Between Editions: Capitalism at the Crossroads
A free feature of The Rising Tide. No subscription is needed to read.
American capitalism helped build the world’s largest economy. It fueled extraordinary innovation, created industries that transformed daily life, and gave generations of Americans reason to believe that hard work would be rewarded with a better future. For much of the nation’s modern history, that promise formed the heart of what became known as the American Dream.
A recent Wall Street Journal-NORC survey found that fewer than half of Americans believe capitalism is working well, down sharply from a decade ago. Only 35 percent said they were fairly sure the country still offers people the opportunity to find good jobs and achieve the American Dream, while just 12 percent said democracy is working very or extremely well.
The findings suggest that Americans are questioning whether the nation’s economic and political institutions still work for ordinary families.
History has repeatedly demonstrated capitalism's remarkable ability to generate wealth and innovation. The more pressing question is what kind of capitalism Americans want to build over the next generation, and whether they can restore confidence that the system still rewards effort, encourages opportunity, and serves the broader public.
Growth or Redistribution?
Historically, economic growth and rising productivity lifted living standards for millions of Americans. Families generally expected their children to enjoy greater opportunities than they had themselves. That expectation helped sustain confidence in both capitalism and democracy because economic progress seemed broadly shared.
Growth has continued, but inflation-adjusted incomes have risen much more slowly, while housing, healthcare, childcare, and higher education have become steadily more expensive. At the same time, technological change and globalization have produced enormous rewards for highly educated workers, entrepreneurs, and investors.
The result is not simply wider inequality. More troubling is the growing belief that upward mobility itself has become harder to achieve. Research has shown that children born in the middle of the twentieth century were far more likely to earn more than their parents than those born in recent decades. Many Americans are less concerned that some people have become extraordinarily wealthy than they are that their own children may struggle to climb the economic ladder.
The Journal poll suggests these concerns have become deeply rooted. Nearly three-quarters of respondents said billionaires and large businesses have too much influence in Washington, while working people have too little. A narrow majority agreed that corporate power often comes at the expense of workers and consumers and believed government should do more to limit that influence, revealing a widening gap between economic performance and public confidence.
One response has been to call for greater redistribution. Advocates argue that modern capitalism produces extraordinary wealth but concentrates too much of it among too few people. They support policies ranging from higher taxes on wealth to expanded social programs, universal healthcare, and stronger income supports designed to spread the benefits of economic growth more broadly.
Others argue that stronger schools, workforce training, scientific research, infrastructure investment, and technological innovation can increase productivity while creating more pathways into the middle class. Rather than focusing on dividing existing wealth differently, they seek to enlarge the economy and help more Americans participate in its growth.
Expanding government programs requires substantial public resources at a time when federal debt continues to grow, while relying entirely on market forces risks leaving more Americans convinced the economy no longer offers a realistic path to success. As confidence erodes, pressure grows for greater government intervention even if broader economic indicators remain strong.
That helps explain why debates over economic policy have become increasingly emotional. They are no longer simply arguments about taxes or government spending. They have become arguments about fairness, opportunity, and whether the economic system still reflects the values Americans believe it should represent.
Walls or Bridges?
For much of the postwar era, leaders in both political parties generally agreed that expanding trade, foreign investment, and immigration would strengthen the American economy. Consumers benefited from lower prices, businesses gained access to larger markets, and innovation accelerated as ideas and talent moved more freely across borders.
That consensus has steadily weakened over the past two decades. Many communities experienced factory closures, manufacturing job losses, and prolonged economic decline. While economists pointed to the overall benefits of globalization, many workers experienced its costs far more directly, helping fuel populist movements across the political spectrum.
Tariffs, industrial policy, and stricter immigration enforcement have emerged as responses to those concerns. Supporters argue that government should protect strategic industries, strengthen domestic manufacturing, and reduce dependence on foreign supply chains. The pandemic and growing competition with China reinforced many of those arguments.
Economic retreat, however, carries costs of its own. Trade restrictions can raise prices, limits on immigration can deepen labor shortages, and barriers to investment and collaboration can slow innovation as technological competition intensifies.
The Journal survey suggests Americans hold more nuanced views than political rhetoric often implies. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said immigration helps the United States more than it hurts it, even as many also support stronger border enforcement. Rather than choosing between open borders and isolation, many appear to favor secure borders, legal immigration and continued economic engagement.
The challenge is not whether globalization benefits the United States, but how to ensure more Americans share in those benefits.
Regulation or Competition?
Every successful market economy depends on both competition and trust. Entrepreneurs need the freedom to take risks, invest capital, and bring new ideas to market. Consumers need confidence that markets are fair, contracts are enforced, and no company or interest group can bend the rules in its own favor.
The debate is not whether government should have a role, but how large that role should be and where it can do the most good.
American history offers examples supporting both sides of that argument. Competitive markets helped drive advances in aviation, computing, biotechnology, and now artificial intelligence, while venture capital transformed scientific breakthroughs into products that improved everyday life.
Yet markets do not always correct themselves. Financial crises, monopolistic behavior, environmental damage, and unsafe working conditions have all required public oversight. Government has also helped fund scientific research, build infrastructure, and establish the legal framework that allows markets to function effectively
The challenge is finding the point where regulation protects competition instead of replacing it. Poorly designed rules can discourage investment, delay infrastructure projects, and make housing, energy development, and business expansion unnecessarily expensive. Regulations introduced for legitimate reasons can also accumulate over time until they become obstacles to growth.
Perhaps the greater danger lies in what economists often describe as crony capitalism. Public confidence erodes when citizens conclude that political connections matter more than innovation, or that large corporations and wealthy interests receive advantages unavailable to everyone else.
Nearly three-quarters of respondents to the Journal survey said billionaires and major businesses have too much influence in Washington, helping explain why frustration with both government and corporate America now cuts across traditional ideological lines. People who disagree sharply on taxes, regulation, or trade often agree that powerful institutions appear increasingly disconnected from ordinary citizens.
Gretchen Barton, a public opinion researcher who works with Democratic organizations, told The Journal that many Americans describe themselves as feeling as though they are "drowning economically."
Yet the survey also points to a measure of common ground. Americans remain deeply divided over many political questions, but they still agree on the importance of opportunity, fairness, and accountable institutions. Most have not rejected capitalism outright. Instead, they appear to be asking whether it can once again produce the widely shared prosperity that defined much of the twentieth century.
The Road Ahead
The future of American capitalism will not be determined by a single election, one administration, or one piece of legislation. Nor will it be settled by choosing between markets and government. The country's history demonstrates that both have contributed to its prosperity. The real challenge is restoring confidence that they can work together to expand opportunity.
Economic growth remains essential because a stagnant economy eventually becomes a contest over dividing limited resources. But growth alone may not be enough if too many Americans believe they have little chance to share in it. Rising national wealth means less when families conclude their own prospects are standing still.
The Journal poll found that many Americans believe the country is becoming too divided to solve major problems, while substantial majorities see the nation in decline and believe its best days are behind it. Those attitudes run deeper than temporary political frustration.
Yet American history also offers reasons for optimism. The United States has repeatedly adapted to profound economic and technological change, emerging from depressions, financial crises, world wars, and periods of political division by reforming its institutions rather than abandoning them. Its greatest strengths have always been its capacity to innovate, attract talent, and adapt while preserving the principles that made its success possible.
The Center Lost Its Edge
Political earthquakes usually start when large numbers of people conclude that the old way of governing no longer works for them. That is the story unfolding across much of the Western world today.
Voters are abandoning familiar political parties, not because they have all embraced the same ideology, but because many have lost confidence that the political center still knows how to solve their problems.
The evidence stretches far beyond the United States. Center-left parties have struggled in countries across Europe, while populist movements on both the left and the right have gained ground. In Britain, Labour has sought to redefine itself after years of internal conflict. In France and Germany, traditional governing parties have watched support drift toward political outsiders.
Although each country’s politics are different, the underlying frustration sounds remarkably similar. Many voters believe the institutions that once promised greater opportunity have become more interested in preserving themselves than reforming the system.
This represents a profound reversal. Liberal democracy rose to prominence by challenging entrenched privilege. It fought hereditary power, defended free speech, promoted open markets and argued that talent should matter more than family background. For generations, it presented itself as the force that opened closed doors.
Today, many citizens see housing becoming less affordable despite years of economic growth. They see industries dominated by a handful of giant companies. They see universities, government agencies and large corporations speaking the language of opportunity while appearing increasingly inaccessible to ordinary people. Whether these perceptions are always fair is almost beside the point. In politics, perceptions often become reality.
That helps explain why political movements with very different philosophies have found common ground in one respect. Democratic socialists promise to confront concentrated economic power through a more active state. Right-wing populists promise to confront political, cultural and bureaucratic elites through nationalism and institutional disruption. They disagree on nearly everything except their diagnosis that the existing order has become too comfortable with itself.
Voters increasingly want evidence that leaders are willing to challenge powerful interests, even when those interests sit inside institutions traditionally associated with their own side. Defending the status quo is becoming a difficult political strategy at a time when many people believe the status quo is producing fewer opportunities and greater insecurity.
The future of liberal democracy may therefore depend less on moving left or right than on recovering its original purpose. That means encouraging genuine competition instead of protecting dominant firms, expanding opportunity instead of defending barriers, and measuring success by whether ordinary people believe the system is becoming more open rather than more exclusive.
History suggests that political movements survive by adapting to changing realities without abandoning their core principles. If the center rediscovers the confidence to challenge concentrations of power instead of merely administering them, it could once again become a force for reform. If it cannot, voters will keep looking elsewhere.
Between Editions is a free weekly feature of The Rising Tide, offering timely analysis between the magazine’s main editions when important stories are still unfolding. Paid subscribers receive full access to Between Editions, every edition of The Rising Tide, and our sister online magazine, Barber’s Mexico Business Report. Your support helps fund journalism focused on understanding what is changing, and why it matters.