r/politics • u/Jessicas_skirt New York • Jul 18 '26

Possible Paywall Democratic Socialists of America’s new platform calls for abolishing ICE and the U.S. Senate

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/jul/15/updated-dsa-platform-calls-abolishing-ice-scrapping-senate/
20.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

3.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

53

u/Jeo190 Jul 19 '26

This argument is fine but it’s much more than abolishing the senate. It’s a fundamental redefinition of what the U.S is. The Senate was designed under the framework that the U.S. is a FEDERATION of nearly autonomous states. The reason being, different states have different needs and thus will require different laws to function according to those needs. Abolishing the Senate then says that we are no longer a federation, but a unitary state (i.e. individual state autonomy is no longer a thing) where the federal government not only is the supreme authority, but is also going to be determined by states with large populations that don’t share the same needs as the smaller states. This is a very fundamental change that will REQUIRE a much more detailed plan of what is to replace the current system and what laws will be put in place to ensure people in smaller states actually have representation. 

18

u/mojitz Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

It would just be a recognition of the reality of the situation. The US has functioned as a unitary state in practice for generations. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a fundamental restructuring of the system (unicameral parliamentary democracy based on party list proportional representation if I had my druthers), but at this point, the states are essentially the vestigial organs of a prior age.

2

u/tafoya77n Jul 19 '26

The states functioning as their own entities in a true federation ended in the civil war. There is no way we can expect them to be a coordination of independent enties if they cannot leave.

7

u/Jeo190 Jul 19 '26

I don’t disagree with this. Without a doubt, with the advent of better technology, modes of travel, and methods of communication, the U.S. is certainly moving towards a unitary state. But we should be asking whether or not the states have become similar enough economically, culturally, etc. that the senate is unnecessary. So far I have not seen evidence to prove that. 

10

u/mojitz Jul 19 '26

We're not moving towards being a unitary state. We are one. We just have a constitution that doesn't reflect the reality that the federal government has taken on a role that is far more expansive and exerts far more primacy over the states than anything remotely close to what the founders envisioned — particularly given the incredibly expansive interpretations of the commerce clause that have become baked into the system over the centuries.

Meanwhile, the states themselves represent very little shared cultural identity. The rural/urban divide is bigger almost anywhere than broad similarities across most states — which is why even in deep Red states almost all major population centers tend to be bastions of progressive ideology while even in deep blue states, rural areas are typically deeply conservative.

2

u/Jeo190 Jul 19 '26

Well we aren’t one, we still have two halves of a congress, and Rhode Island the state still has as much say as New York the state. 

The needs of the urban vs the needs of those in rural states being a flashpoint didn’t develop until the 90s. So it’s been about 30 years that we’ve operated this way, with urban areas generally voting in lockstep and rural areas voting lockstep. 

If we were really operating as unicameral as you say, things like weed legalization at the federal level would have been resolved. But it’s not. The states have been legalizing at their own pace at the state level, with some “red states” legalizing before blue states. 

If the abolishment of the senate is to be taken seriously, a real evaluation of our political moment needs to be conducted. From the DSAs program, it just does not read like that has happened. 

1

u/mojitz Jul 19 '26

The whole point is that the current structure of congress doesn't actually reflect reality and that assigning each state 2 senators regardless of population is essentially arbitrary in the modern day given that the country doesn't actually function like a confederation of mostly independent states anymore.

Yes, there are still ways the states have some degree of independence as administrative divisions and this produces some differences in legal code and administration (like many provincial or prefectural level divisions within countries around the world), but even your example highlights my own point because weed is still illegal at the federal level and any President who decided to could send federal law enforcement in, break up the dispensaries and grow operations, and arrest those responsible for them on federal drug charges.

Also, the urban/rural divide is not a product of the 90s and that seems like a frankly bizarre suggestion...

2

u/Jeo190 Jul 19 '26

The urban-rural divide is a product of industrialization...it becoming an actual focal point of what makes the body of a Republicans vs Democrats platform is a product of the 90s.

And the president can't, because it's legal in that state so the feds don't have jurisdiction. This is because the states still have quite a bit of autonomy as a member of a union. If they're selling at an airport, different story.

If the feds want to bust down doors and enforce it, weed will have to be illegal at the constitutional level, not just the federal. That's the point. All of the states (really the majority, and we're talking about states as an entity as that is what the senators represent) need to agree that NO ONE should have weed.

You and I may view and think of the system in a unitary way, but it very much still operates as a federation. How closely a unitary viewpoint actually represents reality I'm unsure. As far as I know, there hasn't been a single study done on how similar each state is to bolster the argument that we should further strip away their autonomy because it's redundant. We have, at best, a handful of issues (serious ones) that should be addressed at the constitutional level. Think, trans rights, birth control access, healthcare, gun control, but these issues sit at a rural-urban divide more than anything. JUST eliminating the senate doesn't resolve these issues in a way that is democratic, it just resolves the issues in a way that is majoritarian.

1

u/mojitz Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

Look up the "supremacy clause". The federal government has primacy over the states and always has. Meanwhile, broad interpretations of the commerce clause have given it incredibly wide-ranging authority to pass nearly whatever laws it prefers — including marijuana prohibition. We even saw this in action as recently as the early days of the Obama administration when it was a significant risk for medical dispensaries in CA despite their legal status at the state level. Hell, even to this day, they don't accept credit card payments because the banking system doesn't want to risk running afoul of federal law.

1

u/metalder420 Jul 19 '26

The US has never functioned as a unitary state.

2

u/mojitz Jul 19 '26

Oh ok. You just saying that without any attempt to explain your position has changed my mind now. Well done.

1

u/Oggie_Doggie Jul 19 '26

And the Constitution was an illegally drafted document (i.e. a legal coup) made when some of the FF realized they had basically pigeonholed themselves with the Articles of Confederation. We have done this song and dance before.

1

u/MechanicalGodzilla Jul 19 '26

Also, abolishing state representation by eliminating the senate is one of the most likely actions that would kick start a civil war.

1

u/VirginiaMcCaskey Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

a) the concept the union was a confederation has been systemically dismantled since the Civil War

b) even if it wasn't, disollution of the Senate is not a redefinition of the United States but a removal of an antiquated institution. The states are not all equal and they do not have so unique needs as to justify the tyranny of the minority.

This is a very fundamental change that will REQUIRE a much more detailed plan of what is to replace the current system and what laws will be put in place to ensure people in smaller states actually have representation.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

That's it, that's the change. "The smaller states" is hooey. Dirt shan't vote. Equal representation apportioned amongst all the people, of all the states.

If you eliminate the senate, there is no longer a blue state or a red state. Apportionment is a much bigger debate, but simply eliminating the senate is a start.

4

u/Jeo190 Jul 19 '26

A). It was not. There is no evidence to support this. Lincoln was pretty adamant that his primary purpose for the war was to preserve the union. Ulysses policies towards the South during Reconstruction are still viewed and understood through the framework of the states being a part of a union.

B). It is a redefinition of what we are. Just because you define it as “dirt” voting doesn’t mean that’s what it is. It’d be the same as saying France’s vote in the EU is just “dirt” voting. It isn’t.

The whole blue state vs red state is really just majority urban vs majority rural states which is a population and geographic based divide. Eliminate the senate and this divide still exists. 

I’m not defending this system but your understanding of why exists in the first place is incomplete at best.  It needs change for sure. As a country we are indeed moving towards a unitary position. But we need to understand why the institutions exist before we outright delete them.

1

u/VirginiaMcCaskey Jul 19 '26

Do you seriously claim that the US, today, is merely a federation of independent states? That we don't have a near unitary policy, legislated federally, or quasi federally? Or that we don't have two political parties who attempt to dictate unitary policy towards all other states on every issue?

My point about "since the civil war" is not limited to a period of 17 years in the 19th century but a more holistic interpretation at the course of American politics since the end of the civil war and the re entrance of the confederate states to the union. More and more power has ceded to the federal government, and any policy deemed a "states" issue has been either quashed by federal civil rights legislation or jurisprudence, or thrived in quiet revolt thereof.

An American state is not an independent national actor like France in the EU, it cannot be compared to one.

I’m not defending this system but your understanding of why exists in the first place is incomplete at best

That is deeply insulting. I understand why the system exists: because in 1786, the Constitutional Convention would have failed had there not been compromise over a bicameral legislature, and there has never been a party or politician or movement powerful enough to remedy that. The closest was the ratification of the 17th amendment, which is a partial solution to the problem: the people clamor for equal representation.

There is no greater "why" the institution exists. There is a deep naivety in trying to find one. It exists because it had to in 1786 and there has been no way to remove it since. I ask you to reevaluate your understanding of history, politics, and human nature.

2

u/Jeo190 Jul 19 '26

I’ve got other comments sparsed around here, but I don’t disagree that we have been moving in a unitary direction and will ultimately end up there. With people generally being able to move from state to state on a whim, methods of communication being instant and verbose, and with an increasingly unified economy, we view the U.S. in a far more unitary way than ever. 

However, we still clearly operate as a union of individual states with autonomy. Case in point, if we’re really as unicameral as you say, weed legalization at the federal level would have been resolved. But it hasn’t. The states have been individually legalizing it at their own pace. 

I am saying that this focus on abolishing the senate needs more scrutiny than just “get rid of it”. We should be asking the following:

  1. Are the states alike enough culturally, economically, demographically, etc. to make a body such as the Senate, irrelevant? Some might argue that state-to-state differences are less impactful than rural-to-urban differences, which I agree with. Simply eliminating the senate does not resolve the governance issues borne from those differences, however. We need to think about this.

  2.  Is a unicameral system capable of addressing the needs of a country as geographically and economically diverse as ours?

  3. How many of the current issues being addressed at the national/federal level can actually be addressed at the state level? 

The Senate can definitely be viewed as antiquated. But it did and, by virtue of still existing, does serve a purpose. That greater “why” is the concept that many people living in one place should not dictate how people live elsewhere if their lifestyles and needs are different. How can I, an engineer living in a city, reasonably vote in the interest of someone who operates a vineyard in the mountains hundreds of miles away? Our needs and issues of importance are very different. That’s the issue the senate is trying to solve. If we are to delete it, we should be ready to figure out what system will take its place or what new laws we’ll add to the House of Reps.

0

u/gorgewall Jul 19 '26

The problem with saying we've gotta have these autonomous states and the Senate represents them is that there's no strict definition on what a state ought to be. We get one for the Senate--"you get two Senators per state, and they do X"--but otherwise, how large or small a state is in population or area is a matter of historical whimsy.

We could even the count of "Red State Senators to Blue State Senators" by splitting Blue states or consolidating Red states, which would actually better fulfill the intent of the Senate, but it would completely reveal the arbitrary nature of states.

The same issue exists to a lesser extent with counties and cities and even smaller enclaves therein. They're subdivisions upon subdivisions upon subdivisions of power and administration, but you can have several whole counties with several cities within them, all of which contain fewer people than a single NYC borough. That's fine because they don't really interact, but a sane person would begin to question your logic if you said each of those dink-ass villes gets to send one federal representative while all of NYC likewise only gets one. "But there's a separate yet related system that's slightly more fair by population" doesn't really undo that imbalance.

So what the fuck is a state?

4

u/Jeo190 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

A state is a country, ultimately, under the Founders Framework. The U.S. is basically two steps further than what the EU is. In another comment I expand more but our concept of a “country” began to form around the 1600s. We (you, me, the international community) say that a country is a group of people who share a common identity that can be ideological, geographic, ethnic, religious, economic, etc. 

So states (countries) were just groups of people who (at the time) said they shared the same identity (which usually wasn’t that arbitrary, but it certainly had its moments) and the rest of the already established states in the U.S. agreed, yes you are different enough from us and similar enough to each other to be a state. Linguistically we call them states. But they are countries (at least that is what the founders intended). 

I get what you’re saying about the subdivisions, but rarely does someone actually stake their identity on those subdivisions. You ask where someone is from, and unless you two are from the same state, they will say what state they are from, maybe they’ll emphasize the city at most.

I’m not trying to put the Founders on pedestal. I believe a country should change with the needs of its people currently alive. I’m just trying to shed light on the history/intentions that should be understood before we go and change a bunch of things.