Dr. Miklos K. Radvanyi
From the short-lived Athenian democracy to the era of Artificial Intelligence, every generation believed that its political crisis was unprecedented. Twenty-four centuries ago, an Athenian philosopher looked upon the turbulent democracy of his city and reached a disturbing conclusion: democracies do not usually perish because foreign armies destroy them. They perish because they gradually undermine themselves. Equally, from the eighteenth century on, generations of American politicians have struggled with all the challenges that have threatened the very existence of the Constitutional Republic. Benjamin Franklin’s famous reply to the question concerning the form of government the Constitutional Convention had created – “A republic, if you can keep it” – has been followed by many admonitions that have expressed anxiety about the Janus-faced realities of American democracy. Today, separated from Plato’s Athens by more than two millennia, the United States of America is confronted with three fundamental questions: Can free people remain free indefinitely? Can democracy defeat totalitarian ideologies? Can democracy survive digital manipulation, artificial intelligence, and the erosion of trust in objective truth? Clearly, just days after the midterm elections of November 3, 2026, the American Republic is caught between deeply divisive ideologies, a constitutional system of fiercely competing federal as well as state institutions, and a multitude of aggressively assertive political-historical trajectories.
The election of Abdulrahman Mohammed El-Sayed to the United States Senate from Michigan represents more than the arrival of another confused Marxist politician in Washington, D.C. It also raises fundamental questions about the direction of American political life, the expanding ambitions of federal power, and the increasingly confrontational character of odious ideological politics. El-Sayed has made his intentions unmistakable. Following his November 3rd victory, he declared that winning a Senate seat was never the ultimate objective. Rather, his ambition was to use that position to fundamentally transform American politics in the manner of Barack Hussein Obama.
Such a declaration deserves careful examination. Transform politics into what? Through which constitutional mechanisms? At what political and economic costs? And, perhaps most importantly, with what consequences for a republic whose durability has depended upon limitations on government power? The answers matter far more than the personality, ancestry, or religious affiliation of the senator-elect.
America was not established upon the proposition that every political generation should reconstruct the nation according to its preferred ideological blueprint. Its constitutional architecture was designed precisely to prevent transient political passions from acquiring unlimited authority. James Madison understood that liberty could be threatened not only by monarchs and dictators, but also by majorities convinced of their moral infallibility. That warning remains pertinent today too.
El-Sayed’s political agenda embraces Medicare for All, substantial federal economic intervention, restrictions on corporate influence, and sweeping institutional reforms. Some of these proposals address genuine American problems. Healthcare costs are excessive, corporate concentration deserves scrutiny, and political financing presents legitimate concerns about influence and accountability. Yet, identifying a problem does not establish that a proposed remedy will solve it. Medicare for All, for example, raises questions concerning taxation, the financing of medical services, reimbursement rates, administrative capacity, and the future of private insurance. Supporters argue that universal coverage and simplified administration would improve efficiency. Critics question whether the transition could preserve medical choice, contain costs, and avoid disruptions. Yet, the most powerful argument against unrestricted medical coverage for All are the past experiences of the Soviet Union and its satellite colonies. “Socialist Medicine” was an absolute failure with unrestricted corruption, unprofessional greed, and the total collapse of all medical services. These are not minor accounting disagreements. They concern the relationship between individual autonomy and centralized authority. El-Sayed’s approach places considerable confidence in the federal government’s ability to reorganize complex economic and social institutions. Such confidence should be tested against the historical record of government administration, regulatory failures, and unintended consequences of ambitious reforms. Political compassion is admirable. Administrative competence cannot be assumed. A government promising everything must eventually explain who pays, who decides, and who bears responsibility when its promises cannot be fulfilled.
Equally consequentially are El-Sayed’s proposals to abolish the Senate filibuster, change the tenure of the Supreme Court justices, and reorganize important elements of the electoral system. Each proposal deserves examination on its merits. None should be dismissed merely because it originates with a confused Marxist politician. Nevertheless, their combined implications are significant. The filibuster, although not constitutionally mandated, has historically functioned as an instrument of minority leverage in the Senate. Its elimination could facilitate legislation supported by an elected majority. It could also make federal law more vulnerable to abrupt reversals whenever partisan control changes. Supreme Court term limits might improve regularity in judicial appointments. Yet, they also raise serious constitutional questions about Article III tenure and the institutional independence of the judiciary. Therefore, reformers must answer a fundamental question: Are they strengthening constitutional government, or merely seeking to make political institutions more responsive to their immediate objectives? The distinction is indispensable. Constitutional democracy requires more than winning elections. It requires accepting limitations that remain binding even when those limitations frustrate one’s preferred policies.
El-Sayed’s faux pas economic program reflects a broader Marxist belief that concentrated corporate power is a principal source of American inequality. Corporate abuses certainly exist. Monopolistic practices can suppress competition, harm consumers, and distort political decision making. Yet, the assumption that expanded federal intervention necessarily produces greater fairness is equally open to challenge. American prosperity has historically depended upon private enterprise, investment, innovation, competition, and a legal system protecting economic freedom. A serious economic policy must distinguish between regulating demonstrable abuses and treating private economic success as inherently suspect.
This distinction becomes particularly important in technological development. El-Sayed has proposed restrictions on the development of advanced artificial intelligence systems pending stronger regulatory safeguards. His concerns about technological safety and accountability deserve consideration. Yet, an excessively restrictive framework could also discourage innovation, disadvantage American companies, and create opportunities for international competitors operating under different rules. The challenge is not to choose between technological anarchy and governmental control. It is to establish proportionate safeguards without sacrificing the dynamism upon which American competitiveness depends.
El-Sayed’s opposition to American military assistance to the State of Israel and his characterization of the State of Israel’s military conduct in Gaza as genocide place him within an increasingly influential Islamist current of anti-American foreign policy thinking. The humanitarian suffering in Gaza is self-inflicted by Hamas that has ruled the territory since 2005 with terroristic-tyrannical ruthlessness. For this reason, a coherent American foreign policy must confront Hamas’s October 7, 2023, invasion, the continuing threat of armed extremist organizations, Iran’s regional ambitions, and the State of Israel’s legitimate security requirements. The central question is whether El-Sayed’s faux pas foreign policy positions adequately reconcile America’s geopolitical needs and commitments with humanitarian concerns, and the strategic consequences of reducing assistance to an indispensable ally. A foreign policy founded principally upon moral denunciation and religious fanaticism risks neglecting the difficult responsibilities of deterrence, alliance management, and regional stability.
El-Sayed’s political rhetoric during his campaign and especially following his electoral victory has lacked mutual respect that is rooted in his religious belief that Islam is morally absolutely superior to both Judaism as well as Christianity. Addressing Vice President JD Vance with the Arabic expression “Habibi,” an affectionate term that can also be employed with condescending irony, before referring to Vance’s constitutional responsibility to administer the Senate oath, was outrightly uncultured and uncivilized. In this context, El-Sayed’s political discourse has come destructively close to portraying an opponent not merely as erroneous in his politics, but also as morally inferior as well as unquestionably illegitimate. When politics becomes an endless contest of indignation, compromise begins to resemble surrender and constitutional restraint becomes an inconvenience. No Republic can indefinitely flourish under such conditions.
America clearly needs continuous reforms. Yet, reform and ideological reconstruction are fundamentally different undertakings. Reforms begin with identifying specific institutional deficiencies, examining evidence, and selecting remedies consistent with constitutional principles. Ideological reconstruction begins with a comprehensive vision of society and seeks to reshape institutions until they conform to that vision. The former can strengthen constitutional government. The latter can threaten the very foundations of democratic pluralism when its advocates become unwilling to accept legitimate disagreement. El-Sayed’s faux pas political program should be judged by this distinction rather than by his charming political slogans. What must not be overlooked is that good intentions are insufficient safeguards against bad public policy.
The United States of America has survived extraordinary historical crises because its constitutional institutions have repeatedly proved more enduring than the ambitions of individual political movements. It will certainly survive El-Sayed’s and his faux pas political comrades’s erroneous ideological offensive too because America’s greatness does not rest upon ideological uniformity. It rests upon the coexistence of competing convictions under a common constitutional framework. Abdulrahman Mohammed El-Sayed will assume the responsibilities of the United States Senator in early January 2027. His election gives him a legitimate forum to advocate his policies, not an exemption from rigorous scrutiny. The proper questions are straightforward: Will his proposals protect individual liberty? Will they strengthen constitutional accountability? Will they encourage economic opportunity? Will they preserve the independence of American institutions? And will his foreign policy advance the security interests of the United States of America? These are the standards by which every senator, regardless of party, should be judged.
The greatest danger in transformative politics is not necessarily the sincerity of its advocates. It is the possibility that their moral certainty about the righteousness of their objectives will obscure the limitations of their methods. Whether Abdulrahman Mohammed El-Sayed can make that distinction will be tested not by the applause greeting his election, but by the legislation he proposes, the compromises he accepts, and the institutional restraints he respects. In a Constitutional Republic, the ultimate measure of political leadership is not how dramatically one promises to transform the nation, but how faithfully one preserves the liberties that make peaceful change possible.