Fact? Driven Rebuttal to Cal Thomas’s Column

Cal Thomas’s recent column crosses a dangerous line. He takes a handful of policy ideas he dislikes, attributes them to the Democratic Socialists of America, and then suggests that millions of Americans might qualify as “domestic enemies” under the oath of office. That is not defending the Constitution. It is using patriotism as a weapon against fellow citizens.

The oath sworn by presidents, vice presidents, and members of Congress is solemn. It commits public officials to protect the Constitution from real threats. But Thomas uses that language to imply that Americans who support democratic socialist ideas are somehow enemies of the republic. This nothing short of reckless political word salad.

Thomas lists several proposals…abolishing the Senate, expanding the House, eliminating ICE, abolishing the Electoral College, and increasing public ownership of certain industries, and presents them as proof of extremism. But every one of these ideas exists within legitimate constitutional debate. Electoral College reform has been discussed for decades by scholars across the political spectrum. Abolishing ICE is a policy disagreement about immigration enforcement, not a threat to the nation. Public ownership already exists in the United States in the form of public schools, municipal water systems, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Expanding the House of Representatives is a constitutional conversation rooted in representation ratios that have not changed since 1911. None of these ideas make anyone an enemy of the country.

Thomas then tries to link DSA principles to The Communist Manifesto, suggesting that any policy involving public ownership is inherently Marxist. This is simply not true. Democratic socialism in the United States operates through elections, legislation, and constitutional processes. It does not call for abolishing private property or placing all industry under state control. If public ownership of utilities is “communism,” then so are the U.S. Postal Service, fire departments, and the military. The comparison is meant to scare readers, not inform them.

The Constitution defines treason very narrowly: levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies. Policy disagreements, even strong ones, do not meet that standard. Millions of Americans who support democratic socialist ideas are not enemies of the state. They are participants in the democratic process, just like everyone else.

Thomas also claims that socialism “always fails,” pointing to Venezuela and Cuba. But he ignores the success of social democratic systems in places like Scandinavia. He ignores the role of public investment in American economic growth. He ignores the fact that the United States already blends regulated markets with public programs and social insurance. Cherry?picking failed authoritarian states and pretending they represent every form of left?leaning policy is not honest analysis. It is fearmongering.

And here is the part Thomas leaves out entirely: if he is genuinely concerned about threats to the Constitution, he should be looking at all sources of constitutional stress not just the ones he can attach to the political left. Over the past several years, federal courts, state attorneys general, and even members of Congress have raised alarms about executive overreach, emergency powers stretched beyond their intended limits, and actions by federal agencies that bypass normal legal processes. Any of these remind you of anyone in particular, Cal? These concerns did not come from fringe groups. They came from judges, legal scholars, and constitutional experts who warned that certain actions by the current administration risked eliminating checks and balances, undermining due process, and concentrating power in ways the founders explicitly feared.

If Thomas wants to have a serious conversation about defending the Constitution, he cannot selectively ignore the actions of the present administration. He cannot pretend that only one side of the political spectrum is capable of threatening constitutional norms. He cannot point to theoretical policy proposals from a membership organization while overlooking present actions by people who currently hold federal power.

The real threat to constitutional democracy does not come from people who advocate policy changes through elections and public debate. It comes from rhetoric that labels political opponents as enemies, equates disagreement with disloyalty, and uses fear instead of facts to shape public opinion. One wonders why Thomas left out the travesty of the Trump administration. Thomas’s column does not protect the Constitution.

If Thomas wants to argue policy, he should argue policy. But smearing fellow citizens as enemies of the republic simply because he disagrees with their ideas is not patriotism. It is a dangerous escalation at a time when political rhetoric is already overheated. The Constitution protects dissent, debate, and ideological diversity. It does not give anyone the authority to declare millions of Americans unfit for participation in the republic.

Patriotism is not about narrowing the circle of who counts as American. It is about keeping that circle wide enough for disagreement, debate, and the full range of ideas that democracy requires. Thomas’s column embarrassingly shrinks that circle.

Enough Mr. Thomas, enough!

Debbie Chambers

Fulton, NY