By Lucretia Hughes Klucken
WASHINGTON — Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dismissed questions about the Democratic Socialists of America’s radical national platform as an “academic debate” during an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
But abolishing police departments, prisons, the United States Senate and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not academic.
Those ideas would affect the safety, freedom and constitutional government of every American.
ABC News co-anchor Jonathan Karl confronted Ocasio-Cortez with positions contained in the Democratic Socialists of America’s recently adopted national program. Those policies include defunding the Department of Defense, closing overseas military bases, abolishing police and prisons, granting amnesty to immigrants regardless of their legal status, eliminating ICE, abolishing the Senate and placing major corporations and essential industries under public ownership.
The organization also calls for replacing the president and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary selected by and subordinate to Congress.
Those are not Republican talking points. They are published on the Democratic Socialists of America’s own website.
Ocasio-Cortez confirmed that she remains a member of the organization’s New York City chapter but said she is not a member of the national organization.
When Karl listed the national platform’s positions, Ocasio-Cortez first changed the subject to President Donald Trump, Iran, grocery prices and rent.
“I think that people are less interested in these academic debates, and they’re more interested in how we’re going to bring their bills down and make sure that they can afford to see a doctor,” Ocasio-Cortez said.
Karl then asked her directly whether she supported the policies.
“No,” Ocasio-Cortez responded, adding that America is a free country where people may hold and organize around different beliefs.
Her eventual answer matters. She said she does not support the positions Karl listed, and she should not be falsely accused of endorsing every word in the national platform.
But voters also have the right to ask why she initially tried to avoid the question and dismiss such consequential proposals as an academic exercise.
Abolishing police is not academic to a mother calling 911 because someone is breaking into her home.
Abolishing prisons is not academic to the family of a murder victim waiting for justice.
Abolishing ICE is not academic to communities dealing with human trafficking, fentanyl smuggling, violent gangs and unlawful border crossings.
Granting amnesty regardless of legal status is not academic to the immigrants who followed the law, waited their turn and respected the legal process.
Abolishing the Senate is not academic to the people of smaller states who would lose their equal representation in one chamber of Congress.
Replacing the president and Supreme Court with institutions subordinate to Congress is not academic. It would dismantle the separation of powers established by the Constitution.
These ideas deserve direct answers.
Americans are capable of caring about grocery prices and constitutional government at the same time. Families want affordable health care, reasonable rent and higher wages. They also want safe neighborhoods, secure borders and a government restrained by checks and balances.
Politicians often attempt to escape difficult questions by claiming voters care more about kitchen-table issues.
The kitchen table exists inside a home that families expect the police to protect.
The paycheck being stretched by inflation is earned within an economic system that socialists propose placing under greater government control.
The health care policy Ocasio-Cortez wants to discuss would be administered by the same government whose constitutional structure the national DSA platform proposes radically transforming.
These subjects are connected.
The Democratic Socialists of America does not merely advocate higher taxes or expanded social programs. Its program calls for fundamental changes to the American system of government.
Under its plan, the Electoral College would be eliminated. The Senate would be abolished. The president and Supreme Court would be replaced. Major corporations and essential industries would be publicly owned.
That is not reform.
That is an attempt to redesign the constitutional order.
Americans may criticize the Electoral College, debate the size of the House or support term limits for judges. The Constitution provides an amendment process for addressing major structural changes.
But abolishing institutions because they interfere with a political movement’s objectives is dangerous.
The founders divided power among three branches because they understood human nature. They knew that concentrating authority in one institution would invite abuse.
The president checks Congress. Congress checks the president. The judiciary determines whether government actions comply with the Constitution.
None of those branches is supposed to be subordinate to another.
The DSA proposal to place the executive and judiciary under congressional control would weaken that protection and concentrate enormous power in the legislative branch.
Public safety deserves the same seriousness.
Police misconduct should be investigated and punished. Americans have witnessed officers abuse their authority, violate civil rights and betray the communities they were sworn to serve.
Accountability is necessary.
Better training is necessary.
Mental health services, addiction treatment and community programs are necessary.
None of those reforms requires abolishing law enforcement.
The national DSA Abolition Working Group explicitly calls for cutting police budgets annually toward zero and ending the criminal justice system’s reliance on police and prisons.
What happens when community programs fail to stop a violent offender?
Who responds to an active shooter?
Who investigates child abuse, rape, murder and human trafficking?
Where are dangerous criminals placed when they remain a threat to innocent people?
Calling these questions academic avoids the real-world consequences.
The immigration platform deserves equal scrutiny. The organization proposes ending ICE detention and deportations, legalizing migration and granting amnesty to all immigrants regardless of status.
A nation has both the right and responsibility to control its borders.
America can treat people humanely while enforcing immigration law. It can welcome legal immigrants while removing violent offenders. It can improve an overwhelmed system without declaring that entry into the country carries no enforceable legal requirements.
Compassion without order quickly becomes chaos.
Ocasio-Cortez said she does not agree with the national positions Karl presented. If that is her position, she should clearly identify which DSA policies she rejects and explain what alternatives she supports.
She should also say whether she believes the New York City chapter she remains affiliated with supports any of those same national goals.
That is not guilt by association. It is basic political accountability.
When elected officials join political organizations, receive their endorsements and help elevate their movement, voters are entitled to examine the organization’s beliefs.
Republicans should be held to the same standard. If a Republican belongs to an organization advancing unconstitutional or dangerous policies, journalists should demand an answer.
Political affiliation cannot become a shield against scrutiny.
Ocasio-Cortez is one of the most influential progressive politicians in America and has not ruled out a future presidential campaign. Her ideas, alliances and judgment matter far beyond one congressional district in New York.
She was correct about one thing: Americans are worried about paying their bills and seeing a doctor.
But those concerns do not make them indifferent to public safety, national sovereignty or the Constitution.
Abolishing the police is not academic.
Abolishing prisons is not academic.
Erasing the border is not academic.
Abolishing the Senate and subordinating the Supreme Court to Congress are not academic.
These are radical political objectives with real consequences for real people.
Voters deserve more than a deflection.
They deserve a direct answer before any politician associated with this movement is trusted with greater power.
Follow Real News with Lucretia Hughes for more unfiltered coverage rooted in faith, freedom and truth. Watch, read, connect and support the mission here:
https://linktr.ee/lucretiahughes
Comments