Below is my column on Fox.com about the growing condemnation of capitalism in the Democratic Party as establishment figures such as Gov. Gavin Newsom pander to the extreme left of their party. It is a rising mantra among those who ignore the economic foundations of liberty in our Republic, a connection expressly made by the Framers in their embrace of Adam Smith at the time of our founding. Like a game of musical chairs, champagne socialists are rushing to find a seat before the music stops in the coming elections. Ironically, only in the United States are socialist figures in the top percent of earners and own multiple homes from Bernie Sanders to Abdul El-Sayed. As Yakov Smirnoff would say, “What a country!”
Here is the column:
“Imagine the end of capitalism.” Those words in the Democratic Socialists of America manifesto offer Americans a world without landlords, debt, mandatory work hours, and “food, education, energy, medicine, and transportation… are common goods and utilities.”
The left often refers to radical changes as “reimagining” everything from police to the Supreme Court to prisons to borders. However, the rise of socialists in the Democratic Party has moved such claims from the merely rhetorical to the outright revolutionary.
The release of the DSA platform on Bastille Day, July 14, was fitting since the Jacobins pushed for the same unicameral system that the socialists are now advocating. The platform promised to change the constitutional system and end the rule of “the same criminal class of billionaires and war profiteers.”
The DSA, which counts various Democrat figures such as New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, includes a plan to eliminate the Senate, the Supreme Court, the presidency and other institutions in remaking the American constitutional system.
In my new book “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss the rise of socialism and the move among professors and pundits to scrap key aspects, or the entirety, of our constitutional system on the 250th anniversary of the republic.
The book compares many of these proposals to identical policies of the Jacobin movement in the French Revolution. It is a book about revolutions and how they can consume those who start them. Both the American and French revolutions arose during the same period, but one became the world’s oldest democracy while the other became a blood-soaked tyranny known as “The Reign of Terror.”
Notably, the Jacobins pushed for the same unicameral system that the socialists are now advocating. Even figures such as Thomas Paine (one of two figures who played a significant role in both revolutions) supported such measures to allow for more direct democracy.
It was an approach that the Framers expressly rejected. Great students of history, they did not want to replicate the elements that led to the destruction of past democracies going back to ancient Athens. Benjamin Rush, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, referred to it as democracies becoming “mobocracies.”
The DSA is the direct descendant of the Jacobins in seeking to tear down moderating institutions and replace the president and justices with democratically elected figures by a Congress composed only of the House of Representatives. However, many of these suggestions are also found among leading academics and influencers.
As with the original Jacobins, those demanding these changes are not the working class but professors, pundits and young college-educated voters.
Mainstream figures such as Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law School, have published books such as “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”
The media eagerly publishes these radical views, such as the New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” in which Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale call for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
It was an approach that the Framers expressly rejected. As discussed in “Rage and the Republic”:
“Those who want to remain in favor often pander to the extremes. Radical leftist sites like the Jacobin have grown in popularity… They use some of the same words and symbols but still seem improvisational and inauthentic, like a child’s game of dress-up with oversized outfits. Indeed, that is precisely the danger.
“There is little knowledge, let alone memory, of what such radicalism became under the real Jacobins. There is the same blissful ignorance that allowed Rousseauian dilettantes to mutate into monsters, escalating radical agendas with every failure… As the popular slogans became disastrous policies, the momentum would carry them beyond any point of recognition or return. The new Jacobins show the same blind ambition and abandon in striking out at institutions and the Constitution itself.”
Those slogans are now preying on the gullible and the vulnerable. Take the recent pitch of Michaela Brangan, DSA national political education chair, who declared that with socialism:
“[Y]ou are able to take a day off and not have to worry and you don’t have to have a job just to pay the bills because you do not have a lot of bills. Right? Bills are no longer a thing because there’s not for-profit businesses that are constantly trying to exploit you and trying, you know, to put you into debt.”
She laughed at the suggestion of, “Why do we have a Senate? What is so great about the Senate?”
If she wants that answer, she only needs to look around her at the mob seeking to destroy the world’s oldest and most successful republic in history.
She is right about one thing. Capitalism has played a critical role in our republic. This is the 250th anniversary of not just our Declaration but the publication of Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations,” which the Founders eagerly embraced. They believed that you could not be truly independent and free if you are not economically independent and free. They rejected the economic dependency pushed by many on the left.
The left has found a voice in the class warfare espoused by Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders and others. However, it is not a new voice. It is the same Siren’s call that we rejected 250 years ago. Paine himself would barely survive in France and come to appreciate the structural precautions that Founding Father and President James Madison created in our system that were absent in the French system.
After the Jacobins implemented some of these very same policies, they destroyed their economy and then devoured themselves in waves of executions. Once again, these same voices are asking a people to destroy the most successful and stable democracy in history.
Mainstream figures are conditioning the public for radical changes, often using the same coded messaging. Former Vice President Kamala Harris dismissed the opposition to ideas like packing the Supreme Court as mere “nostalgia” for a system that is no longer working.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently also pandered to the mob in declaring that “nostalgia is not working,” and added, “capitalism as we know it doesn’t work either.”
It is not “nostalgia” that binds us to this constitutional system. It is the faith in a system based on natural rights; a system that protects the minority from the majority. It is a system based on faith in both political and economic independence; the embrace of freedom and free-market principles that created the greatest prosperity in history.
We have heard these voices before and we would be wise to take them seriously if we are, as Benjamin Franklin asked, to keep this Republic for the next generation.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of the Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
“ Holy Robert Johnson, Batman,”.
Why are you always harping on about this? Why are you always so worried, Professor? Republicans and President Trump hold control of the White House, the Senate, the House, the majority of the Supreme Court and most gubanatorial seats, thank God. We’re in charge! What’s the fuss for? Let the Dems say what they want to say. We just need to uphold what we’ve always believed in and we’ll continue to win – right?
Weren’t you paying attention to Jonathan Hurley’s remarks… duh! Being ‘in charge’ doesn’t mean you nap through a political movement that’s openly talking about scrapping the Constitution, dismantling institutions, and ‘imagining the end of capitalism.’ Hurley’s whole point is that revolutions don’t wait for permission — they build momentum while the comfortable majority shrugs. Power today doesn’t cancel out the radicalism gathering underneath. That’s why the Professor keeps sounding the alarm.
Weren’t you paying attention to Jonathan Hurley’s remarks… duh! Being ‘in charge’ doesn’t mean you nap through a political movement that’s openly talking about scrapping the Constitution, dismantling institutions, and ‘imagining the end of capitalism.’ Hurley’s whole point is that revolutions don’t wait for permission — they build momentum while the comfortable majority shrugs. Power today doesn’t cancel out the radicalism gathering underneath. That’s why the Professor keeps sounding the alarm.
No Anonymous you are not correct. Unfortunately power does not always remain in the hands of the sane.
History proves this to be true. Perhaps you should take advantage of the knowledge of the fruits of socialist nations in the past. Sadly diligence must remain to keep those who want control of every movement of you and I at bay.
We must continue to understand that the first sign of a demand for total control is the forming of a Department of Disinformation. Sound familiar?
Just today Nicaragua announced that there would be no more elections. Cuba hasn’t had an election in almost 70 years. The Soviets never had elections. China doesn’t have elections. N Korea doesn’t have elections. These little Jacobins will do the same here if they ever get the power.
You’re so sure about that without a hint of irony. So sad.
X, read the damn news. No more presidential elections in Ortega’s little fiefdom. Any issue with this? Hypocrite.
The liberals would love to tell the rest of our country that we will no longer have elections . . .after they are elected. This is akin to how China, Russia, Iran, et al, and the rest of the idiots in other countries are doing just to keep them in power so they can loot their countries of wealth. See how this works? NOT!!!!
So wait, they are complaining about democracy because the Senate ensures fair representation among these United States, ensuring every state gets a say. Sooooo they want to do away with states’ rights? Isn’t this what the Civil War was partially about?? Are these idiots trying to repeat history? Unsurprising when you consider many on the left are hardcore revisionists. 🤦
Champagne Socialists is truly a magnificent name for these characters. The idiocy of their statements is a lament to the inadequacies of their education and intelligence. The advantage that the American Revolutionaries had was nearly 150 years of practicing self governments in most of the colonies. Even the Crown Colonies had self government. The Revolutionaries in France had no such experience and had only rage and theories. All you have to know is that they ended with Napoleon with 20 years of almost continuous total war and collapse and then another 50 years of confusion and instability before they somewhat righted their ship.
It is no secret that their greatest adherents come from failed states like Illinois, New York, California, Maybe Washington (Seattle), and others. Most of these states were reasonable functioning states with significant wealth and growth until there was a long succession of newer democratic administrations that took manageable problems and magnified them into unmanageable states with business and people fleeing. The evidence is all there but a significant part of the people are blind to the failures and who caused them. These failed states are the results of their own political malpractice and any who want to follow them are insane.
We do need some reform. The senate needs to act like a legislative body and not a club. The blue slip Tradition needs to go. The filibuster needs to go. We need terms limits for senators and representatives and federal judges. The filibuster simply puts us in an eternal limbo that rarely makes a meaningful decision because time runs out. Obviously the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO SHRINK. The uncovered waste and fraud is breathtaking and is directly caused by the size and blindness of the system. Voter ID is important if only to reassure people that their vote really counts and there is vast support for it.
Voter ID (I assume) means fraud-proof ID that you are a US Citizen, instantly available at the point of registering to vote. Unexpired US Passports with an embedded chip are the closest thing to this. But less than 1/3 of eligible voters have one.
If this President were competent, he would realize the need for fraud-proof citizenship infrastructure before tightening up voter registration. He is a simpleton who is complacent about details, meanwhile the devil is in the details.
Or we could do what we already do. REAL ID. The only way to get that is if you have proof of citizenship. It was the whole point of having the ‘star’ emblem on your ID. It shows you provided proof of citizenship.
Christopher Roofer a book called “America’s cultural revolution” and a completely explains the infiltration of the communist and the radical left in our academia and Media. The transformation has now been completed. The book explains the historical roots of the leftist movement and how organized they were to infiltrate our primary institutions and the narrative
This threat is real. But, it is best defeated by a divide-and-conquer approach where mainstream Democrats are recognized as mortal opponents of DSA, and therefore allies in the fight to marginalize the Marxists on the fringe.
The WORST approach is for conservatives to broad-brush all Dems as “having surrendered to DSA” — handing the radicals a political victory that simply isn’t true. Beware the narratives you parrot. They can become self-fulfilling.
Pbinca: While there may be merit to your point, it gets harder and harder to not paint all democrats with the same brush because, quite simply, the crazy radicals are driving the democrat agenda.
You can say the same thing about Republicans and the far-right fascists and white supremacists. After all they are already well associated with those groups.
I would appreciate your naming a few (or just one) “white supremacists” who wield any power whatsoever in the US and how they have earned that title in your book.
wiseoldlawyer,
Good question.
What “white supremacists” have won elections in major cities like NYC and Seattle?
What “white supremacists” have won elections defeating long term Establishment Democrats in places like NYC and CO?
To add, what party endorsed and backed a Nazi tattoo wearing, emotionally and physically abusive against women, alleged rapist, and avowed communist?
pbinca,
We are not broad-brushing all Democrats as “having surrendered to the DSA.”
Bill Maher has been calling out the stupid and crazy of the far leftists for years and now DSA.
So has the good professor.
I myself have pointed this out more than a few times here on the good professor’s blog and called for sane and normal Democrats to kick the stupid and crazy out of their party and take their party back.
The Democrats need to wake up, look at what and who has highjacked their party and do something about it.
We do not want a one party rule, be it Republican, Democrat or DSA. What we need is a healthy republic.
“Democrats are cowardly, they’re cowardly,”
“Their party is being taken over now, by… every day I hear about a new, very radical…I can’t sit and just not notice stuff,’
“There’s some crazy stuff. When we’re cheering for the intifada, I’m out.”
“I mean, I know the talking point is that it’s not communism and socialism. Okay. I’ve read the quotes from the DSA platform, from their own mouths. Don’t tell me I’m not seeing what I am seeing! And DSA, again, they say things like, you know, take over of key industries, government. That’s communism.”
— Bill Maher, on ABC’s This Week
“No more to Trumpism. But no more to the Democrats who compromise, who conciliate, and who betray us. (Applause) No more to the fascist reactionaries, but no more to the Democrats who will collaborate and cooperate with the fascists, who will fund ICE, who will fund Israel, who will help poison the planet, who will stiff workers, and help bosses. We don’t need those Democrats anymore.”
“In fact, I know we have a message. We are coming. We are unbossed. We are unbound. And we will become undeniable.”
— Hasan Piker, July 19 2026
DSA lackeys wish for you to swallow this poison, wrapped in sugar:
That the Founders created a system of limited government, with three separate but co-equal branches — so that a future generation of power-lusters (the DSA) could create an unlimited government with a single legislative body that they control.
Sam, you know who does not believe in three co-equal branches of government? Trump and his administration. The “unitary executive theorists” truly believe the president has more power than Congress and the judicial branch. That’s why he’s so big on executive orders as laws whenever he wants to do something the law does not allow him to do.
For example, after being slapped down on birthright citizenship. He openly called on congress to just make a law violating the constitution by his decree. He thinks Congress is his to dictate to.
He X, which president said, “I have a phone and a pen”?
Of course it as president Obama. But how would that be wrong given Republicans are big on the unitary executive theory. By their theory Obama had every right to do that. If you disagree then I assume you would also disagree with Trump’s use of executive orders to bypass congress.
The co-equal branch of government requires that each branch stays in its lane and do not encroach on the authority of the other branches. The unitary executive theory fits well within the co-equal branches of government approach as it has been developed to prevent the legislative branch from encroaching the territory of the executive branch.
We have arrived at the place that the Democrat Party has been steering us to for at least the last 20 years. They gave up on debate and bipartisan compromise and took up identity politics to create grievance groups to divide us. Rather than compete with policy proposals they turned to using character assassination against the opposing party. The name Bork became a verb to describe their approach to Republican nominees to SCOTUS. It has been so-called establishment Dems that are publicly advocating for packing SCOTUS, creating new states to pack the Senate, racial gerrymandering to pack the House, and to make it structurally impossible for Republicans to ever win another election. And now they panic because the DSA upstarts they created space for in their party are threatening to displace them from the power they have sought for so long. In the process they will take us all down.
I think there is a campaign question that the socialists must answer about their new old utopia. How many times does the word “gulag” appear in your platform for citizen crimes against property of the state?
You’re confusing “Socialist” with “Democratic Socialist”. They are two different things.
Please clarify this for everyone. Please define “Socialist” and “Democratic Socialist”, and please explain how they differ.
Stephen B. Benisch,
In socialism, the government or the public completely controls the economy.
Private businesses and private property are mostly eliminated. Major industries—like factories, banks, and energy companies—are owned and run by the state.
The goal is to completely replace capitalism with a state-run system where wealth is distributed based on need.
Democratic socialists believe in social ownership of the economy, but they insist on achieving it through a fully democratic political system. Essentially with the full consent of the voters. Not by authoritarian fiat by one individual.
They believe in free elections, a multi-party system, freedom of speech, and the separation of powers. They want to change the system by winning votes, not through violent revolution.
They want the public to democratically manage key industries (like healthcare, utilities, and housing) so that profit isn’t the only goal. However, unlike traditional socialists, many modern democratic socialists still allow for a mix of private property and small private businesses.
Their goal is to drastically reduce the power of corporations and billionaires, ensuring that everyday citizens have democratic control over both their government and their workplace.
That’s how they differ.
Dear X:
You say socialists and social democrats both believe in social ownership of property and the economy. You say they believe in freedom of speech, notwithstanding their creation of the Disinformation Governance Board, their de-platforming of the sitting President, and their de-platforming of the New York Post. You say they believe in democratic elections with the consent of the voters, notwithstanding calling duly-elected President Trump a king and impeaching him twice and trying to put him in jail for life. You say they want to reduce the power of billionaires, notwithstanding George Soros and Michael Bloomberg and Steve Jobs’ widow and Steven Spielberg and Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg and JB Pritzker. I’m sorry, but I simply do not understand your explanation.
X: “They believe in … separation pf powers.” Are you kidding me? The senate functions as a shield to protect the smaller states against the overbearing power of the biggest states, and the Dems want to abolish the senate and create a unicameral system. The House as the only legislative organ would elect the President and appoint the Supreme Court! Good bye to co-equal branches and judicial independency. Control the House via the popular vote (=control the big cities) and you fully control the government. Democracy become the dictatorship of the majority.
Stephen B. Benisch, Esq.,
“Democrat Socialist” is nothing but a play on words to dupe those who do not understand the Constitution, the republic, or know history.
What it really is is “Mobcracy Socialism.” There is nothing democratic about it when it is nothing more than one party rule.
“What it really is is ‘Mobcracy Socialism.’”
Yep.
Five people vote to cook and eat the sixth.
Sam,
That is exactly what we need to point out.
They HAVE said exactly what they want to do.
We know it.
They know it.
But now, as others such as Bill Maher and the good professor point out what exactly they have said, now they are trying to spin it away as,
“But our Democrat Socialism is a warm and fuzzy, kind, and democracy based socialism!”
Yet, they want to pack the SC, do away with the Constitution and all the checks and balances it brings, The Bill of Rights, the Senate, the Presidency, pass laws to ensure one party rule: Theirs. And have only the House in Congress as they single arm of government.
Sounds a lot like the Communist Party, central government in China. And Nazis, Stalin etc.
And they have said it, openly.
The supposed moderate Democrat James Carville has called for the Democrat party to “Just do it!”
Now that the DSA is threatening to split the Democrat party, he no longer seems so sure.
Oh really. DSA = wolf in sheep’s clothing.
The 10th Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Democrats say the 10th Amendment (along with the Constitution and entire Bill of Rights) is the White Supremacy legacy of America’s racist Founding Fathers. Loudly and proudly, Democrats say they want to end all of it. Does anybody think they’re kidding?
@Stephen
Nope, they are dead serious. They are openly declaring they intend to instigate a communist/third world coup, and such is the modern ‘liberal’ mindset, Vote Blue No Matter Who-s will happily let them traipse in and do it. And I trust so-called ‘moderate’ dems as far as I can throw them with my pinky, they are pretty much all Spanbergers and globalists, if not outright communists. Tyranny is their tent, the particular flavors are irrelevant.
James, not they are not. Good grief. Talk about being paranoid.
It’s amusing how MAGA nutties keep vacillating between “socialist”, “Marxist”, and “Communist”, depending on the fear of the day.
Socialism is Marxism and depending on the strength this trash can be sold to the masses, they are a degree measure to the end result of communism. If one fails to abide by their Socialist mandates, what is the penalty and who administers it?
It goes against every single principle of a free people. It can only be done through tyranny and violence to its end result of failure and destruction.
Stephen and James,
Well said.
They use the term “Democrat Socialist” to dupe the gullible and ignorant when they tell us, openly, exactly what they want to do: Do away with the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the republic, and replace it all with one party rule: Theirs. They have said it. Now they are trying to dress it up as something else but we all know they are pushing for socialism/communism. They want to pack the SC, pass laws to ensure Republicans never win an election again. They want a central government with them in charge.
They have said it. Believe them and not the spin they are now trying to put on it.
Amending the Constitution, changing the structure of the Senate, or reforming the Supreme Court are legal processes built into Article V of the Constitution. Proposing these changes is an exercise of constitutional rights, not an attempt to destroy the Republic.
Everybody agrees. Democrats are using legal means to eradicate the Electoral College, Presidency, Senate, Supreme Court, and Bill of Rights. Except when they shoot the President in the head, burn police stations and courthouses and business districts, bomb federal buildings, assassinate people they disagree with, and pretend America does not have any immigration law.
These radicals?….are they proposing going through the arduous process of a Constitutional Amendment to abolish the Senate? They’re going to expect 2/3 of Senators to vote to eliminate their roles in governing? I haven’t heard anything so preposterous in quite a while.
To destroy the Constitution as a blueprint for governing processes, you merely have to get people to no longer believe in those processes, stop following them, and invent extra-Constitutional shortcuts.
We’re unfortunately already on that path:
• political parties (Rs and Ds) have arrogated to themselves powers never mentioned in the Constitution
(such as redefining the 3 top offices (President, VP and Presiding Officer of the Senate, Speaker of the House) as partisan offices
• the Supreme Court arrogating to itself the power to countermand Congressional Law, and to invent law, giving Plaintiffs and sympathetic Federal Judges powers that only The People through their elected representatives are supposed to exercise
• professional lobbying has displaced the key entity (The People) as the body whose interests are being represented
• campaign finance has become a system of de facto bribery to obtain policies favoring the wealthy
In other words, we’re already in a de-Constitutionalization phase marked by extra-Constitutional contrivances having been fully accepted. This will continue so long as those with wealth, power and influence look to shortcutting “the consent of the governed” to get what they want.
@pbinca
Really? You expect spontaneous respect for law at this point, after everything? They would likely use force and simply take it. It remains to be seen if the dnc in total is on that page or not. The fact that it isn’t implausible is insanity.
It’s amusing that changing the constitution is akin to “destroying” it. It was made to be changed. More likely its the fear of upsetting the status quo.
pbinca, that’s the real question nobody’s asking. Why bother with a messy, public Article V convention when you can just bolt things on instead?
Formally abolishing the Senate or the presidency means convincing people you’re legitimate. Bypassing them quietly doesn’t require convincing anybody of anything. It just requires nobody stopping you.
That’s what’s actually dangerous about the extra-constitutional shortcuts you named. They don’t ask for permission. The Seventeenth Amendment is a good example of how this works even when it’s done the “legal” way. It didn’t just cut the states’ voice out of Washington, it moved the real fight from fifty statehouses to K Street. Once senators answered to voters instead of state legislatures, the money didn’t need to spread out and win fifty different rooms. It just needed to win one zip code.
Centralization doesn’t always announce itself. Sometimes it just quietly changes where the real leverage sits.
Sigh, Professor Turley is at it again. He uses scary words and misleading facts to upset people.First, he acts like the “Democratic Socialists” and the “Democratic Party” are the exact same thing. They are not. The Democratic Socialists are a very small group. Mainstream Democrats do not agree with them. But the professor bunches them together to make a big, scary monster to spook his readers.
Second, wanting to change the government is totally legal. The Constitution was designed to be changed.That is why we have amendments. For example, the U.S. once changed the Constitution to ban alcohol. That was a radical idea, but it was later repealed, we changed the Constitution again because it was a disaster. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
The Founders wanted us to change the rules as the world changed. When people propose things like universal healthcare or new labor laws, they are doing exactly what the Founders intended. Adapting our laws to fit modern times. It’s not a “radical” idea. It’s supposed to be normal.
these marxist were supposed to stay underground until the right moment to strike but Trump forced their hand. they have tried all their tricks with him and have now arrived at their final boss stage, outright communism. THAT’S how desperate for their lost power they’ve become. This is their last stand.
Thank you President Donald J. Trump for driving them to this desperation. Trump exposed the left for who they truly are.
Trump is an idiot. He has no idea what he’s doing. He will croak before his term is up.
May ANON croak first!!! Soon.
These crazy socialists are going to want an arch and a ballroom and a $400 million bribe plane and gold (Home Depot) decor and UFC fights in the backyard and golfing every weekend while also setting the dumb stage to obstruct the midterms and ramp and whale.
We need real leadership who cares, who concentrates on the wars they start and not someone who goes to basketball games and football games and soccer matches while grifting $1 billion in crypto in one year of office while his multiple fraud families receive defense contracts and the pool guy receives a no-bid contract to make the swamp literally green: a someone who hates trans people while wearing drag makeup daily.
CRT, DEI, cats and dogs, communism, oh my!
Magats have TDS.
You sound like an envious socialist. Maybe if you got an education and learned how to work you could be just like our illustrious president… Donald J. Trump.
But na, you’re just a whiner with no ambition or drive. Sure, stay in your crib and whine all day long.
I noticed, with my sharp eye, that Everyone didn’t mention one thing that was discussed in Turley’s column, didn’t defend one radical thing that these leftist dilatants espouse and didn’t even try to state how it will be possible to have “very few bills” in order to allow these lazy charlatans to live off the fat of the land.
Obviously you didn’t pay attention when the discussion about successful Democratic Socialist ideas actually working was ongoing two columns ago.
Conservatives are deathly afraid once it is realized a lot of their ideas actually work that there would be more acceptance and acknowledgment that they are indeed good ideas.
Trump is just making it easier by offering a deep contrast between his incompetence and failure to deliver on his promises and the Democratic Socialists like Mayor Mamdani showing actual ideas working and benefitting citizens.
Hey X, do you think a rent freeze is going to beneficial to the people of NYC? DO you think having one city run grocery store per borough is going to work? Do you think having open borders is going to work? Do you think cutting police budgets is going to work? Do you think having no bail is going to work? Do you think packing the Court is a good idea? Do you think supporting Hamas over Israel is good? Do you think having trans men in girls sports is good? Do you think abolishing the Senate is good? Do you think making DC a state is good? Do you think evictions are violence? Do you think landlords are evil? These are all DSA policy positions.
No go to AI and input your slanted questions and then come back and repeat it to us.
Hullbobby, you seem to think rent freezes are a permanent solution. Nobody is saying that is the goal, not even Mamdani.
The goal is to prevent landlords from raising rents by 30% or 40% in a single year, which prices out working-class families and creates homelessness. It is about stability, not destroying the housing market. If some landlords choose to leave then that’s good because there is always someone else who is going to fill in the gap and do a better job. Some landlords are not “evil” just greedy and petty. If they choose to leave or walk away from their properties and be replaced by better landlords then it’s a good thing.
You mentioned “one city-run grocery store per borough.”, but context matters. These stores are not meant to replace private supermarkets or put local bodegas out of business.
The program is a public option targeting “food deserts”—neighborhoods where major corporate chains (like Walmart or Whole Foods) refuse to open because the profit margins are too low. When private corporations abandon a neighborhood, residents are left with no access to fresh produce, forcing them to rely on expensive convenience stores.
A municipal grocery store operates like a public library or a municipal water department: the city uses public funds to absorb the cost of the land or building, allowing a third-party operator to sell healthy staples at a lower price. It exists to serve communities that the private market has completely abandoned.
This has worked before in other places. It worked in St. Paul Kansas and a hybrid model in Tulsa. There’s absolutely no reason why it won’t work in NYC.
@Everyone
Does your handle refer to the multiple people in your head? This is one of the most juvenile and incoherent blatherings I think I’ve ever read in these comments. Seek help.
You have narcissistic TDS. Do you realize what this means?
Trump Derangement Syndrome is a dangerous thinking distortion that affects the weak-minded.
I know this is confusing for you. Fortunately (for me), it’s incurable which provides me with endless humorous lefty screeds to make my day.
Because DJT controls your screech, I support your right to free screech.
You have illuminated a key point, our intellectual forefathers were “Great students of history.” The poorly educated and, frankly, puerile self-promoting “democratic” socialists and their running dogs, the mostly wealthy and frightened of being left behind, such as Sanders, Harris, and Newsom, are really just chasing a historical dead end.
“Great students of history.” Ahem, that does not mean they had degrees in history Jack.
There you go again… “poorly educated”, no degree, no smarts? Does that mean you’re highly educated, and still you know nothing politics.
As we all know, one does not have to attend one of the so-called higher education indoctrination camps to get a degree to be educated.
Abraham Lincoln proved that in the 1800s.
So did the founders.
I’m really hoping the insincere left double down on marxism and keep running right into the arms of their own stupid failures.
“. . . Democratic Party as establishment figures such as Gov. Gavin Newsom pander to the extreme left of their party.” (JT)
Those panderers imagine that they can safely lead America’s Vichy government. They learned nothing about the evil of collaborating with totalitarians. To sate their lust for being worshipped and for power, they are selling into a socialist/Marxist dictatorship.
Is Socialism the solution or the problem?
Said another way . . . “Is Government the solution or the problem?”
So government = socialism. Then no government is the solution. No government means problems.
@Anonymous
Not me. Yawn.
Good point. Humans can have charity, only governments can have socialism.
Government is the problem and individual rights is the solution.
Government is a necessary evil. KEEP IT LIMITED. Aka smaller government
One point needs emphasis. With three branches of government, and one of them bicameral, there are several constituencies that have independent voices and thus power. With a single branch of government, as supported by the DSA, only one branch controls everything. This makes the “speaker” of that single branch a de facto dictator who can decide who runs for office, where funding goes, who is denied funding, and who controls the police. Yes, there will be a government police department – the enforcers.
commies call this a ‘feature’ of communism. Helps maintain power, eventually they can call off the peoples voice and reign like Ortega. (the last stand of socialism in South America as they have learned their lesson now.)
What makes you think there would ever be a “decision “ by the Supreme leader that would even allow someone to run for office? That’s not how it works, he/she would place who he/she wants in that position. Think Hue massacre, think Mao, think Castro. It’s a failed form of government that can NEVER succeed as greed and power consume it. It is a malignant cancer.
“That’s not how it works, he/she would place who he/she wants in that position.”
That is why I remain skeptical of term limits as some kind of free-standing solution to our problems. Those limits would not of necessity, but could easily, be twisted to support exactly that kind of thing: a constant turnover of little known names through political offices, all of whom are controlled from a single position of unelected power.
@I Don Wannutono
‘Could’? It’s what the modern left already are, and have already been doing. They have mouthpieces for the party, not officials. Marching orders come from the regime, doesn’t matter who’s ‘elected’. The dems teach this out in the open again and again; few bat an eye.
The dnc is no longer an American Constitutional party; hasn’t been for some time. Arguing our system is moot with thugs – they don’t care or even know in some cases, and any respect that remained for fairness has been erased completely on the left. We can still use our system, but as noted by a few of us, when it’s clear they can no longer win elections honestly I doubt they’ll have many qualms about using force.
Again: choose a flavor of tyranny: does it really matter? Under the dsa children, everyone on this site would likely be rounded up, assets and lives seized – for simply talking.
Sorry if a double post, service glitch.
An honest question: how can any of these people be sworn into office under oath to protect our Constitution when they very openly state their intentions to tear it in half? These are not closet communists.
Really – the dems are no longer an option for anything. Even one of these spoiled, ignorant children ending up on the floor of Congress will wreak havoc.
Let’s say a voter is considering their voting options. How do they know WHAT they are voting for if they vote for anyone on the left?
Where is this all going leftys? and why won’t you say?
Why are the left’s policies, and plans to attain them, a secret?
Trump called for the cancelling of the constitution once. And he was sworn into office by openly swearing to protect and defend the constitution. He’s openly tried to violate it every chance he gets.
Trump, the oblivious fascist, sure work hard to violate the constitution whenever it prevents him from acting on his whims.
He did not, you lyin clown. He wanted ONE amendment out, or amended again. Do you spend so much time here because you think this is the only place where you can get away with your lies? Can’t make a hit by showing logic and reasoning, instead you resort to foolish lies and creations. Go away.
Nope. He wanted the whole thing terminated.
“ A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution”—Donald J. Trump.
Even Republicans condemned that comment.
This is how X TRIES to fool us. You see, X, without a brain of his own, gets all his propaganda from anti-TRump Media and social media. AND REPEATS IT AS FACTUAL. He seems to forget that there are two sides to a story
Here are two reports from The Hill, NOT “right-wing” by any measure.
“Trump later responded to backlash against the comments…..’The Fake News is actually trying to convince the American People that I said I wanted to ‘terminate’ the Constitution. This is simply more DISINFORMATION & LIES, just like RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, and all of their other HOAXES & SCAMS,’ Trump wrote in another Truth Social post, saying he meant that “steps must be immediately taken to RIGHT THE WRONG.”
Hey X, you just said “He wanted the whole thing terminated.”
WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW WOW
OMG OMG OMG OMG Not even the ant-Trump media said that!!!!!!!!
X is getting more desperate.
IT’S NOT TRUE, X! TRUMP IS ALWAYS RIGHT! TRUMP NEVER LIES! ANYONE WHO DOESN’T BELIEVE TRUMP IS AMAZING HAS TDS!!!!
Be afraid. Be very afraid. We’ve been complacent since 2008 with few moments of clarity. Perhaps it’s too late as Gabriel’s dog herds the masses over the cliff.
@Mary
Agreed. Let’s hope not. The complacency is as maddening as the transparency of intent and action have been on the left, as you have pointed out, for a couple of decades.
Afraid? You see, that’s your problem, you’re afraid of change. You’re ready to jump off a cliff at the first sign of trouble.
Obama’s poison is finally bearing its fruit.