cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/49686846
The Democratic Socialists of America has released an updated platform that calls for a sweeping remake of the political system, including eliminating the U.S. Senate and abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which the organization has publicly advocated since 2018.
The revised “Workers Deserve More” platform says the country’s political institutions must be rebuilt from the ground up, said Michaela Brangan, a North New Jersey DSA member who helped write the platform.
The platform’s language calls for replacing the president and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress. The socialists argue that these changes would curb concentrated power in Washington and create a more democratic system.
…
DSA leaders say they are trying to convert that momentum into a broader influence on national debates and that any candidate the group endorses must support the platform.
The updated platform opens with warnings about war zones across the Middle East, the spread of detention camps and data centers, rising temperatures and soaring costs of basic goods. It argues that a “billionaire class” is dividing workers and fueling desperation.
It describes a world in which “the bosses” are carrying out a plan visible in images of conflict abroad, in the construction of detention facilities at home and in the rising cost of living.
The party says workers are being pitted against one another and displaced by artificial intelligence, leaving people “desperate and miserable” as capitalism turns toward right‑wing authoritarianism. It says both major parties serve “the same criminal class of billionaires and war profiteers.”
…
DSA’s vision includes a significant expansion of the House once the Senate is eliminated.
Ms. Brangan told members on a Tuesday conference call that the Senate is “more loyal to itself and their donors than their own constituents.” She argued that enlarging the House would move the country closer to what she described as a more representative democracy.
“The Senate is an anachronism, and it’s completely idiosyncratic to the United States,” Ms. Brangan said. “This has been around for over 200 years, and it’s not working.”
She said a House expansion would be a step toward “a true democracy.”
…
Beyond institutional overhauls, the platform lays out a broad set of policy goals: imposing wealth taxes on the richest Americans and corporations, canceling student debt, establishing a 32-hour workweek, granting blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants, enacting “Medicare for All,” providing universal childcare and a pledge to position the organization at the forefront of the fight for transgender rights.
On foreign policy, the platform calls for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip and an end to U.S. military and economic aid to Israel.
The platform also includes a “feminism for all” plank that calls for queer liberation, an end to gender‑based violence and bans on sex discrimination. It opposes restrictions on abortion, childbirth, gender expression and gender transition.
The document casts the DSA mission as building a working‑class political force capable of drafting a new constitution and creating what it describes as a democratic socialist republic.
It says some demands may be achievable under the current system, but “complete victory” will require building a new society from the ground up.
-
This is from a right-wing rag, the Washington Times.
-
Their full platform has many more items; the Washington Times has chosen one they think will enrage their base and one that they think their base will laugh at. You can read the full platform here.
-
Since the title focuses partially on Congress, their Congressional reforms are [in order]: Replace the two-party system with a multi-party democracy. Expand the House of Representatives, implement proportional representation and ranked choice voting in all elections, and abolish the Senate.
-
Since the title also focuses on ICE, their abolish ICE proposals include: End ICE detention and deportations and punish federal agents’ brutality. Legalize migration, grant amnesty for all immigrants regardless of status, provide a path to citizenship for all permanent residents, and end visa caps and quotas.
-
Some of their other goals:
-
Extend full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents and restore the right to vote for incarcerated people and people with criminal convictions. Establish statehood for Washington D.C. and recognize the right to self-determination for all U.S. territories and colonies. Expand and protect voting rights and end voter suppression.
-
get rid of lobbyists, dark money, and Citizens United, and publicly finance all elections. Abolish the Electoral College. Replace the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.
-
Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people. Enact aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to spend on public goods and infrastructure.
I don’t agree with all of their goals, and I don’t see a path to get others accomplished, but I like the fact that they’re trying to actually fix the system instead of just trying to get along within it.
Your plan backfired and made them seem even more awesome.
(I do not think your plan was to make them look bad.)
You fools!! Giving the working class what they need is a path to success!
- The DNC
-
The original idea of having Senators represent their states is a good one but it relies on the states to figure it out. Given how corrupt and/or myopic state governments are, it wasn’t going to go well.
If you can fix the selection process at the state level, dissolving the US Senate is probably a good idea. There’d need to be major reforms of the House to go along with it, not just expansion.
IMO, more legislation would need a higher threshold to pass. Plus restructuring committee selections and tons of parliamentary procedures.
That’s not why the Senate is the way it is. Madison successfuly argued the case for the Senate being a bulwark against the masses. It’s designed to be a regressive electoral process that protects the opulent minority from democracy, on the basis that, to paraphrase Madison, lazy bloodsucking landlords are a good and proper social phenomenon and should be protected.
The 3/5s compromise was similar in that it increased the voting power of the landed gentry over and above the merchants and financiers. That was the specific objective.
The Senate today remains this bulwark. 70% of the population is represented by 30% of the seats in the Senate. And there’s no way to change that without making it into another house of representatives.
It’s a structural problem, not a problem with states being myopic.
The power of senators, which gives equal voting power to each state regardless of population size, is a big reason the Senate is tainted even if the process of choosing the senators was fair.
Crazy idea: keep the Senate but redraw state lines after every census to make them equal in population.
Do you understand that that would completely dismantle the entire government structure of the United States? Like it would erase the idea of statehood altogether and you would actually get a single country with provinces rather than independent states.
That is why I prefaced with “Crazy idea”, because the idea is crazy
You got me there.
I’m perfectly okay with getting rid of the states while we’re at it.
I like the idea of laboratories of democracy in theory.
deleted by creator
The original idea of having Senators represent their states is a good one but it relies on the states to figure it out.
That’s only part of the original idea. The rest of it was to create a legislative chamber for rich people to hold back the rabble from doing whatever they wanted.
IMO, more legislation would need a higher threshold to pass.
As seen from, well, everything about the filibuster, requiring more than a majority for some or all of a legislative chamber’s normal functions (as opposed to abnormal functions, like constitutional amendments) just makes it more dysfunctional and precipitates democratic backsliding as the math of the thing* stops legislative branch from fulfilling its duties, causing those duties to fall to the decidedly less democratic executive (or, more rarely, judicial) branch. This sort of thing sounds like a good idea at first glance, but it misses the fact that the highest authority of a society needs to be able to do things effectively and in a timely manner if it wants to continue to be the highest authority of that society.
*If you have two sides of an issue, then requiring a simple majority means that at least one side will get its way. Requiring more than that means that you can (and, given a sufficiently polarized political situation, will) get a situation where nobody wins and therefore nothing happens even though everyone involved wants something to happen.
The original idea of having Senators represent their states is a good one
Eh, not really. Because it gives tiny, insignificant states equal weight to huge, highly populated states. Why should Rhode Island get just as much sway as all of Texas?
That was a big point.
The House represented the people where a 50% + 1 vote could enact legislation that could wreck a lot of things, meaning a concerted effort by the delegations of a small number of states could tyrannize the remainder.
The Senate would be the bulwark to prevent that. Their concern would be to deal with how legislation would affect all states.
Having states that operate as quasi-independent countries means their voice should be heard. If the states were simply administrative divisions of the federal government, it’d be different.
The system isn’t perfect and I can see how these proposals could work. We just to make sure we’re not setting up another tyranny.
states that operate as quasi-independent countries
This ended with the Civil War. They are administrative divisions now.
Thank you. We fought a war over this concept we can stop pretending now.
Naturilation was restricted to “free white men” in 1790, but it didn’t stop other from immigrating here. In fact, the country existed for 100 years without ANY limitations on immigration. Only in 1875 did they start to restrict “forced laborers and prostitutes” with the Page Law, but that was primarily aimed at and enforce upon Chinese Women and followed up by the much moee explicit Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. It really wasnt until 1924 when a nationality quota system was introduced with the National Origins Act that Immigration in general was severely limited and the Border Control was Established. In 1954, the infamous and disrespectfully named Project Wetback was the first time that quasi-military tactics to arrest and deport Mexican undocumented laborers and terroristic fear tactics were used to encourage “self-deportation”. ICE has only existed since 2003, after the Department Of Homeland Security was created in 2002, as a reaction to 9/11, essentially an evolution of INS with a new militaristic flair. It’s also worth noting that 9/11 wouldn’t have been stopped if ICE has existed. All 19 perpetrators were here legally.
My point is that the history of US law around immigrants has been explicitly racist since the beginning. But even then, actual closed borders wasn’t truly a thing until 1924. For the majority of American history, barring the Chinese Exclusion Act and other anti-asian immigrant laws, the borders were open and things were fine. We treat Ellis Island like hallowed ground where millions of our ancestors made there way into this country. There was no quota, no application and waiting period, no need to meet certain education or skill requirements. Conservatives want you to forget that, as well as the explicit racism of our past they are recreating today. ICE shouldn’t exist. None of this border shit should.
Don’t abolish the Senate – make it proportional.
But the House is already proportional representation(ish)! So we’ll make the Senate proportional in a different way: proportional to total federal tax revenue from each state.
Still have 100 senators, just weight their votes according to how much federal tax revenue their state brought in. So, for example, a state with $400B tax revenue would have their senators’ votes count 4x more than a state with $100B tax revenue. Let the states that pay more have more say in how the money is spent. Want more power in the senate? No problem – just voluntarily pay more taxes!
I don’t want money related to governance in any way. Get the fuck out with that horseshit
It falls back to the ‘no taxation without representation’ slogan. Why shouldn’t representation be proportional to taxation then?
The richest people amongst us will instantly own every aspect of our government as a core feature of that government. That’s what you are campaigning for?
Tough sell.
