RICH LOWRY: Socialists versus the Senate

By Rich Lowry King Features July 27, 2026 - 9:00 pm Political parties often dismiss the notion that they threaten law and order, yet the Democratic Socialists of America have made that very idea a core part of their identity. The DSA recently unveiled a platform that, while envisioning a classless society, demands the abolition of the Senate, the presidency and the Supreme Court. This amounts to a revolutionary agenda aimed at overturning the American system as it has existed since 1789. Attention has focused on the group’s call to dismantle the nation’s premier deliberative body. Gustavo Gordillo, co‑chair of the New York City DSA, appeared on Fox News to declare the Senate “undemocratic.” Representative Alexandria Ocasio‑Cortes has likewise stated that she opposes the filibuster and those Senate elements she says “were founded connected Jim Crow.” Contrary to Gordillo’s claim, the Senate remains democratic; no senator wins a seat without receiving more votes than the opponent. One of its functions, however, is to check popular passions. Originally, state legislatures appointed senators; that practice ended with the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which instituted direct election. Nonetheless, the six‑year staggered terms insulate the Senate from the rapid shifts of public opinion more than the House. Senate rules also emphasize deliberation and delay. Ocasio‑Cortez appeared uncertain when she linked Senate procedures to the Jim Crow era, a system of formal racial discrimination that emerged roughly a century after the Senate’s creation. It is true that the filibuster was once used to block landmark civil‑rights legislation, though without lasting success. The filibuster, however, is a tool available to any number of senators, including the current Senate Democrats who oppose President Donald Trump. Another Senate role is to provide equal representation for states regardless of population. This is the basis of the criticism that the chamber is undemocratic. Why, critics ask, should Wyoming, with roughly 600,000 residents, have the same Senate representation as California, with about 40 million? The design intends to prevent larger states from dominating national affairs. For proportional representation, the House serves that purpose; California sends 52 members while Wyoming sends one. Regardless of the merits, the Constitution declares the equal‑suffrage provision for states unamendable: “No State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” This implies that abolishing the Senate through ordinary legislation is impossible, as the Founders omitted any self‑destruct mechanism for their handiwork. The DSA appears undeterred. Its vision would, in many respects, revive the Articles of Confederation, which featured a unicameral legislature and lacked both a presidency and national courts. That arrangement produced a feeble central government, whereas the DSA now seeks a dominant Washington stripped of the inherent checks that a multi‑layered federal system imposes on popular will. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in remarks delivered last week, denounced left‑wing extremists who aim to destroy rather than build, accusing them of targeting “the carnal embodied symbols of powerfulness and invention and achievement.” He could have added the DSA to that list, framing the group as a threat to the nation’s legal order. The socialists have encountered resistance—and it is our long‑standing, resilient governing institutions that have prevailed. Rich Lowry is connected X @RichLowry