Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Democratic Socialists of America Is Not What It Seems

Sanders, Mamdani, and other Democratic DSA Candidates Should Resign from the Democratic Socialists of America.

Opinion

People walking to voting booths.

People vote in New York's primary elections at an armory and YMCA in Brooklyn on June 23, 2026, in New York City.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

I liked what I knew about the DSA. I liked what Democratic DSA candidates were saying (with some exceptions). Because I believe strongly that our government must be more about the people in order to be true to our founding principles, and industry should have less power. And so I was in agreement with Democrats who are socialists (with a small "s"); indeed, none of the Democratic DSA candidates are Socialists (with a capital "S")—they do not believe that capitalism should be replaced by government or collective ownership of the means of production.

When I first looked at the Democratic Socialists of America, it sounded as though democracy was central to their philosophy. The DSA states that, "At the root of our socialism is a profound commitment to democracy."


But after doing some further research recently, I found that their goal is not democracy—which is universally defined as "government by the people," meaning all of the people, not some subset. Instead, their goal, stated unequivocally, is a "government and economy by and for the working class," not by and for all Americans. In its view, to protect the American worker, our whole system needs to be trashed and replaced with something non-capitalist and worker-controlled, not just worker-friendly.

This is taking the wrong that they are rightly fighting against—the way capitalism has developed in the U.S. and our democracy benefiting the rich and industry more than the average person, in spite of everyone having a vote—and turning it on its head and replacing it with another wrong, government by and for the working class. Not everyone. I was also shocked that part of DSA's platform includes the abolition of the police, prisons, and borders; defunding the Pentagon; abolition of the Senate; and other provisions that would create a workers' state.

As I've written, I urge a return to the founding principles contained in the Declaration of Independence and making government more focused on the people. While that does mean reforming our capitalist system (see my article, "Towards a Reformed Capitalism"), and it does mean reorienting the Democratic Party to protecting the fundamental rights of the people (see my article, "People Are Hurting - America Needs to Return to Our Founding Principles," among others), it does not mean doing away with the entire structure of our government and economy.

Yes, the police have significant problems—they need to be retrained and their leadership vetted on their attitude towards those they "serve and protect." Yes, prisons are a terrible place, and our concept of how to treat those who break the law should be altered (see my post, "Rethinking Criminal Justice - Prisons as Monastery not Dungeon").

The problems the DSA is trying to address are not a function of the form of our government or economic system; it is a function of the nature of society, of people (see my post, "The Problem Isn't Capitalism, It's Our Society"). It's true that there is a real problem with most of the institutions that the DSA wants to dismantle. However, the answer is not abolition.

These institutions have a legitimate purpose in the function of our or any democracy. The answer is not the creation of a workers' state. The answer instead is the answer to the question: how do we make these institutions more reflective of the values contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution so that government and the economy work for all the people?

That was the purpose of my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto. It looked at all major areas of government activity, using the words of the Declaration as a touchstone, to determine what policies the Democratic Party should advocate.

We live in a country and in a world with a great diversity of people—not just in ethnicity and religion—but more tellingly in their financial status or educational status, and all the inequality that results from these differences. Those are the facts of life recognized by the Founding Fathers.

The answer to that inequality—material and otherwise—provided by the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence was that all people have a moral right to equality and that the government must ensure that every citizen has an equal right to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, which means that they must all have an equal opportunity to pursue that right. What someone makes of the opportunity is another matter and solely the responsibility of the individual, but it is the government's role, as stated in the Declaration, to secure that right, to provide that opportunity.

The DSA is committed to creating a very different system of government—a government by and for the working class. That is not the United States, nor was it meant to be at its founding. That does not reflect the thoughts of our Founding Fathers in creating our country and government. That is not a democracy. Much needs to change for us to live up to the promise of the Declaration of Independence, but the change should and can be within the framework of government set down at our founding.

Bernie Sanders, Zohran Mamdani, El-Sayed, and all other Democratic candidates who are members of the DSA should resign from the DSA if they believe in America, because its platform is inimical to our government as set forth in the Constitution. It's not just one aspect of the platform; it's the whole framework. If they don't, Republicans will skewer them in the general election.

Instead, they should fight to have the Democratic Party adopt a Mission statement based on the Declaration of Independence, as I have proposed (see my article, "URGENT: What the Democratic Party Must Do to Win the Midterms"). Fight to return the Democratic Party to what it was before the Democratic Leadership Council brought about a shift to the right in the party's ideology in the late 80s. Fight the good fight to ensure that all people have the rights promised to them in the Declaration of Independence.


Ronald L. Hirsch is a teacher, legal aid lawyer, survey researcher, nonprofit executive, consultant, composer, author, and volunteer. He is a graduate of Brown University and the University of Chicago Law School and the author of We Still Hold These Truths. Read more of his writing at www.PreservingAmericanValues.com


Read More

Historical documents representing founding principles of United States on flag backdrop

As the US Constitution turns 250, one expert argues it was designed as an antidote to tyranny — and warns that antidote is now at risk.

photovs/Getty Images

Why the Constitution Remains Our Defense Against Tyranny

There are many analogies for constitutions, for example, a social contract, a blueprint, a roadmap. But as we mark the 250th birthday of the United States of America, I propose another: constitution as antidote.

Constitutions are always intentionally and carefully designed, more often than not as antidotes to heal and ward off ills that a country wishes - or existentially needs - to avoid. This is, and has historically been, true all around the world, although the study of how constitutions and constitutional change can address root causes of conflict and instability has evolved greatly, allowing us to harness their healing power more effectively.

Keep ReadingShow less
A rose stands on the 9/11 Memorial for the North Tower in front of 3 and 4 World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A rose stands on the 9/11 Memorial for the North Tower in front of 3 and 4 World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

The 9/11 Town Hall That Helped Rebuild Ground Zero—and Democracy

As the nation and the world pause this week to honor and reflect on the 25th Anniversary of the terrorist attack that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center and killed more than 3,000 people, I am moved to share a very personal reflection.

After serving as Chief of Staff to Governor Celeste of Ohio and in the Clinton-Gore Administration, where I experienced firsthand how the major institutions in our country interact to favor the powerful over we the people, I became deeply concerned about the health of our democracy. It was clear to me that, beyond voting and national polling, the American people were not at the table to influence the decisions that most affect their lives.

Keep ReadingShow less
People casting their ballots.

Voters cast their ballots at the Buckhead Library for the primary runoff election on June 16, 2026 in Atlanta, Georgia.

Jessica McGowan/Getty Images

Bridgers in the House Face Disproportionate Headwinds in the Midterms

Congressional collaboration on Capitol Hill has become a lost art.

At Bridge Grades, we compile non-partisan 3rd party data to rank members of Congress on how collaboratively (or divisively) they govern. Our thesis is that a more collaborative and bipartisan Congress benefits Americans through a healthier Legislative Branch, stronger checks-and-balances, and more win-win legislation in our common interests.

Keep ReadingShow less
Women walks by voting booths.

People vote in New York's primary elections at an armory and YMCA in Brooklyn on June 23, 2026, in New York City.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Surging Socialists: A Warning for Democrats

Something is happening in the Democratic Party that is making party leaders and media pundits take notice. It became impossible to ignore with Zohran Mamdani’s 2025 election as mayor of New York City. Now comes Angie Nixon’s stunning victory in Florida’s Democratic Senate primary, where she defeated an establishment opponent who outspent her by more than ten to one.

Candidates challenging capitalism are finding a receptive audience, especially among younger Democrats. They are no longer easily dismissed as isolated insurgents in liberal enclaves, though their victories do not mean socialists are taking over the party.

Keep ReadingShow less