America’s latest critic, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), is making popularity inroads around the country. It has a “platform” which includes eliminating the U.S. Senate and replacing the president and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by Congress. They are calling for a “new democratic constitution.”
DSA claims the U.S. Senate was instituted to diminish the power of the people. They consider America’s House of Representatives as the only place “We the People” are now represented. The constitutionally stipulated, non-proportionate “two senators for each state” conflicts with DSA’s demand for what they consider a pure democracy.
The Senate also has unique powers separate from the House, another basis for DSA’s concern. These powers include ratifying international treaties and agreements, approving Supreme Court justices and other presidential nominations, and conducting impeachment trials. DSA believes that excluding the House from influencing these duties further dilutes the power of the people.
Eliminating the presidency and Supreme Court would remove two powerful branches that obstruct the transformational plans of DSA. They consider checks and balances to be archaic and obstacles to needed reform. These institutions would be replaced by executive and judiciary functions appointed by, and subordinate to, the reimagined unilateral Congress.
It appears DSA will be a radical change agent, out of sync with the Democrat platform. Do Democrats fully understand the implications of that fact as DSA “hitches their wagon” to the Democrat party? Democrats will provide financial support for this new affiliate, while at the same time, I’m sure, DSA, and friends, have no intention of ignoring their own political priorities.
Reflect on DSA’s dreams for transforming America, especially reforming or replacing our Constitution with something more flexible and “up to date.” DSA isn’t the first to entertain a similar goal. There was a popular political movement active from the 1880s until about 1920. The 1912 presidential election had three prominent parties. All three presidential candidates declared themselves as “progressives.” Compare DSA with the following political movement.
The incumbent “progressive” Republican was William Howard Taft; the “progressive” Democrat candidate was Woodrow Wilson; and the official “Progressive” party candidate was former Republican President Teddy Roosevelt. His party was nicknamed the “Bull Moose Party.” Wilson won the presidency.
Roosevelt gradually became enamored with the good things an unfettered government could accomplish. From 1910: “…. we must have government supervision of the capitalization…. of all corporations doing an interstate business….” He didn’t like constraints on getting things done.
A young Woodrow Wilson declared: “….the state [should] consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile…” He considered constitutional checks and balances mere hindrances to progress and reform, and felt much of our Constitution was sadly out of date, even irrelevant. It should be a “living and breathing document” he said.
Wilson seemed to be equating socialism and democracy when he wrote: “It is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same…”; and “Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals.”
I’ve always supported the Founders’ mistrust of concentrated power. They created separation of powers such that various parts of the government and citizenry would influence/resist each other. Centers of power can be held accountable by other centers of power. This stifles radical transformational plans of movements such as DSA in ways a pure democracy can’t.
The Founders did not want to weaken their country because of blind allegiance to creating a pure democracy, wherein a large number of citizens or leaders could negate the original intent.
America became a “representative republic,” featuring separation of powers and checks and balances that strengthen and stabilize our government. Participants in the process of “checks and balances” include “We the People,” three separate branches of government, two chambers of Congress, an independent judiciary, state and federal governments (dual sovereignty federalism), even the Electoral College. Perhaps you can identify some other, more subtle examples.
Founder John Adams warned, “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” Keep that thought in mind, as I borrow syndicated columnist Gregory Lyakhov’s words to conclude: “The institutions increasingly attacked as ‘undemocratic’ are the very institutions preventing temporary political majorities from becoming permanent rulers.” Remember that.
Steve Bakke, CPA, MBA, of Fort Myers is a retired CPA & commercial finance executive.
This article originally appeared on Fort Myers News-Press: Opposing the Constitution is nothing new | Opinion
Reporting by Steve Bakke / Fort Myers News-Press
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
By Steve Bakke | USA TODAY Network
