A recent Deseret News article reported that 51 percent of Utah Democrats view “socialism” favorably and that 70 percent view “democratic socialism” positively. The tone of the piece is clear: this trend is worrying, even dangerous, and likely the result of younger voters not understanding the meaning of socialism. To warn readers, the article repeats a single historical script: socialism equals authoritarianism. But rather than informing readers, the framing functions as fear based messaging, positioning Democratic voters as ignorant, naïve, and susceptible to dangerous ideas. Fear based framing is a familiar cue in my study of conspiracy theories and moral panics, prompting an analysis of what anxieties are being activated and for whose benefit. So let’s take a closer look.

The framing in this article is not neutral. From a media perspective, the article uses several well documented techniques that subtly guide how readers evaluate Democratic voters, ideas, and policy positions.

• Label priming repeatedly pairs “socialism” with authoritarian historical examples, activating Cold War fears before policy substance is discussed.
• Asymmetrical expertise framing presents critics of socialism as neutral authorities while portraying younger Democrats as confused, poorly educated, or driven by economic anxiety rather than reasoned judgment.
• Selective balance amplifies warnings from libertarian voices while excluding scholarly perspectives on social democracy and mixed market systems.
• Threat framing asks whether Utah could “elect a socialist,” casting ordinary democratic participation as a potential danger.

None of this is explicit, but taken together these framing choices operate as a sophisticated form of affective persuasion, subtly shaping emotional responses to Democratic voters in ways that advance political judgment without engaging policy substance. Responsible journalism helps readers understand complexity, context, and competing frameworks. Ideological journalism, by contrast, relies on “us versus them” narratives that portray one political group as irrational, uninformed, or morally suspect, rather than engaging their concerns in good faith.

---

What the article leaves out matters.

---

There is no discussion of social democracy, the economic model used in countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and Finland, nations with competitive economies, strong democracies, high levels of innovation, and some of the world’s best outcomes in education, health, and family well being. These countries are not authoritarian and are not failed experiments. They are modern social democracies that blend market economies with strong social protections.

There is also no explanation of democratic socialism, even though the poll distinguished between the two. Democratic socialism operates through elections, civil liberties, multi party systems, and regulated markets. It is not communism, and it is not a one party state. Bernie Sanders and most members of the Democratic Socialists of America would not recognize their own views in the caricature the article implies.

The article offers no nuance about different kinds of public ownership or social programs. It suggests that “socialism” means “the state owns everything,” ignoring the reality that most modern economies, including the United States, mix public goods, regulated markets, and private enterprise. That is how every successful country in the world works.

And perhaps most glaringly, there is no acknowledgement that the United States already has socialized sectors: public schools, Social Security, Medicare, libraries, fire departments, public universities, the interstate highway system, and millions of acres of public land, including much of Utah. If government involvement were inherently authoritarian, then our own state would already meet that definition.

A more balanced article would have looked different. Responsible journalism would have acknowledged several basic realities that are widely accepted by economists and political scientists:

• First, social democracies exist and are successful.
  They combine market economies with strong social supports and consistently rank among the healthiest, most stable, and most prosperous countries in the world.
• Second, democratic socialism is not communism.
  It functions through elections, pluralism, and civil liberties, not through authoritarian rule.
• Third, the United States already operates as a mixed market state.
  Americans across the political spectrum rely daily on public goods and public institutions.
• Fourth, many Americans support policies associated with democratic socialism.
  Polling consistently shows strong support for childcare subsidies, paid family leave, universal healthcare, higher taxes on the ultra wealthy, and tuition free community college. The word “socialism” triggers anxiety even when the policies themselves are popular.
• Finally, expanding social programs is not the same thing as eliminating markets.
  Most proposals favored by younger voters strengthen the safety net rather than dismantling capitalism.

---

Why Does This Matter?

---

Because how we talk about these issues shapes what solutions we can even consider. Many Americans are wrestling with well documented challenges, including affordability, stagnant wages, a housing crisis, childcare shortages, and a cost of living squeeze that is pushing many young families to the breaking point. Polling consistently shows that voters are asking for relief on healthcare, childcare, wages, and housing in a system that increasingly feels stacked against them.

That does not mean they are calling for a one party state, centralized economic control, or the elimination of markets. In fact, the same polling shows continued support for private enterprise alongside stronger public protections.

Reducing these concerns to historical ignorance or ideological extremism misrepresents what voters are actually expressing and dismisses economic pressures that are widely recognized across the political spectrum.

We need better civic literacy, not more fear driven framing. We need accurate and responsible journalism, not ideological shortcuts. And we need a public conversation grounded in present day realities, not Cold War fearmongering.

The public deserves a debate grounded in facts, not caricatures. The questions young voters and Democratic voters are raising reflect valid concerns, not political recklessness. The least we can do is meet them with good faith engagement. Demonizing political opponents may seem an expedient rhetorical shortcut, but it ultimately impoverishes public debate and makes meaningful solutions harder to reach.