Opinion: Kamala's 'No Bad Ideas' Plan Backfires

The Rise of Radical Ideas in the Democratic Party

On Thursday, former Vice President Kamala Harris shared a livestream on the “Win with Black Women” podcast, where she called for a “no bad idea brainstorm” for the Democratic Party. This initiative was used as a platform to suggest that Democrats should pursue radical constitutional and political changes as soon as they regain power. Among the proposals were Supreme Court expansion, admitting Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., as states, and abolishing the Electoral College.

These ideas have long been discussed by liberal professors and pundits as a means to bypass traditional democratic processes, ensuring continued dominance for the Democratic Party. Harris’s speech highlighted a troubling trend: the Democratic Party has increasingly become a party of moral and political relativism, often embracing the mantra of “by any means necessary.”

However, not all ideas are beneficial. There are indeed bad ideas, just as there are individuals who prioritize winning over ethical considerations. For some, Harris herself exemplified this through her role as Biden’s Border Czar, during which millions of people entered the country. Another questionable decision was her selection of Tim Walz as a running mate, which led to significant financial losses and a major defeat for her party.

The Consequences of Bad Decisions

Harris’s sudden surprise nomination cost $1.5 billion in just 15 weeks and resulted in one of the most devastating losses for her party in recent history. While these decisions may be seen as missteps, the worst idea is to celebrate our 250th anniversary by dismantling the institutions and values that have made our democracy the most successful and stable in history.

In my book Rage and the Republic, I explore how lawyers and law professors rationalize the destruction of the Constitution and our institutions to achieve their political goals. I debated a Harvard law professor who listed various Democratic proposals for the system but acknowledged that the Supreme Court would likely rule them unconstitutional. This admission highlights the challenges faced by those seeking to enact radical changes.

The New Jacobins and Judicial Challenges

The rise of what I call “the new Jacobins” — influential figures seeking to dismantle our system after facing judicial and political setbacks — is a growing concern. Even the dean of Berkeley Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote a book titled No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.

Leading Democrats such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have declared the Supreme Court “illegitimate” and called for a massive overhaul of both state and federal courts to align them with Democratic demands. This reaction came after the Virginia Supreme Court rejected efforts to eliminate Republican representation in Virginia.

Jeffries is not alone in adding bad ideas to Harris’s wish list. Various politicians and pundits have called for the sacking and packing of the Virginia Supreme Court. By lowering the mandatory retirement age to 54, they aim to replace current justices with liberal appointees.

Extreme Measures and Normalizing Change

If this scheme isn’t enough, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, reminded citizens that under the state constitution, they could scrap the entire Virginia government over the refusal to allow Democrats to gerrymander the state. Elias, infamous for his role in the Steele Dossier, is part of a growing movement that seeks to normalize extreme measures.

When concerns were raised about Elias’s post, he criticized me for questioning his actions. This response is typical of establishment figures when confronted about pandering to the most radical elements within the Democratic Party. It's akin to responding to a World Trade Organization trade ruling by invoking Congress’s power to declare war — an extreme reaction.

The Framers’ Vision and the Need for Moderation

These ideas are not new; they have plagued our system for generations. They represent the siren calls for direct democracy and the removal of moderating influences. The Framers sought to create a system that avoided the pitfalls of earlier democracies, including Athens. James Madison warned that even if every Athenian citizen were a Socrates, the assembly would still be a mob.

The Framers rejected more direct democratic systems to prevent the impulses and passions that destroyed other systems. They aimed to avoid democracy becoming a “mobocracy,” as Benjamin Rush described it. The American Constitution was a rejection of the “bad ideas” that politicians have historically used to rally the power of the mob.

They did not want an “expanded playbook” designed to secure and retain power for one party. We were the first true Enlightenment Revolution based on the protections of rights derived from God, not government.

Now that was a good idea.