The Democratic Socialists of America has been remarkably candid about its destination. Its National Electoral Commission says electoral organizing helps build working-class political power “in order to win socialism.” DSA candidates are using the Democratic Party ballot line. That presents Democrats with this important question: Is the party openly providing the electoral infrastructure through which an organized socialist movement can accumulate political power?
Current law protects peaceful political organization and electoral advocacy. Yet Americans should understand what is happening before them. Socialism does not need to storm Washington when voters can be persuaded to carry it through the front door.
Federal law already recognizes a boundary between political advocacy and revolutionary activity. The Smith Act, 18 U.S.C. §2385, criminalizes certain advocacy and organization involving overthrow or destruction of government by force or violence. Supreme Court precedent protects abstract political advocacy unless it is directed toward producing imminent lawless action and likely to produce such action. Consequently, organizing voters to peacefully elect socialists is protected political activity.
That raises a different and increasingly relevant question: Is it time for America to examine whether movements seeking to replace essential characteristics of our constitutional republic should be able to accomplish peacefully through the ballot what they could never lawfully accomplish through force?
The Constitution itself provides an intriguing foundation for that discussion. Article IV requires the United States to guarantee every state a “Republican Form of Government.” Article V permits sweeping constitutional amendments while prohibiting a state from being deprived of equal Senate representation without its consent. The Founders therefore understood that political processes themselves required boundaries.
What happens if Americans someday elect leaders committed to wielding enough power to undermine the Constitutional Republic? The question reaches far beyond Democrats, Republicans or DSA. It concerns whether a constitutional republic possesses sufficient safeguards against its own lawful dismantling. Until that debate occurs, the greatest safeguard remains “We the People.”
Americans determine who receives political power, and every election carries consequences. Freedom-loving Americans should examine candidates, their endorsements, affiliated organizations, financial supporters and stated political objectives. Then they must register, show up and vote.
A constitutional republic ultimately depends upon citizens who understand what they possess and recognize movements seeking to fundamentally change it. Political freedom even gives people tremendous latitude to make choices that may diminish future freedom. That makes responsible citizenship more important than ever.
Proverbs 29:2 says, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan.”
America still places tremendous power in the hands of its citizens. Freedom still has a vote. Use it.
Sources
Democratic Socialists of America, National Electoral Commission, Bylaws
https://electoral.dsausa.org/bylaws/
Democratic Socialists of America, National Electoral Commission
https://electoral.dsausa.org/
Democratic Socialists of America, Constitution and Bylaws
https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/constitution/
Democratic Socialists of America, 2021 National Convention Resolutions & Constitutional Amendments
https://convention2021.dsausa.org/
U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4 (Guarantee Clause), Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S4-2/ALDE_00013636/ (Congress.gov)
U.S. Constitution, Article V, Constitution Annotated, Library of Congress
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-5/
18 U.S. Code § 2385, Advocating Overthrow of Government (Smith Act)
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:18%20section:2385%20edition:prelim)
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444 (Legal Information Institute)
Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 1 (1849), Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/48/1
Constitution Annotated, Incitement Current Doctrine (First Amendment), Library of Congress
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1-7-5-4/ALDE_00013805/ (Congress.gov)