Recently, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has taken center stage in the Democratic Party. To claim this notoriety, they have been making some pretty spectacular promises.
The reality is that most of these claims range from improbable to impossible. Not only that, but many of these ideas are not even new. In fact, they are very old. Unless the DSA is committed to violent revolution, the probability of seeing their dreams come true is remote at best.
First, let’s examine political and legislative reality. The voting public is divided roughly into three groups: one-third Democrats, one-third Republicans and one-third independent or undeclared. If the DSA wins a primary, they represent roughly one-fifth of the voting public. A recent poll shows that only 40% of Democrats actually ascribe to the policies of the DSA. Legislative success (passing a bill) requires getting more than 50% of those present and voting. On the worst day, this requires more than one-third of the body as a whole. Passing a bill that less than 15% of the general public supports, and having it survive until it becomes law, is unlikely.
Now let’s look at some of the ideas themselves: defunding the police, eliminating the jails,
Medicare for all, eliminating the Senate and eliminating the independent federal executive and judiciary branches. The first three are in fact within legislative purview, but as described above, they are so unpopular or unsustainable that the probability of them becoming reality in this century is vanishingly small.
For defunding the police, most people don’t like the idea of criminals roaming the streets or their bedrooms. Then take Medicare for all: I’m now on Medicare and I paid into it for 45 years, and I will collect from it for 15 years, maybe 20 if I’m lucky. If we have Medicare for all, who is paying in and not collecting? Without that quality, it will cost far more than paying for the services out of pocket, or even insurance.
The last three proposals are even more absurd, because they can’t be done by Congress, they require Constitutional Amendments. Amendments originate either at the request of two-thirds of the states, or by concurrence of three-fifths from both Houses of Congress, and then the final form has to be approved by three-fourths of the states. This process is so arduous that the last Amendment was made in 1971, over 50 years ago, and it was merely that a Congress could not give themselves a raise, but only the next Congress. Does anyone think that three-fifths of the Senate is going to vote to eliminate itself?
Still more chimerical are that the proposals of eliminating the Senate; creating a unicameral legislature, an executive, and a judiciary created by that unicameral legislature; and eliminating the electoral college are not new ideas. This was in fact the form of government under the Articles of Confederation from 1776 to 1789, and it was the form of government in of most of the states during that same period.
However, an all-powerful legislature proved to be as dangerous to liberty as an all-powerful king. The voice of experience is that the government of a legislature, executive and judiciary created by that legislature doesn’t work. After only 13 years, we replaced it with what have today, and that has worked for 237 years. The idea of independent branches of government with checks balances upon each other began even earlier in the states, beginning with New Hampshire and Massachusetts in 1779.
The proposals of the DSA are likely not serious, but electioneering hoaxes, designed to garner campaign donations from the gullible. If they are serious, we would do well to remember the words of James Madison in the Federalist Papers in 1788: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
Daniel Itse is a former state representative and chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Review and Statutory Recodification, and was vice chairman of the Committee on Children and Family Law. He resides in Milford.