Socialists vs. the Senate
National Review editor Rich Lowry argues that the Democratic Socialists of America’s new programme represents a fundamental challenge to the US constitutional system. The programme calls for abolishing the Senate and replacing the presidency and Supreme Court with institutions subordinate to Congress, proposals Lowry characterises as revolutionary rather than conventional reform.
Lowry focuses particularly on the proposed abolition of the Senate, responding to DSA criticism that it is undemocratic. He notes that senators have been directly elected since the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified in 1913, while arguing that six-year, staggered terms help the chamber act as a check on short-term public opinion. The article contrasts these proposals with narrower institutional reforms such as ending the filibuster or expanding the Supreme Court.
In short
- DSA proposals would radically reshape US governing institutions.
- Lowry defends the Senate’s constitutional role.
- The article frames the plans as revolutionary.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Democratic Socialists argue that the Senate's equal state representation creates severe democratic inequality: Wyoming voters exercise vastly more power per capita than California voters, allowing a minority of Americans to block majority-supported legislation. They contend that staggered terms and separation of powers, intended as safeguards, have become tools of obstruction preventing democratic majorities from governing. A system of congressional supremacy with proportional voting rules, they argue, could better reflect genuine democracy whilst still protecting rights through legislative safeguards rather than constitutional deadlock.
The case against
Defenders of the current system maintain that the Senate's structure reflects America's federal character, where states are foundational political units deserving equal representation regardless of population. The directly elected Senate with staggered six-year terms serves as an essential stabilising force, allowing senators to resist short-term popular passion whilst remaining democratically accountable, thereby protecting against both executive overreach and majoritarian excess. They argue that separation of powers and constitutional difficulty of change are not democratic defects but vital protections against tyranny, and that concentrating power in a single legislative body would invite the very dangers the Constitution was designed to prevent.
Explained simply
The Democratic Socialists of America has released a programme proposing major changes to how the United States government works. The proposals include abolishing the Senate and making the presidency and Supreme Court subordinate to Congress, changes that conservative commentators including National Review editor Rich Lowry characterise as a fundamental challenge to the American constitutional system.
The Senate is the upper chamber of Congress, with each state electing two representatives regardless of population, an arrangement that gives smaller states more influence than a system based purely on numbers would. Senators serve six-year terms that are staggered, so only about a third face re-election every two years. This structure is intended to provide continuity and prevent rapid policy changes based on temporary shifts in public opinion.
Lowry describes these ideas as revolutionary rather than conventional institutional reforms that are more widely discussed in politics. Their significance lies in their scope—they would fundamentally reshape the separation of powers that has been central to American government since the constitution was adopted in 1787.