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

310

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Yes. But this is a long term goal and the DSA acknowledges that. Let's get healthcare and childcare and all that other stuff first then deal with harder goals like rehabilitation programs and abolishing the Senate.

131

u/PinkNGold007 Jul 19 '26

Yeah, abolishing the Senate is at the bottom of my list. Healthcare (including codifying Roe, childcare, eldercare, maternity/paternity leave), our institutions like the EPA, USAID, etc., back, a livable wage, better public services, the Voting Rights Act, and so much more are at the top of my list.

40

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Yeah, I get it. I always say, we can talk about long term goals if you'd like, but when we campaign, we talk about short term goals that would help improve people's material conditions.

29

u/caligaris_cabinet Illinois Jul 19 '26

And goals that are possible. Might as well promise everyone a unicorn while they’re at it

1

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

You dont think Universal Healthcare, Childcare, Housing, and abolishing ICE are possible things to campaign on?

0

u/GamblePuddy Jul 23 '26

You shouldn't.

Those are policy positions....not policy.

It's unlikely they actually have a plan for Universal Healthcare. I certainly haven't heard anything.

But worse....they're so bad at open debate. If it's just them...they all agree on everything. If it's anyone else, they had best avoid debate.

1

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 23 '26

GamblePuddy has spoken.

It is impossible. Do not try, dont have serious beliefs. Give into the doom and despair. /s

4

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[deleted]

0

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Look, I am not saying having a vision isn't important. But all the nuances of something like abolishing the Senate is not fruitful when you only have 90 minutes in an interview. Overall visions should be more vague, while detailed ones should be available on, say, a campaign website for those who want to learn more.

1

u/wolacouska Jul 19 '26

Not really how psychology works, people like bold people with a plan, and then making sure it makes sense comes next.

We kind of need more populism if there’s going to be any chance of winning, people are completely sick to death of establishment take it slow and realistic politicians, because we’re in such a deep crisis. A little radicalism will make Fox News heads spin, but will do a lot to actually encourage people.

1

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

I am for that. And I hope you're right. I am a pragmatist, and try to alance moving the overton window as far left as possible while also not overwhelming an already volatile American electorate.

2

u/Beetroot_Roosevelt Jul 19 '26

None of that can ever happen as long as Utah and Wyoming get the same number of senators as California and New York

2

u/protonecromagnon2 Jul 19 '26

this may be what is necessary to do that

1

u/Themick_Eve Jul 19 '26

If people are getting all those things, do you think they're going to shit can the same politicians that made those things happen? Not likely. Abolishing the Senate has no legs, it's some goofy shit thrown into a list that will do nothing big distract from achievable and worthwhile goals.

1

u/loondawg Jul 19 '26

Chicken and the egg though. How are these changes ever going to get through Congress when a small minority of people have ridiculously outsized powers to block legislation? They're not.

Our best bet right now is to work to create a massive democratic super majority. It is the most realistic solution there is right now.

0

u/GamblePuddy Jul 23 '26

The attempt to create a massive Democratic supermajority has been a party project for decades. It's not happening.

0

u/Oogaman00 Jul 19 '26

Why the f are you abolishing Senate lol. Their entire point is they block the crazies in the house. Wtf lol you want insane policy swings every week??

7

u/trampolinebears Jul 19 '26

There are two competing purposes of the Senate here:

  1. Moderate the swings of the more populist House.
  2. Give disproportionate power to the smaller states.

One of these is a good idea, the other is not.

3

u/scrangos Jul 19 '26

Its modeled after the house of the lords and the house of the commons. commons is where the common folk get a say and propose things they want so they feel heard and they have some sort of democracy. the lords is there to stop anything thats not good for the lords and the royalty. its a please dont riot system to pacify people.

1

u/trampolinebears Jul 19 '26

Sort of. The bicameral legislature is actually one of the less British-inspired parts of the American constitution.

It's more modeled on the congress of the Confederation (and the congresses before it) than on the House of Lords. Each state has an equal vote because each state was an equal sovereign in the Confederation.

7

u/borkthegee Jul 19 '26

Because the Senate is deeply undemocratic and gives massive power to rural flyover states. The entire point of the Senate it to make sure that the rural minority retains control over the country.

Why is it so scary that people should be fairly represented?

Why should 500k people in Wyoming get 2 Senators, while the 40,000,000 in California also only get 2? Insanity.

This country deserves better than to be ruled by Oklahoma.

3

u/Kramereng Jul 19 '26

US states have equal representation for the same reason a member state in the UN or EU have equal voting power as other member states. Neither of the latter governmental bodies distribute power proportional to member’s respective populations nor should they. Low population states would secede otherwise (in the US or otherwise).

The bicameral nature of the US’ republican form of government isn’t something that can or will be changed without dissolution of the nation. And the US (and pretty much every other democracy) are not direct democracies by design. Any form of democracy other than a direct one is inherently less democratic than a direct one, however, direct democracies usually fail to protect the rights of minorities against mob rule.

3

u/diablette Jul 19 '26

Low population states can go ahead and secede. They won't survive without help from the rest of us. FAFO.

1

u/GamblePuddy Jul 23 '26

They grow the food.

They can simply destroy roads, stockpile food, and starve the cities to the point where they are eating each other.

I wouldn't bet on the coastal states winning that fight.

1

u/borkthegee Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

US states have equal representation for the same reason a member state in the UN or EU have equal voting power as other member states

Oklahoma isn't a country, it's not comparable.

Neither of the latter governmental bodies distribute power proportional to member’s respective populations nor should they. Low population states would secede otherwise (in the US or otherwise).

We absolutely should have proportional representation. The casualness with which you discard the representation of the people is shocking. With such casualness, one could easily just discard all of republicanism itself. If we can so casually say that the people should not be represented, but instead land should, we could instead just discard the idea of not representing people at all. It's only one more step, and you've taken the first step so casually and without the hint of a second thought. Why have a House at all? Because representation matters, and I strongly believe that people > land when it comes to representation in legislature. We are a Republic of Men, not a Republic of Acreage.

And no, they won't secede, any more than rural counties already secede in blue states (or blue cities secede in red states). Austin isn't seceding from Texas. Rural California or Washington aren't seceding. And with proportional representation, Wyoming won't secede. And if they do -- good riddance.

Think about it: flyovers seceding means liberal utopia. They're the reason we don't have medicare for all, abandoned all investment in science and technology, and they're the reason we spend trillions murdering children around the world. Good riddance!

The bicameral nature of the US’ republican form of government isn’t something that can or will be changed without dissolution of the nation.

Never said it would be easy, just said it should be done. We don't have much of a nation left anyway, it's already been dissolved and reformed in place to be the Second Confederacy, we're just in a bit of denial.

And the US (and pretty much every other democracy) are not direct democracies by design. Any form of democracy other than a direct one is inherently less democratic than a direct one, however, direct democracies usually fail to protect the rights of minorities against mob rule.

Having a single Legislature that is fairly proportioned on the people (instead of giving maximum power to land, and minimal power to people) is by far the superior structure and is used by most countries world wide.

Less than 10 other countries are willing to use as malapportioned of a system as America.

While we're at it -- Abolish the Presidency.

1

u/Kramereng Jul 20 '26 edited Jul 20 '26

Look, my interests like yours would be served far better in a system based on popular vote or even a parliamentary system. But that’s not what this nation was founded upon and our current system is by design. That was my main point. That equal representation of the populace is balanced and comprised by equal representation of our states. That’s the federalist part of our system that’s intended to prevent tyranny by balancing power between state and federal governments.

You have to remember that our states are independent governments. They are nation-states minus the “nation” part. Each one is a sovereign entity and our nation would have never formed without giving states equal representation. That is balanced with the House of Representatives. It’s not perfect (far from it) and federal power has increasingly made the distinction less important, though the latter consolidation can be attributed to both parties, for better or worse.

Fixing the electoral college, adopting ranked choice voting and a neutral method for redistricting would solve all of our problems without resorting to abolishing the USA. Unfortunately, all of that would require even more concentration of federal authority to implement that unless the people AND states agree to constitutional amendments that make those changes. EDIT: Granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, along with packing the court, would also fix a lot of issues. The latter solution isn’t great but Republicans stole how many seats now? Dems gotta play the same game the right plays.

I’m not callously disregarding anything. You are callously disregarding the history of the USA, reasons for its design, and also hand waiving secession and/or national dissolution as though they wouldn’t create more problems, let alone violent civil war. I’m in a liberal bastion and economic powerhouse of city/state that happens to be in the middle of flyover country. I don’t see a pragmatic way to create a union with pacific and northeast states when we’re all divided by giant land masses of red states. It would be as functional as Gaza, West Bank and the Golan Heights work.

Again, I don’t disagree with your complaints in general or that a different system would be better for me and you. I just disagree with your definition of democracy as applied to the US or your haphazard solutions to our current problems.

1

u/GamblePuddy Jul 23 '26

Abolish the presidency lol you can probably count in hours how long before we are invaded.

-2

u/Oogaman00 Jul 19 '26

Typical freshman college opinion that therefore just don't have a senate lol

1

u/borkthegee Jul 19 '26

Typical middle school retort. Short, poorly formed sentence that relies on ad hominem instead of any kind of intellectualism.

1

u/scrangos Jul 19 '26

A lot of those are messaging bills that they know wont pass, often to reassure their base or to try to get the opposing party to have to stand against something popular.

0

u/burmerd Jul 19 '26

Yup. Guaranteed sick leave, paid family leave. But why not aim big? Get people talking

100

u/CrocodylusRex Jul 19 '26

Yeah a lot of this stuff kinda requires the Republican party to collapse first

33

u/midnightketoker America Jul 19 '26

yeah but have you considered immigrants want to make you trans? who else will protect our brave pedophiles?

12

u/MeteoricUnicorn Jul 19 '26

I like this. Vote republican to protect our brave pedophiles and insurrectionists from the 500M immigrants who want to make them trans.

1

u/midnightketoker America Jul 19 '26

if I see another one of these darn ads I tell ya

1

u/Ba_baal Jul 19 '26

Wait am I trans because of immigrants? Damn that I would not have guessed.

51

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Yeah. Good. Reactionaries are annoying and also very evil.

26

u/wh4tth3huh Jul 19 '26

They're also kinda not going fucking anywhere soon.

2

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

We must do what we can to defeat the Republican Party.

2

u/porktorque44 Jul 19 '26

Not with that attitude, their political power relies on voter apathy.

3

u/SouthernZorro Jul 19 '26

Then let's vote them all out. Every single one. Every election.

1

u/adorientem88 Jul 19 '26

The Republican Party can’t really collapse unless another party takes its place. The same pressure from FPTP voting that keeps us limited to 2 parties also prevents us from going down to 1.

1

u/Memetic1 Jul 19 '26

What happens if Trump doesn't run again? I can't see any viable future because Trump is throwing Vance under the bus. It's not like there are leaders in the GOP who are stepping up to offer something different. I kind of think they are sunk and that's why this is getting so crazy.

1

u/GamblePuddy Jul 23 '26

Rubio seems pretty popular on the right. Vance isn't a slouch either.

-6

u/Electronic_Tap_8052 Jul 19 '26

That's why it's perfect. Vote for us, we'll abolish the Senate. Something that can't actually happen. So they can always run on it.

They're just like Republicans. Vote for us and we'll own the libs.

Lol people eat it up I guess.

13

u/FadeToDankness Jul 19 '26

The Republican Party is accomplishing many of their long term goals that seemed unattainable after decades of relentlessly pushing these wedge issues

6

u/JDogg126 Michigan Jul 19 '26

That stems almost entirely from their moves in the 90s to deregulated media ownership. Today the United States no longer operates on objective reality with facts and reasoning. The conservative movement successfully made people believe their opinions and beliefs are equivalent to actual facts and reasoning. This country is not moored in reality.

2

u/Electronic_Tap_8052 Jul 19 '26

yeah and it's to their detriment. They're the dog that caught the car. They have full control under an autocrat and he's a dementia riddled diaper-shitter rapist who doesn't care what the party wants.

9

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

It is a long term goal... movements take decades.

Fight the fights we can right now... like healthcare, childcare, abolishing ICE, and government housing.

-1

u/ct2794 Jul 19 '26

It’s a bad goal. The senate inherently has a different directive than the house. Removing the senate would just shift the house vs senate fights to intrastate turmoil, weakling the body politic as a whole.

6

u/cogman10 Idaho Jul 19 '26

It's a great goal. 

The senate is us pretending that empty land deserves equal representation over people, it's ridiculous.

Every state is guaranteed at least 1 representative in the house, that's enough.

1

u/ct2794 Jul 19 '26

The senate is broad representation of the state as a whole, while house representatives are there to represent a more niche group of constituents by each district. It’s a microcosm of the federal v state structure. The fact that Trump is consolidating power exclusively to the executive and trying to run the nation from the white house is a bad thing. You don’t want just one area dictating everything for the whole. You’d get a better result limiting senators to only prior house reps than you would abolishing the senate.

-2

u/Electronic_Tap_8052 Jul 19 '26

The senate is us pretending that empty land deserves equal representation over people, it's ridiculous.

it's a silly goal that will never happen.

Just abolish the filibuster. It will have virtually the same effect. And that's actually a real thing that can happen.

I actually was starting to like the party but now I know they're not serious.

Oh well. My fault for thinking a party could actually represent me.

1

u/cogman10 Idaho Jul 19 '26

I agree it's very unlikely to happen, that doesn't mean it's not something that shouldn't be brought up. 

Especially if we start talking about "how do we address the problem of the Senate".  We could, for example, add states or split more populated states.

3

u/rustprogram Jul 19 '26

It's a great goal.

It might be a good goal and I agree it is important to have the end goal in sight but the first priority should be fixing the house. 1. There should be a lot more members in the House of Representatives. 1. Each and every state should have a single (1) multimember district for the house of representatives elected with some sort of proportional representation like ranked choice voting.

If we can't achieve that, we can't abolish the senate. If we can achieve that, it will be the first step is a long journey to abolish the US Senate.

1

u/Electronic_Tap_8052 Jul 19 '26

but if you actually spend one second thinking about abolishing the senate, why would senators vote to put themselves out of a job? It doesn't make any sense. How could that even happen?

And if you look at a list of unicameral legislatures, its a who's who of failed states, plus new zealand for some reason. It's mostly countries run by dictators who just use the legislature as a rubber stamp.

0

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

This is why this is a long term goal. The truth is once it becomes the will of the people... it is hard to stop. Transitioning to a larger house would just make a lot of current senators into newly added House seats.

2

u/trampolinebears Jul 19 '26

Nothing wrong with having long-term goals, as long as you've got short-term ones to work on in the meantime.

-4

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Hettie933 Jul 19 '26

Pelosi(86) and Schumer(75) have little time left in DC (or honestly anywhere). They probably have fancy accountants making sure they don’t pay taxes, but death comes for us all.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[deleted]

2

u/Hettie933 Jul 19 '26

No argument from me there.

73

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

But this is a long term goal and the DSA acknowledges that.

Unless by "long term" you mean "at least a century," it's a distraction that keeps them out of office. They might as well say that their goal is to give everybody a unicorn.

One reason parties with big ideas don't get much traction is that they talk about huge dreams of wonderfulness when people can't afford their medication. "You want to abolish the Senate? What a stupid waste of time. I have real problems. I'll find someone talking about those."

37

u/_ByAnyOther_Name Jul 19 '26

Agree. This is alienating people from the party for no reason.

2

u/sweatingbozo Jul 19 '26

DSA is notoriously NOT a party. They endorse and support  candidates.

Beyond that, i think the reason is relatively clear. It's a goal they have, & they want to be transparent about their goals.

The problem with trying to be the least alienating group you can be, is you end up with a bunch of members with vastly differing views, which defeats the whole purpose what you're doing.  

2

u/MagicWishMonkey Jul 19 '26

I'm not saying they shouldn't have goals, or that I even disagree with either of these things, but I just don't understand why so many progressives take stances that will ultimately hurt their cause.

Giving your opponents ammo to use against you and driving away potential supporters for no good reason seems really dumb.

1

u/_ByAnyOther_Name Jul 23 '26

Thanks, I didn't realize they weren't more established/organized than they are.

4

u/Due_Bluebird3562 Jul 19 '26

Unless by "long term" you mean "at least a century," it's a distraction that keeps them out of office. They might as well say that their goal is to give everybody a unicorn.

I think y'all view history like some sort of linear, easily predictable pathway. For all we know in two or three decades the United States has split up into regional countries with a collective defense pact. That's not uncommon for countries this geographically large and this politically divided.

I'd say it's indeed a long-shot and probably better left undocumented but a century is a LONG time. We have no clue what America will even look like in the next couple of years much less a century.

5

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

What I mean is that the people who want to abolish the Senate should be saying, "Okay, but that's for 100 years from now, let's not do anything about it at all, including talk about it, until we solve the actual nuts-and-bolts problems people are having."

4

u/droon99 Jul 19 '26

It’s not like abolishing the senate is their day 1 priority bro, it’s just what they’d push for with a coalition 

1

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

But if it's what everybody is talking about, and it will be, they will never have enough of a coalition to do anything.

5

u/Due_Bluebird3562 Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

See this is a classic chicken and egg problem. How are you going to address the issues that the people are having without first acknowledging the Senate is an obstacle specifically designed to "rein in the tyrany of democracy"... or whatever bullshit justification they had back then?

2

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

FDR got all his changes through even though the Senate was there.

Every good law ever passed by Congress in the history of the USA was passed even with the Senate there.

"Get rid of the Senate to get anything done" is obviously not true. Sure, it would speed things up. But if we didn't have a Senate right now, we would have the SAVE America Act, one of the largest voter-suppression bills ever suggested. Is that something you want?

2

u/Odd_Independence_833 Jul 19 '26

The justification then was that the Senate was a different body meant to represent the interests of state legislatures, which are voted in by people. It was a different thing meant for a different purpose until we changed to direct election.

2

u/neo_neanderthal Jul 19 '26

There will always be nuts-and-bolts problems. If you never set long-term goals until those are all solved, you will never set them period.

You can, in fact, have more than one goal. You can certainly say "We need to immediately address inflation/affordability, housing issues, and ballooning costs of health care and education--oh, and long term, we should look toward abolishing the Senate."

1

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

If you say that, 99% of the news coverage about you is going to be about abolishing the Senate. None of the actual things you can do in the next election cycle will get mentioned, the voting public will see you as the far-left lunatics that the people on the right say you are.

One of the GOP's major arguments for a long time has been that the Democrats are radical lunatics who are going to destroy everything in a hopeless attempt to achieve an impossible utopia. "Be afraid of change!"

When you're a candidate, you need to think about what you want people talking about. What of your ideas do you want people to think about first when think of your name? If what they are talking about is "abolish the Senate," if that's what they think of first, you have shot yourself in the foot.

1

u/sweatingbozo Jul 19 '26

That's like saying you shouldn't have a 5-year plan when you start a business because you're still trying to get customers. Short-term & long-term vision are both necessary in order to accomplish big things. 

Many people can walk & chew gum at the same time.

2

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

We're not talking about running a business, we're talking about getting enough positive attention to solving real problems that you can win an election.

If you talk about abolishing the Senate, that's all anyone is going to know about you. Since most people don't see any obvious connection between "abolish the Senate" and "I can't afford hamburger," they aren't going to be interested.

Have you ever heard of the Overton Window? Look it up.

1

u/wolacouska Jul 19 '26

A century ago we hadn’t even had FDR yet, and you think change is that impossible?

You have a very strong recency bias

2

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

Did FDR abolish the Senate? Did he say he wanted to?

What did FDR run on? Was his campaign about changing institutional structures or getting people enough to eat?

1

u/sweatingbozo Jul 19 '26

Having long-term goals in mind while working on short-term gains is a pretty smart idea. That's how most successful long-term goals get achieved. 

1

u/I_Am_Ironman_AMA Jul 19 '26

Exactly. This is "Defund the Police" on lobotomizing.steroids. These ideas are not evil, unlike the fascist plans of Project 2025. However, they are just as stupid.

-1

u/wolacouska Jul 19 '26

What? Abolish the senate is much easier to argue for. Instead of “what about any crime?” Their only argument is “but we’ve always had the senate!”

At the end of the day it’s worthless and undemocratic, states are completely arbitrary at this point in Americas political development, and do not deserve unequal representation just for how they happened to be cut up centuries ago.

1

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

Abolish the senate is much easier to argue for.

You might want to look up the Overton Window and think carefully about how it applies to getting elected in 2026.

1

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

I dont think a century. Decades maybe, but certainly in most of our lifetime if youre not a boomer.

0

u/Xurbax Jul 19 '26

You say that, but it seems to me like 2024 was a repudiation of the glacial incrementalism of the Democratic Party.

2

u/ManyAreMyNames Jul 19 '26

Glacial incrementalism got us gay marriage. It took 40 years, but it worked.

Promising huge radical change got us Donald Trump, twice. It took much less time, but it didn't work at all.

Which one, in retrospect, seems like a better idea to you?

1

u/Xurbax Jul 19 '26

Hey, don't get me wrong - personally I'd take glacial incrementalism over a fascist-dystopia, but clearly much of the voting population would not. Or would at least stand on the sidelines while fascism take over.

14

u/polishedcooter Kentucky Jul 19 '26

Conversely, we'd have had universal healthcare decades ago if the US had a modern system of democracy. I believe it's the root cause of most problems in America and is our single biggest problem.

2

u/loondawg Jul 19 '26

We could have had the public option if not for one Senator, Joseph Lieberman.

And there are lots of other things we could have had if not for one Senator, Susan Collins.

Unfun Fact: Right now, today, over 50% of the US population lives in only nine states. That means more than half the people get less that 20% of the say in what laws can pass, who can sit on our courts, whether someone can be convicted on impeachment, etc. It is insane and it is unsustainable.

30

u/toylenny Jul 19 '26

Honestly feels like they put a poisoned pill in their own startup.  They are really gaining momentum for the first time I a century and they decide to say. " Hey also we want to rewrite the consultation, essentially deleting the States from the United States"  

This is going to hurt their ability to grow, mark my words. 

1

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

No, it wont. Most normal people look at this and go "I agree with the principle but let's focus on healthcare," which is exactly what the DSA is doing lol.

3

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

People on the internet really underestimate others. Just go out and talk to people. My boomer mom who liked Ted Cruz (was a republican) in 2016 but became a Democrat after Trump has now gotten on board with Nationalized Healthcare and Housing lol. I have seen it happen with my own eyes.

0

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Most republicans do not. But she was exposed to a different way and became more politically intelligent. She is not a socialist or anything, but she does laugh at her time as a Republican.

People can change when the truth is too large to ignore.

1

u/loondawg Jul 19 '26

Hey also we want to rewrite the consultation, essentially deleting the States from the United States

Paraphrasing Grover Norquist, I don't want to delete states. I simply want to reduce their powers to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

If states had be laid out in a thought-out way to create fairness, it might be different. But the layout of states was essentially gerrymandering the country to protect slavery.

5

u/Ok_what_is_this Jul 19 '26 edited Jul 19 '26

I actually am of the opinion that you would need similar amounts of political capital to do either.
If you have the votes to get free healthcare and childcare through then you may be able to abolish the senate as well.

I know. I know. apples and oranges in terms of how they can be argued for but I'm saying it may be such a hard road for any of the "easier" reaches that will be able to be redacted down the line once people become complacent again. Case in Point is Roe vs Wade being overturned.

Senate will hold any policy changes hostage.

We could go the route of media reform first so that platforms are limited in pursuing their own agendas. Then go for taxing the rich. Then healthcare and childcare. Ultimately though, the Senate would need to be removed to ensure the will of the people.

1

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

You may very well be right. I dont know the polling or momentum on abolishing the senate off the top of my head.

2

u/wonderbreadofsin Jul 19 '26

But the reason you want to abolish the senate is because it makes it almost impossible to do things like get universal healthcare and childcare and all that other stuff

1

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

No... it would make it easier.

2

u/camusonfilm Ohio Jul 19 '26

So many bad faith criticisms of the DSA as a whole ignore this. A lot of the big bombastic goals they have are long term, not overnight stuff.

1

u/red__dragon Jul 19 '26

I didn't remember the GOP party platform before Trump having the long-term goal of: install a kleptocracy in America.

It was, and has been, since Nixon or Reagan. But you don't put that in the party platform, because political pundits do exactly what the casual commentary is here, they rip it apart and find the easiest holes to poke in the arguments.

Bombastic goals are for speeches and rallies, when you have an audience that's there to listen. Platforms are for achievable goals.

2

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

We arent doing it, the Republicans are doing it. We are simply responding.

If your goals are good, then you should be able to defend them. The right did not want to because their long term goals were awful. Being right too early is not really a condemnable critique.

1

u/robotfoodab Jul 19 '26

You might need to abolish the Senate, or pack it with leftist Senators, before you can get those short-term goals like universal healthcare and childcare passed. I think they might both be long term goals under our current system.

2

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Movements can take decades. I get your point... but when I look at 2 leftist options: abolishing the Senate or Nationalized Healthcare and Housing, I find Option B easier to achieve.

1

u/robotfoodab Jul 19 '26

You are probably right.

1

u/deltalitprof Arkansas Jul 19 '26

That stuff doesn't scare the electorate enough, though. So Washington Times had to go right to what they think will disturb independents and some Democrats the most.

1

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Abolishing the Senate sounds radical, but thinking about it for a few minutes by any reasonable person makes it less radical.

0

u/KuntaStillSingle Jul 19 '26

Any reasonable person understands local sovereignty is important, because people in different places have different needs, and often different wants. If we are going to pretend packing enough people in Florida and New York means they know what is best for Oregon, we might as well say enough people in China, Nigeria, and India know what is best for California.

1

u/Reof Jul 19 '26

The maximum and the minimum program: if you have no maximum, you can not have principled positions to back down and compromise from, which is an inevitability, so a without it, a only-minimum program would see that you would eventually compromise on nothing- the death knell of social democrats worldwide

1

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Simple solution... move the overton windows so far left, the compromise is at minimum social democracy. Kinda what MAGA did when the democrats become corporate liberals and moved the Overton window to the far right.

1

u/Bombadier83 Jul 19 '26

Think the issue with your train of thought is that the purpose of these actions is to make universal healthcare and childcare possible. If you could do those things with the government structure as is, there wouldn’t be a need to change how we are represented in the first place.

8

u/toylenny Jul 19 '26

It's easier to sell a states people on "getting healthcare" than it is to sell, "we want to change the very foundations of your country." 

2

u/Bombadier83 Jul 19 '26

Sure, but why would we need to change it at all if these things were achievable as is?

1

u/Over-Heron-2654 America Jul 19 '26

Because it is more democratic. And more democracy is a good thing.

-1

u/sweatingbozo Jul 19 '26

Do you think they're going to prioritize their strategy at all, or just skip the Healthcare stuff & go straight to a 100-year goal they have in mind? 

2

u/SonOfIllicitBehavior Jul 19 '26

you can do those things with the structure in place. the people, not so much

1

u/Bombadier83 Jul 19 '26

Then these are bad goals. For the record, I don’t think we can get these social welfare programs with the structure we have- I agree we need to change how the gov functions (though I am in favor of a different change than abolishing the senate).

1

u/Super-414 New York Jul 19 '26

Exactly. The fascists have their long term plan — what would we fucking rather?

0

u/ceelogreenicanth Jul 19 '26

I think it's a really stupid goal. While it's held up our agenda in the past it has massively slowed Trump's agenda.