distinction between socialism and the American principles of individual freedom and opportunity.

Candidates’ words matter. Democratic Michigan congressional candidate William Lawrence once described his goal as “destroying the American way of life” while criticizing consumerism. The context matters, and voters should consider his full remarks. But a phrase that sweeping demands a clear explanation of what he would preserve and what he would replace.

This is not a choice between accepting every failure in today’s economy and surrendering more power to government. Families need a stronger path to homeownership, better schools, reliable public safety and healthcare they can afford. Those goals require accountable institutions and practical reforms, not promises that government can manage every part of life better than people can.

The American dream has never been guaranteed. It depends on individual freedom, hard work and an economy that rewards initiative while giving people room to recover from setbacks. Voters should sound the warning when candidates offer policies that put those foundations at risk. The middle class should not become the experiment on which ideological promises are tested.

_____

©2026 The Baltimore Sun. Visit at baltimoresun.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.