
Cliff Connolly is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America's national Steering Committee. In a podcast interview that resurfaced this week, he explained exactly what the DSA thinks about the United States Constitution.
"The two things that we're famous for," Connolly said, "is our commitment to a program and our hatred of the United States Constitution." He described the founding document as "the obstacle that we finally will have to get over to have a revolution."
Not "reform." Not "progress." Not "equity" or "justice" or any of the other focus-grouped terms that poll well with progressive audiences. Revolution. The kind of word that used to get you watched by the FBI, back when the FBI watched people who wanted to overthrow the government instead of parents who complained at school board meetings.
Connolly made the statements on the Varn Vlog podcast, in an episode titled "The Revolution in Democracy: Marxist Unity Group's Vision for DSA," recorded in July 2025. The panel included three other participants — Amy Wilhelm, Jean Allen, and Aliyah VanPelt — all members of the Marxist Unity Group, a caucus operating inside the DSA. That last detail deserves a moment: there is a faction within the Democratic Socialists of America called the Marxist Unity Group. It has members on the DSA's national Steering Committee. The clip sat unnoticed for over a year before resurfacing this week amid a wave of DSA victories in Democratic primaries across the country.
For decades, the progressive left maintained the polite fiction that they revered the Constitution just as much as anyone else. They simply had a different "interpretation." A "living document" reading that conveniently arrived at whatever outcome the moment required. The Second Amendment didn't really mean what it said. The First Amendment had "limits." The Tenth Amendment was a suggestion.
That performance required effort, and apparently the DSA has decided effort is no longer worth it.
This wasn't a gotcha moment from an undercover journalist or an out-of-context clip stitched together by opposition researchers. This was a DSA official, speaking on the record in an interview, explaining what the organization actually believes: that the founding document of the United States stands in the way of what they want to do, and it needs to be pushed aside.
And here's the part worth sitting with: the DSA is not a fringe organization operating out of someone's basement. The Democratic Socialists of America have sitting members of Congress. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib have both carried DSA endorsements. The organization operates within the Democratic Party's infrastructure, runs candidates in Democratic primaries, and shapes Democratic policy platforms.
And its platform is not subtle. The DSA officially calls for abolishing the U.S. Senate, eliminating the Electoral College, defunding the military, and abolishing both ICE and the prison system. Connolly's remarks aren't a rogue opinion from one member — they're consistent with an organization that officially opposes nearly every structural feature of American self-government.
This isn't a random guy with a megaphone on a street corner. This is an organization embedded in one of America's two major political parties, and its officials are comfortable saying out loud that the Constitution is the problem.
The media response has been — and stop me if you've heard this one — silence. No CNN panel asking whether the Democratic Party should distance itself from an organization that openly views the Bill of Rights as an inconvenience. No breathless MSNBC segment about "threats to democracy" from people literally describing their plans to circumvent the democratic framework. The "democracy dies in darkness" crowd apparently has a very specific definition of which democracies they're worried about.
The pattern isn't hard to trace. Pack the Supreme Court — to get around the Constitution. Abolish the Electoral College — to get around the Constitution. Restrict the Second Amendment through executive action — to get around the Constitution. Censor speech through partnerships with tech platforms — to get around the First Amendment. Every major policy priority of the progressive left for the last decade has been, at its core, an attempt to do exactly what Connolly described: treat the Constitution as an obstacle and find ways over, under, or through it.
The only thing that changed this week is somebody said it without the euphemisms.
The Founders built a system designed to be difficult to change on purpose. Supermajorities for amendments. Separation of powers. An independent judiciary. They did this because they understood that people who want to accumulate power will always frame it as being for the people's own good. The Constitution doesn't obstruct revolution. It obstructs the specific kind of revolution where a political faction decides the rules don't apply to them anymore.
That's not a bug. That's the whole point.


Comments are closed.