How Has DSA Changed Since the First Trump Presidency?
There's one clear answer and two caveats. By Luke Pickrell
This statement was originally submitted to MUG’s monthly bulletin in response to the prompt “How has DSA changed since 2016-2020?”
DSA has discovered democratic republicanism since Trump was last in power. Our 2021 Platform states, “True change — abolishing the Senate and Electoral College, overturning the Supreme Court cases that hold that money is speech — would require a constitutional amendment, made nearly impossible by our ossified Constitution.” The Platform also calls for a second constitutional convention (an inferior demand compared to calling for a constituent assembly, but at least indicative of some political imagination). Three years later, our Workers Deserve More program is more succinct: “Our goal is to put workers in charge of the government through a new democratic constitution that establishes civil, political, and democratic rights for all, is based on proportional representation in a single federal legislature, and ends the role of money in politics.”
At its 2023 convention, YDSA passed a resolution calling the Constitution “anti-democratic and oppressive” and encouraging all members in and out of office to “advance the struggle for a democratic republic” by “agitating against undemocratic Judicial Review, fighting for proportional representation, delegitimizing the anti-democratic U.S. Senate, and advancing the long-term demand for a new democratic Constitution.” Soon after, chapters in Cleveland and San Diego passed resolutions stating that “the Constitution to this day serves to deny equality and self-determination to Black, Indigenous, and other oppressed people by placing inordinate power in a handful of predominantly white, low population states,” and calling for “a new and radically democratic constitution, drafted by an assembly of the people elected by direct, universal and equal suffrage with proportional representation.”
New words are indicative of new ideas. This kind of language — not just critiques of the Constitution but demands for a new and democratic political structure — hasn’t been heard within the U.S. socialist movement since the Socialist Party of America was at its height, when Eugene Debs was publishing articles like “Why We Have Outgrown the United States Constitution,” and Victor Berger was trying to pass bills through the House stating that the Senate is an “obstructive and useless body, a menace to the liberties of the people, and an obstacle to social growth.” The call for a democratic constitution is new to DSA and is the most important thing we have to say.
Caveat #1: That anything with DSA’s name on it mentions the Constitution is mostly, if not entirely, thanks to MUG members. Therefore, it’s more accurate to say that MUG has discovered democratic republicanism and, despite not giving it the necessary attention, worked tooth-and-nail to spread republican language. DSA has discovered democratic republicanism through MUG but hasn’t embraced democratic republican ideology.
Caveat #2: As Harlei Morency pointed out, DSA’s democratic republican agitation is contradictory: “The preamble to DSA’s Workers Deserve More program already calls for a democratic constitution and a unicameral legislature elected by proportional representation. However, the program’s subsequent demands do not follow through on the preamble’s bold proclamation. The program calls for abolishing the Senate filibuster but not the Senate itself. The program calls for limiting the Supreme Court’s judicial review powers, yet not repealing judicial review altogether. Most importantly, the program’s Democracy section does not call for a democratically elected constituent assembly to draft a democratic constitution.” The same critique applies to the 2021 Program. YDSA’s statement and the chapter resolutions mentioned above are more consistent.
But I’ll circle back to a previous point: New words indicate new ideas. Constitutional critique on the left hasn’t been seen in a long time, and growing pains are expected. Ultimately, DSA’s lack of consistent democratic republican agitation is a good problem to have; it wasn’t a problem we had the first time Trump was in office.
Postscript: Constitutional critique is also taking place in academia and some sections of the media. In many ways, this sphere of critique is ahead of what the left has provided. For example, the New York Times has published far more critiques of the Constitution than Jacobin. The Democratic Constitution Blog is trying to remedy that deficit.