Democratic Socialists Go All In On Communism And Dismantling America

For years, critics of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) were often told they were exaggerating. Warnings that socialism was steadily gaining influence inside the Democratic Party were dismissed as partisan fearmongering. But something has changed. 

Increasingly, the movement's leaders are no longer softening their rhetoric or hiding behind carefully chosen language. They are openly describing a vision that would fundamentally remake America's political, economic, and constitutional order.

The question Americans should now be asking is no longer whether the DSA holds radical views. Its own published platform answers that question. The more significant question is whether these ideas represent a fringe movement attempting to hijack the Democratic Party--or whether they simply represent the next destination on a road the party has already been traveling.

That distinction matters.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, DSA National Co-Chair Megan Romer was asked a series of straightforward questions about her organization's official platform.

Should the Senate be abolished?

"True."

Should the presidency and Supreme Court be replaced?

"Yep."

Should ICE be abolished?

"Absolutely."

Should national borders eventually disappear?

"Yep."

Should the Pentagon be defunded?

"Absolutely."

Should prisons eventually be abolished?

"Yeah."

Should major corporations come under public ownership?

"Absolutely."

There was little hesitation or qualification. These are not stray comments from an obscure activist. They closely mirror the DSA's recently adopted national program, which explicitly calls for abolishing the Senate, replacing the presidency and Supreme Court with institutions subordinate to Congress, public ownership of major industries, abolishing ICE, ending the "Department of War," and drafting an entirely new constitution. 

Whatever label one chooses--socialist, democratic socialist, or something else--these proposals amount to replacing many of the central institutions created by the U.S. Constitution.

Perhaps the most revealing proposal is abolishing the Senate.

Romer argued that the Senate exists to prevent ordinary people from exercising power. That interpretation overlooks why America's constitutional system was designed the way it was.

The Founders intentionally divided authority between the House, Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court because concentrated political power has historically led to abuse. Every branch exists to restrain the others.

Eliminating the Senate while making Congress effectively supreme would not merely streamline government--it would fundamentally change the balance of power established in the Constitution. Whether one favors that change or opposes it, it represents a dramatic restructuring of American government rather than an incremental policy reform.

History repeatedly demonstrates that governments become most dangerous when institutional restraints disappear.

Equally striking were Romer's comments regarding prisons.

When asked specifically about murderers, rapists, and child predators, she argued that once poverty is addressed there would be far fewer serious criminals, after which society could determine alternative approaches to incarceration.

Few Americans dispute that criminal justice reform deserves discussion. 

But abolishing prisons altogether is something very different.

Every functioning society ultimately requires a mechanism for protecting innocent people from those who commit violent crimes. However one labels it--a prison, secure facility, or detention center--the underlying need does not disappear.

The concern many Americans express is not with reform, but with replacing tested institutions based upon optimistic assumptions about human nature that history has repeatedly challenged.

The DSA platform also calls for public ownership of the nation's largest corporations and essential industries.

Supporters argue this would make the economy more democratic.

Critics counter that concentrating economic power within government risks reducing competition, discouraging investment, and expanding political control over private enterprise.

Throughout the twentieth century, countries experimenting with broad state ownership produced widely varying outcomes, from Scandinavian mixed economies that retained extensive market systems to authoritarian communist regimes that centralized both political and economic power. 

The DSA argues its vision differs substantially from Soviet-style communism, but opponents remain skeptical about how such sweeping government authority could avoid similar risks.

Perhaps the most politically important admission involved strategy rather than policy.

Rather than creating an independent socialist party, Romer openly explained why DSA candidates frequently run as Democrats.

Access to the Democratic ballot line is simply easier.

In other words, the Democratic Party is viewed not necessarily as the destination--but as the vehicle.

That raises uncomfortable questions for Democratic leaders themselves.

Some prominent Democrats have welcomed DSA-backed candidates. Others have publicly warned that the movement's agenda could alienate moderate voters and reshape the party in ways they neither intended nor support.

Whether the Democratic Party ultimately absorbs the DSA or the DSA increasingly reshapes the Democratic Party remains an open political question.

Americans should take these developments seriously--not because every proposal will become law, but because political movements often begin by changing what is considered acceptable to discuss before changing what becomes acceptable to enact.

Ideas once viewed as politically impossible can gradually become normalized.

Supporters of the DSA see their platform as a long-term blueprint for a more equitable society. Critics view it as an unprecedented concentration of political and economic power that would dismantle constitutional safeguards built over nearly 250 years.

Either way, one thing is becoming increasingly difficult to deny.

The debate is no longer about whether these ideas exist.

Their own leaders are proudly presenting them to the American public.

And as more candidates associated with this movement seek office under the Democratic banner, voters will increasingly have to decide whether they are witnessing a temporary ideological struggle--or the emergence of a lasting new direction within one of America's two major political parties.