by David Shephard, ©2026
(Jul. 27, 2026) — There is a tale, which may be apocryphal, about a breakfast which took place between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. During this breakfast the two great Virginians discussed the finer parts of the Constitution. Washington, in explaining the benefits of the Senate, offered a metaphor when Jefferson took his hot coffee and poured it into a saucer. Washington pointed out that the Senate was like the saucer: “We pour legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.” His point was that the Senate could protect liberty by altering the legislation coming out of the popularly elected House of Representatives. One of the main concerns of Jefferson’s was that a majority, perhaps in a temporary irrational frenzy, might try to use the power of the Federal Government to steal money and liberty from the minority. Safe to say that Washington and Jefferson weren’t socialists. And to their great credit neither man could get elected to the New York City Council today.
Indeed, the founders were skeptical of majority rule, so they created a second body of Congress, the Senate, and gave it a couple key pro-liberty features. First, they gave the Senators a little more political insulation with six-year terms so the members of that body might be more likely to block popular but bad legislation. And secondly, the Senate offered equal representation for small states so their residents could have some protection from majority rule overreach.
Well, last week the Democratic Socialists of America released, “Workers Deserve More,” their manifesto, where they outline the radical changes that they hope to bring about if they ever take power. And among their many horrible ideas was the pledge to abolish the Senate. My first observation is the irony of their promiscuous use of the word “worker” considering that so many of their most vocal adherents are affluent and idle. When it comes to work, my guess is that if you were to add up, for the purpose of gathering economic data, the production of all the socialists in America, I highly doubt that collectively they produce enough goods and services to even register as much as a blip to the GDP.
But why do the socialists hate the Senate? Well, they hate the Senate for the same reasons that pro-freedom and pro-liberty-minded people love the Senate, mainly that the Senate is a speedbump for all legislation, and of course the beauty of our Constitution is that it is designed to make it tough to ram through radical and partisan bills. The socialist wants to radically alter the American government, America’s economic system and society, and doing that will take the passage of a lot of bad bills.
And in the current Senate, even without a filibuster, none of the socialist agenda could get through. My view, which I think is similar to the view of the framers and of pro-liberty- minded Americans is that it is better that ten good bills die than one bad bill gets passed. It should not be easy to pass new laws.
The socialists also hate the Senate because it is a non-majoritarian body, that is every state, no matter her population, has the same number of votes. Unlike the House of Representatives, Senators represent constituencies that vary in size. Small, lightly populated red states have equal power with big, highly populated blue states. For the socialists, the people that stand in their way live in small- to medium-sized red states. Look at it this way: if the South, the Sunbelt and the Midwest retain their political power then socialism will never take hold and the socialist will never attain power. It is the Senate, and its equal suffrage makeup, that is the main obstacle for the socialists.
The good news is that eliminating the Senate will be very difficult and maybe even impossible, because Article V of the Constitution says that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”
The Constitution is a beautiful thing. It created great protections for liberty and seemed to anticipate vile people who, in the name of social justice, would attempt to take away our freedoms and liberty. It is as if the framers of our Constitution caught a glimpse into the 21st Century and saw AOC and her millennial generation on the horizon.
David Shephard is a native and very proud Virginian. Raised in Fairfax County, David graduated from George Mason University and majored in Government and Politics. He spent decades in politics, campaign consulting, raising money and lobbying. He is also a longtime conservative blogger writing for numerous blogs. He is also the host of “The Virginia Gentleman Podcast.”
David is the author of Elections Have Consequences, A Cautionary Tale, and his latest book, Norton’s Choice: An Inside Politics Exposé.