By JT Santana | jtwb768

An outside political group is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars telling Iowans that Ashley Hinson is “standing up to socialism.” The phrase sounds dramatic. The record raises a more useful question: What policies are being labeled socialist, and do they fit the term?

There it was on my television: a photograph of U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson surrounded by Iowans and enormous letters declaring “STANDING UP TO SOCIALISM.” At the bottom of the screen, in considerably smaller type, was another word: “Sponsored.” It is exactly the kind of political advertisement built to stop your thumb, catch your eye and place a very large ideological idea into your head before you have much opportunity to ask what it means.

So I started asking.

What socialism?

What has Ashley Hinson actually stood up against that qualifies as socialism? Is somebody proposing that the government seize Iowa farms? Has Congress debated nationalizing Hy-Vee, John Deere or Casey’s? Is there a bill moving through Washington to abolish private ownership of businesses and transfer control of American production to workers or the state?

No.

There are legitimate debates to have about federal spending, taxes, Medicare, health insurance, college tuition, environmental regulation, public infrastructure and the proper size of government. Conservatives, liberals, libertarians, social democrats and socialists can reach profoundly different judgments about those questions.

Calling all—or nearly all—government intervention “socialism,” however, creates a different problem. It turns a definable economic and political philosophy into a catchall campaign word.

That deserves examination.

And before going any further, one correction matters: the advertisement shown on my screen is not an advertisement produced or authorized by Ashley Hinson’s campaign.

Americans for Prosperity Action announced on September 10, 2026, that it was spending $750,000 on digital and streaming advertising supporting Hinson’s U.S. Senate candidacy. AFP Action’s own page states that its advertisements are paid for by the organization and are “not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.” The ads are running on connected television, YouTube, YouTube TV, Meta and other digital platforms through the end of September. 

That distinction matters. I am not going to attribute somebody else’s advertising copy to Hinson.

Here is what makes the question fair anyway: Hinson herself has repeatedly described Democratic spending proposals and government programs as movements toward socialism. Her own words and congressional record make it possible to examine what she appears to mean when she uses the term.

Before We Fight Socialism, Can We Define It?

Political language gets abused when definitions become inconvenient.

“Socialism” has become one of those words.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that socialism encompasses numerous schools of thought, so no single definition captures every socialist tradition. Its basic distinction between capitalism and socialism, however, concerns control over the means of production. Under capitalism, most productive assets are privately owned. Under socialism, the bulk of those productive resources would instead fall under social or democratic control. 

That is considerably more precise than:

Government spent money = socialism.

Government created a program = socialism.

Government regulates something = socialism.

Government built something = socialism.

Government helped somebody = socialism.

If those equations were accurate, the United States would have become socialist generations ago.

Public schools would be socialism. Interstate highways would be socialism. Municipal fire departments would be socialism. Medicare would be socialism. Agricultural subsidies would be socialism. Flood-control projects would be socialism. Federal crop insurance would be socialism. Rural broadband grants would be socialism. Airports, dams, veterans’ hospitals and Social Security would all become evidence that capitalism had disappeared.

It clearly has not.

The United States remains overwhelmingly a market economy based upon private property, privately owned businesses, wage labor, private investment and markets setting most prices. Government programs operate inside that system.

One can argue that Washington spends too much money. One can argue taxes are too high. One can oppose Medicare expansion, federal college assistance or enormous infrastructure bills. One can believe government should have a much smaller economic role.

Those are coherent political positions.

They do not require redefining every opposing policy as socialism.

Ashley Hinson Has Used the Word Herself

This is not solely about an AFP Action advertisement.

Go back to September 2021.

Hinson appeared on Iowa PBS’s Iowa Press and discussed the spending legislation then being debated in Washington. She described a proposed $3.5 trillion Democratic package as the “biggest dive towards socialism that we’ve seen in this country.” 

Moderator Kay Henderson did something journalists should do whenever politicians deploy enormous ideological labels.

She asked Hinson what she meant.

More precisely, Henderson asked:

“So what is socialism in that package?”

That question cut directly through the rhetoric.

Hinson pointed to government spending on community college and proposed expansions of Medicare. She objected to what she described as unlimited taxpayer spending and argued that the programs were financially unsustainable. 

Those objections can be debated on their merits.

How much would they cost?

How would they be financed?

Would they produce measurable benefits?

Would they increase deficits?

Would higher taxes be required?

Would government deliver the services effectively?

Those are policy questions.

A different question remains: What makes those proposals socialist?

Government financing of community college does not transfer the country’s factories, farms, banks, retailers or other productive enterprises from private ownership into social ownership.

Adding dental, vision or hearing benefits to Medicare does not abolish capitalism.

A social program may be larger government. It may be expensive government. It may be good policy or terrible policy depending upon one’s assumptions, values and analysis.

Those categories are not synonyms for socialism.

Then There Is the Infrastructure Bill

This part of Hinson’s record provides an unusually useful case study.

In November 2021, Hinson voted against the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. She criticized the legislation in sweeping terms, saying the need for investments in roads, bridges, locks, dams and broadband had been sacrificed to what she called a “partisan, socialist spending spree.” Contemporary reporting documented that statement and her opposition to the legislation. 

The Congressional Budget Office described the legislation in considerably less ideological terms.

CBO reported funding for transportation, broadband, pollution control, energy programs and other physical infrastructure. It projected that the legislation would increase federal deficits by roughly $256 billion over the 2021–2031 period under its original estimate. CBO later projected modest positive effects on real GDP and private-sector productivity stemming from the infrastructure investments. 

Someone can look at that price tag and object.

Someone can question particular programs.

Someone can argue Washington had no business borrowing that much money.

Someone can say the legislation should have been smaller.

None of those arguments require the socialist label.

And then something interesting happened.

The law passed.

Federal money became available.

Hinson advocated for Iowa to receive it.

In January 2022, she announced $829 million for improvements to locks and dams along the Upper Mississippi River, calling the projects important for Iowa agriculture and Mississippi River communities. Her role in pressing for the investments was real. So was the fact that the money came through legislation she had opposed and described using the word “socialist.” 

Hinson offered a perfectly recognizable explanation.

The legislation had become law. The federal money was going to be spent. Her job, she said, was to fight for Iowa taxpayers and bring Iowa’s share home rather than allow it to flow somewhere else. 

That argument deserves to be represented accurately.

It creates another question nonetheless.

If spending federal money on locks and dams was part of a “socialist spending spree” when Congress was deciding whether to appropriate it, what did the money become once it reached Iowa?

It was still federal money.

It was still collected or borrowed by the federal government.

It was still allocated through legislation.

It was still being spent on publicly supported infrastructure.

The ideological label disappeared; the concrete project remained.

That does not prove hypocrisy. A representative can oppose a bill, lose the vote and then work within the enacted law to direct money to constituents. Members of both parties do this.

What it does demonstrate is why ideological labels deserve scrutiny.

The actual policy is often much less dramatic than the advertisement.

Hinson Currently Brings Federal Money Back to Iowa

The same distinction appears in Hinson’s more recent record.

In February 2026, her congressional office announced that she had secured more than $18.7 million in federal investments for Iowa’s Second Congressional District through a bipartisan government funding package. Her office said the funding supported workforce housing, infrastructure, career and technical education and other community projects. 

Her congressional agriculture page reports that she has secured more than $100 million in Community Project Funding supporting flood mitigation, emergency services, child-care facilities and infrastructure. The same page describes her support for USDA programs, rural broadband, health-care access and federal agricultural initiatives. 

Her FY2027 Community Project Funding requests contain familiar examples of government intervention: road reconstruction, ADA-compliant sidewalks, stormwater systems, hospital equipment, housing infrastructure and other locally identified projects financed in part with federal dollars. 

I am not presenting any of that as criticism.

Iowa sends enormous sums of money to Washington. Members of Congress routinely seek federal funds for projects back home. Voters can decide for themselves whether particular expenditures are justified.

The point is conceptual.

Government spending cannot simultaneously serve as the working definition of socialism and remain something entirely different whenever the spending finances a favored project.

If rebuilding an Iowa road is compatible with capitalism, then rebuilding a road in another state does not magically become socialism.

If federal assistance for Iowa agriculture is compatible with capitalism, the existence of another federally financed program does not establish socialism either.

If taxpayer-funded infrastructure is compatible with capitalism, then the debate has to concern the merits, scale, financing and purpose of that infrastructure.

Words need consistent meanings.

Hinson Really Has Formally Condemned Socialism

There is another part of her record that deserves inclusion.

Hinson did not merely use the word casually in interviews.

On October 24, 2025, she joined other House members as a cosponsor of H.Con.Res. 58, “Denouncing the horrors of socialism.” The resolution was introduced by Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar of Florida and cited historical atrocities and repression associated with governments operating under socialist and communist systems. 

On November 21, 2025, the House passed the resolution 285–98, with two members voting present and 47 not voting. Hinson voted yes. Every Republican who cast a yes-or-no vote supported it, joined by 86 Democrats. 

That vote establishes something real about Hinson’s record: she formally endorsed a congressional resolution condemning socialism.

It does not answer the question raised by this advertisement.

Which current American policies qualify?

Condemning Stalinism, authoritarian communist governments, political repression, state seizure of property or atrocities committed by self-described socialist regimes is one issue.

Deciding whether Medicare coverage for hearing aids is socialism is another.

Those concepts should not be collapsed into each other simply because the same political word appears in both discussions.

Americans for Prosperity Is Using a Broader Definition

The sponsor of the advertisement makes its own meaning somewhat clearer.

Americans for Prosperity launched a national “Fight Socialism” campaign on September 2, 2026. In describing the campaign, the organization cited policies such as rent control, government-operated grocery stores and single-payer health care as examples of what it opposes under the socialism banner. 

AFP Action’s September Iowa advertising announcement says Democrats are advancing what the organization calls an “extreme, government-first agenda.” It singles out Medicare for All and eliminating fossil fuels, then presents Hinson’s support for tax reductions as the contrast. 

That tells us more about the advertisement.

“Socialism” is being used here as an umbrella political category for policies involving a larger government role in parts of the economy.

That is a political usage of the word.

It is not identical to the narrower economic definition involving social control over the means of production.

Readers can decide which definition they find more useful. They should at least know that two different definitions are operating.

Medicare for All Is a Better Test

Medicare for All presents a harder case than roads, bridges or community-college funding.

A single-payer health system would give the federal government a far larger role in financing medical care. Depending upon the proposal, private insurance could be greatly reduced or displaced for covered services. Taxes would finance benefits that Americans currently obtain through a mixture of private insurance, employer plans, Medicare, Medicaid, direct payments and other arrangements.

That is unquestionably a major change in the American health-financing system.

It is fair to debate whether such a model gives government too much authority.

It is fair to question its costs.

It is fair to debate taxation, reimbursement rates, provider participation, consumer choice and the effects on private insurers.

Calling it socialism, however, still requires defining the term.

Doctors would not necessarily become federal employees.

Hospitals would not necessarily become government property.

Drug companies would not necessarily become publicly owned.

Medical-device companies would not necessarily become worker-owned enterprises.

The wider American economy would remain dominated by privately owned businesses and market exchange.

A single-payer system can exist inside a capitalist economy. Countries with extensive welfare states and universal health systems continue to maintain private businesses, private investment and market economies.

Socialists may support Medicare for All. Social democrats may support it. Progressives who reject socialism may support it. Capitalists may oppose it. Some may support parts of it.

The identity of people advocating for a policy does not settle the economic classification of the policy itself.

Government Intervention Is Not an Ideology Test

Hinson’s own recent legislative record illustrates how quickly simplistic definitions break down.

In June 2026, she supported a bipartisan housing package containing a provision intended to restrict large institutional investors from purchasing single-family homes. Her office argued that Wall Street investors were outbidding families and contributing to housing affordability problems. 

Think about what that means economically.

Government intervenes in a private market.

Government places restrictions on certain private investors.

Government does so to pursue a social objective: making homeownership more accessible to individual families.

Is that socialism?

I would say the useful answer is not found in shouting the label in either direction. It is found in examining what the law actually does.

The same standard should apply to proposals Hinson opposes.

A policy does not become socialist merely when Democrats propose it, any more than a policy becomes capitalist merely when Republicans propose it.

The policy itself matters.

Iowa Agriculture Makes the Definition Even Harder

Iowa is a particularly interesting place to conduct this semantic experiment.

American agriculture operates within one of the country’s most extensive networks of government policy.

Farmers interact with federally supported crop insurance, conservation programs, commodity programs, disaster assistance, ethanol policy, agricultural research, rural development programs and government-backed lending. Congress periodically writes enormous farm bills shaping those programs.

Hinson’s own congressional materials celebrate federal programs intended to support Iowa agriculture, expand markets for biofuels, finance conservation practices, protect supply chains and fund rural infrastructure. 

Again, none of that makes Ashley Hinson a socialist.

That is precisely my point.

Government participation in an economy is not sufficient evidence of socialism.

The United States has operated a mixed economy for generations. Private enterprise remains dominant, with federal, state and local governments taxing, spending, regulating, subsidizing, purchasing goods and providing public services alongside it.

The serious political question is how much government, doing what, at what cost, under whose authority and with what results?

“Socialism” cannot answer those questions for us.

The Word Does Enormous Work in American Politics

There is a reason advertisements use words such as socialism.

They carry history with them.

For many Americans, particularly families whose histories involve Cuba, the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Venezuela or other countries associated with socialist or communist governments, the term can evoke political repression, economic collapse, shortages or dictatorship.

Those experiences are real and should not be trivialized.

That history makes precision more necessary, not less.

If Americans are told that a policy providing community college assistance sits on the same ideological continuum as an authoritarian command economy, the advertisement has moved from policy description into political framing.

Maybe the voter agrees with that framing.

Maybe the voter does not.

At minimum, the voter deserves enough information to recognize the difference.

“Standing Up to Socialism” Sounds Clear Until You Ask What It Means

The advertisement is effective at communicating a simple proposition.

Ashley Hinson is standing on one side.

Socialism is standing on the other.

The complicated part begins when we examine the territory between them.

Hinson has opposed large Democratic spending proposals. She opposed the 2021 infrastructure law. She has criticized expansions of Medicare. She opposes Medicare for All. She has condemned socialism through a formal congressional resolution. She has repeatedly argued for smaller government, lower taxes and reduced federal spending in various areas. 

She has simultaneously advocated for federal infrastructure money, Community Project Funding, agricultural programs, workforce housing investments, rural development initiatives and other uses of taxpayer money in Iowa. 

There is nothing inherently contradictory about a conservative member of Congress supporting some federal programs and opposing others.

The inconsistency appears only if federal spending itself becomes evidence of socialism.

Once that definition is adopted, nearly every modern member of Congress becomes vulnerable to the same accusation.

That is why the label tells us much less than the policy.

Here Is the Question I Want Answered

This is not an endorsement of Ashley Hinson.

It is not an endorsement of her opponent.

It is not an argument that voters should support Medicare for All, reject Medicare for All, increase federal spending or slash federal spending.

It is an argument for something far less partisan:

Define your terms.

If an advertisement tells Iowa voters that a candidate is “standing up to socialism,” tell us exactly which socialist policies she stopped.

Name the legislation.

Identify the provision.

Explain which private means of production would have been transferred into collective, worker or government control.

Explain where capitalism was being replaced rather than regulated.

Explain how the policy fits the definition being used.

If the answer is instead that Hinson opposed high taxes, large expenditures, Medicare expansion, tuition assistance, environmental regulation or other forms of federal intervention, then say that.

Those are actual policy disagreements.

They are worth debating.

They give voters something concrete to examine.

“Socialism” may fit nicely across a television screen in enormous white letters.

Democracy asks more of us than reading the letters.

It asks us to ask what they mean.

And after seeing this ad, that is exactly what I am doing.

The Standard Should Apply to Everybody

This cannot become another partisan trick where we demand precision from politicians we dislike and accept slogans from politicians we prefer.

If a Democrat calls every Republican proposal “fascism,” demand evidence.

If a Republican calls every Democratic social program “socialism,” demand evidence.

If somebody claims a policy will “destroy democracy,” ask how.

If somebody says legislation will “destroy capitalism,” ask which part of the capitalist system disappears.

Political vocabulary loses value when every word means “the thing the other team wants.”

Iowa voters are capable of examining more than that.

Ashley Hinson has a public record. It can be examined. Her opponents have public records too. AFP Action has every right to purchase advertising advocating its political position, subject to campaign-finance law. Voters have the same right to look past the typography and interrogate the claim.

That is what I did here.

The evidence supports a narrower statement than the one flashing across the television:

Ashley Hinson has repeatedly opposed policies that she and allied conservative organizations describe as socialist.

Whether those policies constitute socialism in the conventional economic sense is a separate question.

And it is a question worth asking before we allow one of the most politically loaded words in the American vocabulary to do all of our thinking for us.