By Douglas V. Gibbs
The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) have unveiled a radical platform that would fundamentally dismantle America’s constitutional system. Their proposal calls for abolishing the Senate, replacing the presidency and Supreme Court with bodies subordinate to Congress, and eliminating the Electoral College.
What the DSA proposes would, in some ways, be a return to the Articles of Confederation, under which we had a unicameral legislature, a president with no independent power, and no federal courts. This isn’t innovation; it’s historical amnesia. The Articles created precisely the kind of government the DSA now advocates; one with a single legislative chamber and a weak executive subordinate to that legislature. The result was chaos and dysfunction that nearly doomed the American experiment before it began.
The early Americans learned painful lessons during the Revolutionary War about the dangers of an overly weak executive. While fearful of monarchy, they went to the opposite extreme and made the position too weak, even when it came to the Commander in Chief of the Army. General George Washington was originally micromanaged from their perches in the legislature. As a result, the beginning of the war went horribly – we lost 8 of the first 11 major battles, including losing Philadelphia following the demands of a bunch of bureaucrats. Only when Washington was given full autonomy as Commander in Chief did he turn the war around and secure victory.
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were not ignorant of what had transpired. They recognized that the President must be independent of congressional control, strong in the duties given him, but limited in what his authorities were to protect against him becoming too powerful. This delicate balance was achieved by granting the President authority as Commander in Chief without micromanagement from Congress, giving him autonomy in foreign affairs while still restricting him to remain within the allowances of laws passed, needing ratification of treaties by the Senate, and domestically limiting him to only executing laws that are on the books.
The Senate was added as a second chamber precisely to ensure against one-faction rule. Since House members are democratically elected and states receive more members if they have larger populations, the Senate was designed to guard against single rule by large cities and heavily populated states. Two senators per state, with Senators originally appointed by state legislatures, ensured that rural areas had influence in the Senate, giving it a different perspective regarding lawmaking and providing the state legislatures with a mechanism to be represented in the federal legislature they created. It was an important check and balance to guard against the tyranny of the majority.
The Supreme Court and federal court system were created to handle cases that reached beyond state boundaries – disputes across state lines, maritime law, and cases in which the United States was a party. Without the Supreme Court, states would either be left to bicker among themselves or be overpowered by a national government, with disputes having no place for resolution.
The DSA argues that the Senate is “undemocratic” because each state has equal representation regardless of population size. This simplistic view ignores the profound wisdom of the Founders in creating a republic rather than a pure democracy. As James Madison explained, “A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable.”
The DSA’s platform echoes the radicalism of the French Revolution Jacobins, who similarly dismantled existing institutions in the name of popular rule. Their proposal would eliminate checks and balances precisely because they constrain the ability of a majority to impose its will without restraint. Checks and balances are in place because of human nature. Even the supposed well-intentioned socialists, once in control, become corrupt with power.
The DSA’s co-chairman Ashik Siddiqu defends these radical changes, arguing “We think it’s a change that would help make this country more democratic.” What they call “democracy” is simply the rule of the majority without institutional restraint – a system that historically has led to oppression of minority voices and eventual collapse into tyranny.
Implementing such changes would face notable constitutional challenges, requiring approval from two-thirds of Congress or the States in Convention, and ratification by three-fourths of the states. This constitutional barrier reflects the Founders’ wisdom in making fundamental change difficult but not impossible.
When it comes to the Democratic Socialists’ cry for “democracy” – getting rid of the presidency and Senate and Supreme Court as they exist – is not only foolish, but we’ve been down that road and it was failing badly – hence, the reason for the Constitution. The American constitutional system has endured for over two centuries precisely because it balances competing interests and constrains the potential for abuse of power through its system of checks and balances.
The DSA’s proposals represent not progress but regression to a discredited system of governance that America’s Founders wisely rejected. Their vision would eliminate the institutional safeguards that have allowed the United States to become the world’s oldest continuous constitutional republic. In seeking to “perfect” democracy, they would destroy the very system that has made the American experiment so successful.
The Constitution was not created in a vacuum but in response to specific historical failures. To ignore those lessons is to risk repeating those same failures. The DSA’s platform is not a path to enhanced democracy but a road back to governmental dysfunction and potential tyranny.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
