It’s not easy watching the country I grew up in and served as a soldier doing its level best to self-destruct.
But that is what is happening today as socialists and communists scamper like cockroaches from their dreary radical crevices into the bright electoral light of our 250-year-old constitutional republic.
These America-hating Marxists have managed to commandeer a misplaced sense of national self-loathing that has sprung up among new generations of Americans who have been indoctrinated rather than educated for decades by socialist and communist propagandists masquerading as teachers in our K-12 schools.
The result is a gang of socialist/communist Congressional, gubernatorial, and mayoral candidates who have just one goal in mind—to destroy the most exceptional democratic republic ever devised on the planet and replace it with the same collectivist communist autocratic system that has failed everywhere it has been tried.
Don’t believe me? Look at the platforms and changes being proposed by the 50 or so self-described socialists, democratic socialists, and communists running nationwide in the 2026 midterms.
Let’s begin with the unprecedented overhaul of America’s traditional government institutions.
The democratic socialist platform proposes a fundamental restructuring of the U.S. constitutional system to place total authority under an expanded legislative branch.
The platform calls for eliminating the U.S. Senate entirely. Yeah, right.
It wants to subordinate the Presidency and Supreme Court by replacing the independent Office of the President and the Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary branch that are directly chosen by and subordinate to an all-powerful Congress.
In other words, a typical communist politburo consisting of socialist or communist bosses will select an impotent president and a flock of rubber-stamp justices.
The platform also calls for abolishing the Electoral College in favor of a system of popular voting while transitioning America from a two-party system into a multi-party “social democracy” using ranked-choice voting and proportional representation. What? No gerrymandering? Good luck with that.
The Social Democrat agenda similarly calls for extending full voting rights to all permanent U.S. residents, whether they are citizens or not, and completely restoring voting rights to incarcerated individuals. In other words, let’s allow the entire world to vote in our elections as well as all violent criminals.
But the Social Democrat agenda doesn’t stop there. It has a laundry list of justice & carceral system changes it wants to impose.
A major tenet in the platform focuses on dismantling standard law enforcement frameworks by abolishing all police and prisons. The platform explicitly calls for “abolishing the carceral forces of the capitalist state,” aiming to fully eliminate police departments and the entire American penal system.
Immediate steps in accomplishing this suicidal notion include defunding police departments, disempowering police unions, and shifting those resources to vague public services.
You might call it the DSA’s “Can’t we all just get along” plan to eradicate crime. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Yeah. You bet.
Next are fundamental changes to America’s foreign policy and its immigration laws.
For example, DSA candidates aim to significantly scale back U.S. global influence and intelligence/defense apparatuses by defunding and eliminating the Department of War, ending all foreign military actions, and closing all overseas military bases.
Can you say “isolationism?”
DSA candidates also want to end all foreign blockades and economic sanctions, explicitly including those levied against such “friendly allies” like Russia, Iran, Cuba, China, and North Korea.
And what would a socialist/communist agenda be without a call to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), end all deportations, and grant universal amnesty to all illegal immigrants, including criminals?
DSA candidates support all of that, as well as the effective end of America’s immensely successful capitalist economic system.
For example, the DSA platform calls for establishing public ownership and government control over all of America’s largest corporations and essential industries. In other words, government will control the means of production, a bad idea right out of the Marxist playbook. It also mandates aggressive wealth taxes on the richest individuals and corporations to fund “expanded public infrastructure,” whatever that is.
Finally, it wants a legally mandated 32-hour work week with full 40-hour pay and benefits.
The DSA’s current National Co-Chairs, Megan Romer and Ashik Siddique, have publicly stood behind these idiotic changes. In interviews, Romer defended the platform’s sweeping goals, while Siddique openly acknowledged that proposals like abolishing the U.S. Senate are radical but argued they are necessary structural transformations.
Other internal far-left factions, such as the Marxist Unity Group and the Reform & Revolution Caucus within the DSA, aggressively lobbied for these specific amendments, stating they are intended to completely reshape the functions of the American state to allow for the implementation of full socialism and communism.
The core structural transformations outlined in the DSA’s “Workers Deserve More!” platform—specifically the subordination of the executive and judiciary branches to a supreme legislative body—strongly echo the governance models historically implemented by Marxist-Leninist states such as the defunct USSR.
Think about that! We were once engaged in a long and costly Cold War with the failed Soviet Union and communist Eastern European nations, and now we have homegrown communists and Marxists attempting to inflict those disastrous systems on America.
Are American voters THAT stupid? God help us if they are. But wait. Didn’t Americans in New York City just vote for a radical Islamist Communist named Zohran Mamdani to be their mayor?
And what about Katie Wilson, the socialist Mayor of Seattle? Or this list of recently elected self-described Marxists/socialists?
- Burlington, Vermont: Emma Mulvaney-Stanak, a DSA member representing the Vermont Progressive Party, was elected mayor in 2024.
- Irvine, California: Larry Agran, a DSA member, assumed office as mayor in 2025.
- Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: Sara Innamorato was elected as County Executive (the county’s highest executive office, encompassing Pittsburgh), taking office in 2024; she is a DSA member.
- Richmond, California: Eduardo Martinez, a DSA member, was elected mayor and took office in 2023.
- Burbank, California: The city has seen multiple DSA members serve as mayor in recent years, including Konstantine Anthony (2022–2023) and Nikki Perez (2024–2025).
- Cheektowaga, New York: Brian Nowak, a DSA member, was elected town supervisor (executive) in 2023.
- South Fulton, Georgia: Khalid Kamau, a DSA member, served as mayor from 2022 to 2025.
- Jackson, Mississippi: Chokwe Antar Lumumba, a self-described socialist, served as mayor until 2025.
I guess some American voters really are that stupid.
As I have watched one DSA candidate after another spout their foolish notions about governance, I find myself wondering just how similar DSA’s Marxist agenda is to the old Soviet system.
Maybe a little history lesson is in order here. The 1936 and 1977 Soviet Constitutions technically vested supreme state power in a unicameral (and later bicameral but unified) legislature—the Supreme Soviet. This body appointed the Council of Ministers (the executive) and the Supreme Court. In Marxist-Leninist theory, the American separation of powers and system of checks and balances are viewed as bourgeois constructs designed to protect private property and prevent the working class from exerting direct majoritarian power.
There is one key difference. While the structural mechanics of a subordinated executive and judiciary resemble old Soviet constitutional theory, the DSA platform deviates by heavily emphasizing multi-party democracy and ranked-choice voting. In the USSR and Eastern Bloc, the “supreme” legislature was entirely controlled by a single vanguard party (the Communist Party), rendering the parliamentary structure a rubber stamp.
DSA’s platform rejects a one-party monopoly in favor of a multi-party system, though its economic goals—such as the wholesale public takeover of major corporations—remain fundamentally aligned with classic socialist thought.
So why has there been such a radical shift in the Democratic Party Landscape in the last decade or so?
Three to four decades ago—during the 1980s and 1990s—proposals like abolishing the U.S. Senate or defunding the military would have been completely toxic within the mainstream Democratic Party.
During that era, the Democratic Party was actively moving toward the center. The rise of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) and the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 signaled a definitive embrace of market-oriented policies, welfare reform, tough-on-crime legislation, and tightly controlled immigration policies, including fierce opposition to illegal migrants flooding the country.
Democrats back then, including Clinton and mainstream Democrats, positioned themselves as fierce defenders of constitutional norms and fiscal responsibility in an effort to distance the party from the “far-left” labels of the 1960s and 1970s.
The political landscape began to shift dramatically after the 2008 financial crisis, the rise of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, and Bernie Sanders’ 2016 abortive presidential campaign, which normalized the term “democratic socialism” for a new generation of voters.
For example, we are seeing Democratic Party Infighting following the release of the highly controversial DSA platform. It has triggered significant pushback from mainstream Democrats. The vast majority of elected Democrats in Congress reject proposals to abolish the Senate, eliminate the Supreme Court, or defund the military. Prominent party leaders view these platform points as electorally radioactive liabilities that could alienate moderate voters in competitive districts in the November midterms and the 2028 presidential election.
There are also substantial institutional barriers to most of the socialist reforms. Altering America’s constitutional system to the degree the DSA proposes requires amending the U.S. Constitution. Under Article V, this requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate, or a constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the states, followed by ratification from three-fourths of the states.
Furthermore, Article V explicitly protects equal state representation in the Senate, stating that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” Consequently, even if far-left Marxist candidates win localized congressional seats, the legal framework prevents these sweeping institutional overhauls from being enacted through standard legislation.
Rather than an immediate threat of a Marxist state takeover, the primary impact of these radical platforms is the ongoing ideological tug-of-war within the progressive movement, shifting the boundaries of what is debated in American public life.
Nevertheless, those legal and Constitutional restraints provide little comfort to those of us who love America just the way she is—a constitutional republic that rewards hard work, creativity, and talent, provides extraordinary opportunity for all, and allows remarkable freedom of speech and expression under the Bill of Rights.
So why would DSA’s gang of Marxists, socialists, and communists want to destroy all of that in favor of a consistently failed system of government that has never been successful anywhere on the planet?
State control of the means of production has never worked. Attempts to heavily engineer economies from the top down have consistently led to inefficiency, creative stagnation, and authoritarian overreach, regardless of the initial intentions.
The American experiment is uniquely built on limiting government power to protect individual liberty. Centralizing economic and political power in the hands of the state—even through purported democratic means—historically risks eroding personal freedoms, property rights, and free expression.
An anti-capitalist system that guarantees outcomes or heavily redistributes wealth can inadvertently crush the very engine that drives American exceptionalism: the incentive to innovate, take risks, and build businesses.
And that, in a nutshell, is what American capitalism is, and has always been about.
–30–
If you enjoyed this post, please consider subscribing to ForeignCorrespondent and tell your friends to subscribe. “It’s free—what a deal!” If you’ve received this from a friend and would like to be added to our distribution list for future blog posts, simply enter your email in the notifications box to sign up:
https://ronaldyatesbooks.com/category/foreign-correspondent.
You can also find my commentaries on Substack at https://ronyates.substack.com/ and the American Free News Network at https://afnn.us.
Please feel free to comment: We genuinely love hearing from you!
.
