I'm Gen Z.
Most Gen Zs are socialists (we actually know what it means) with a small minority of libertarians.
Very few would want to work for the CIA.
Most Gen Zs are socialists (we actually know what it means) with a small minority of libertarians.
Very few would want to work for the CIA.
From NBC.
Sure, 37% isn't "most", but I think it's a fair guess that if 37% supported Trump, well under 50% of the total are socialists.
FWIW if we had a viable, actual socialist party, I'd vote & even campaign for them. But I think you're way wrong about how far things are shifting, with Gen Z, unfortunately. I do hope I'm the one who's wrong, but I doubt it.
I'm a millennial, but if I look at my social group (mostly gen-z through gen-x) it's nearly all socialists and left- or off-the-spectrum-anarchists[EDIT: probably a couple would identify, specifically, as left-libertarian, now that I think about it, which is very unlike right-libertarian—at least one of those might pointedly insist on just calling the left-libertarian position "liberal"]. That's my bubble, though, and doesn't reflect the proportions for the rest of the country.
[EDIT] Maybe we have different thresholds or definitions of "socialist"? I'd believe that over half of Gen Z wants a "public option" for healthcare, and maybe even M4A, for instance. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some Gen Z Trumpers want those (Trump did, oddly enough, give some lip-service to reform in that direction in his campaigns, though not to M4A)
Some of them genuinely want to see rock-bottom so we'd start caring about government, as a people, again.
There's a lot of "hobbyists" who think they are socialists
The socialist-socialists—having known a few—usually just say Marxist or communist to describe their position, in my experience. "Socialist" only means "like Venezuela or East Germany" when a Republican is saying it, not when people self-describe as socialist.
[EDIT] and yes, to head it off, even Norway has intelligence services, sure—but they don't have Stasi.
Not everybody will be convinced that this will lead to the promised paradise of maximal creative freedom and abundance for all, so not everybody in a democratic system will vote to continue socialism and there's a risk that a majority will not! Well, that is, until the kulak purges begin.
Republicans have a weird definition of socialism. They seem to conflate it with dictatorships.
Super fucking hot take here, but the former president would be called a socialist by any Republican if he was the leader of any other country. He every hallmark trait of a dictator of a failed state: populist, authoritarian, self-serving, cult of personality, strong man, bribes supporters with state funds, uses police power to crush political opponents, etc, etc.
Now once the socialist regime sets up secret police, it will be utterly benevolent and work solely toward emancipation of the working class.
How can we be sure this hasn't happened already? Could anyone imagine a less effective, more hated organization? Could CIA provide poorer intelligence to the executive if they were actually trying to provide poor intelligence? Could their actions reflect more poorly on USA if they were actually trying to tarnish our reputation?
[EDIT:] Perhaps this just proves your point. Continued existence of something like CIA in a putatively democratic society is a mystery. Perhaps they practice a sort of continuous self-disruption, defending themselves from the attentions of better people by always getting worse?