You Were Warned

Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram

Look, if you’ve been listening since the 2024 election, this moment was predictable. I said it then: the Democrats had a narrow window to moderate, to actually listen to the voters who rejected the extremes on crime, borders, spending, and cultural overreach. Or they could let the radical left run even harder left without consent.

We’re now watching the second option play out in real time.

New reporting last week details exactly what the Democratic Socialists of America intend to do if they consolidate real power. This isn’t incremental reform or “democratic socialism” in the loose European sense some apologists still claim. This is a structural overhaul of the American system.

The DSA plans to roll out an updated platform calling for the elimination of the U.S. Senate. They want to replace the president and the Supreme Court with an executive branch and judiciary chosen by — and subordinate to — Congress. Add to that full amnesty for all immigrants here illegally, defunding the Department of Defense (they’re calling it the “Department of War”), an immediate end to all deportations, free migration with no meaningful controls, and voting rights extended to noncitizens and people with criminal convictions. Layer on the existing planks: 32-hour work week with no pay reduction, Medicare for All, universal rent control, total student debt cancellation, elimination of cash bail, and a “new democratic constitution” built around proportional representation in a single federal legislature.

That is not a policy wishlist. That is a blueprint for concentrating power, removing checks and balances, changing the electorate, and weakening national defense while the rest of the world does not play nice.

And the people pushing this are not operating as a third party. They are running candidates inside Democratic primaries, winning some, and treating the Democratic ballot line as their vehicle. Recent examples include Zohran Mamdani defeating Andrew Cuomo in the New York City mayor race and other primary flips across the country. Here in Connecticut, the CT DSA chapter has endorsed and helped elect municipal candidates in New Britain, Hamden, and New London. They are backing state legislative candidates including Nick Gauthier and others, and they are growing their footprint in Democratic primaries.

This is where the “big tent” talk collapses under its own weight.

Democrats have spent years insisting their party is a broad coalition that can contain moderates, centrists, and the further left without contradiction. The phrase gets deployed whenever anyone notices the radicals gaining ground. It sounds inclusive. It sounds reasonable. It is, in practice, often a one-way door. The radicals enter, organize, primary incumbents who don’t align, and then demand the rest of the party accommodate the new direction or risk being labeled the problem.

Connecticut’s own Sen. Chris Murphy gave a textbook illustration of this dynamic recently. On national television he argued for a big tent that makes room for democratic socialists elected in New York City. He has said for years that a contest of ideas inside the party is healthy and that “this version of capitalism… hasn’t worked” and “capitalism isn’t working.” He welcomed the energy. That was before the latest DSA platform details dropped. The question now is whether welcoming that energy requires accepting the abolition of the Senate, a Congress-controlled judiciary, and the rest of the package. Murphy has not drawn that line. Many others in the party have not either.

That hesitation is the dilemma staring Democrats in the face.

Do they part company with the socialist, Marxist, and communist elements that have embedded themselves in the coalition — the factions that openly discuss removing constitutional guardrails and fundamentally altering who votes and how power is distributed? Or do they keep embracing or tolerating it because they fear alienating the activist base that shows up in primaries and supplies much of the volunteer and donor energy? Is the overriding goal still beating Donald Trump or any Republican in 2028, even if the price is signing on to a vision that treats the Senate as an obstacle, the Supreme Court as a problem to be subordinated, and national borders as outdated?

The honest answer from too many quarters has been evasion. They change the subject to “corporate power,” or they insist the big tent must include every voice, or they treat the DSA’s structural demands as just another policy debate rather than a direct challenge to the constitutional order. That approach worked for a while when the radicals were smaller and less explicit. It is harder to sustain now that the platform is public and the electoral gains are visible.

Connecticut has its own version of this tension. We have seen what happens when policies drift too far from practical reality — higher costs, businesses weighing exits, cities struggling with the downstream effects of reduced enforcement and expansive social promises. The DSA’s agenda does not solve those pressures. A 32-hour mandate with no pay cut raises labor costs. Rent control historically reduces supply. Open borders and noncitizen voting change the political math in ways that favor one side permanently. Subordinating independent institutions removes the very protections that prevent any single faction from locking in permanent control. These are not abstract concerns. They are the predictable results of concentrating power and removing restraints.

The post-2024 warning still stands. Without a deliberate course correction toward the center on the issues that actually move working families — cost of living, safety, secure borders, functional institutions — the party hands the initiative to the faction that wants to remake the country rather than govern the one we have. The DSA is not shy about its intentions. The only remaining question is whether the broader Democratic Party will finally say “no” or whether fear of the base and the lure of short-term power will keep them accommodating a movement whose stated goals are incompatible with the constitutional republic as it exists.

The mask is off. The tent, it turns out, was never meant to be permanent for everyone inside it. Connecticut voters — and voters nationwide — will get to watch how the rest of the party responds when the choice can no longer be dodged.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'