Democrats are telling America what they intend to do if they return to power. All voters have to do is listen. And listen well.
Much of their agenda appears driven by opposition to anything and everything proposed or implemented by President Donald Trump. It is a seemingly terminal case of the political affliction known as "Trump derangement syndrome," or, more simply, "orange man bad."
Whether it is the White House ballroom, renovations to the Kennedy Center, or efforts to reduce crime in Washington, D.C., opposition to Trump often seems more important than the merits of the proposals themselves. If Trump supports something, his opponents reflexively oppose it.
But these disputes are relatively inconsequential compared with what some prominent Democrats have been saying about the future of American government.
Image created by ChatGPT
On the policy front, prominent Democrats and left-wing activists have advocated Medicare-for-all government monopoly health care, blanket immigration amnesty, expanding the Supreme Court, statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, and abolishing the Electoral College. These measures would fundamentally transform America's political institutions.
But something more ominous is growing and receiving little attention. It is not about monuments, buildings, or even government programs.
It is about political retaliation, government intimidation, and punishing Americans for their political beliefs and associations.
In other words, something out of George Orwell's 1984.
Sen, Elissa Slotkin recently appeared on a podcast, warning about the potential consequences for young people considering jobs in the Trump administration.
She made crystal clear what she wanted prospective employees to believe:
I want them to be like, Lord, that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don't want, and so let me avoid participating in that.
Consider the implications. Young Americans considering public service should worry that working for an administration they support would create future problems for them.
Not because they committed crimes, violated their oaths, or engaged in misconduct, but because of the political administration they chose to associate with.
Spare me the pearl-clutching — especially from Republican Members of Congress and online MAGA grifters who have cheered President Trump's weaponization of the government against those he doesn’t like, as recently as last week. This is a subject I know something about: Less than a… https://t.co/A54iBd5Sy0
— Elissa Slotkin (@ElissaSlotkin) October 19, 2026
Spare me the pearl-clutching — especially from Republican Members of Congress and online MAGA grifters who have cheered President Trump's weaponization of the government against those he doesn't like.
Warnings about weaponizing government are appropriate when directed at Trump, but objections to similar rhetoric from Democrats constitute partisan pearl-clutching.
Slotkin also participated in a controversial video with fellow Democratic lawmakers, in which they reminded military personnel that they must refuse illegal orders.
What illegal orders? In their minds, I suppose they mean any orders from a Republican Department of War.
The question is why elected officials felt compelled to deliver this message to the military during the Trump administration and whether the video was intended as a call to challenge President Trump.
The Trump administration reasonably labeled the video "seditious behavior." A federal grand jury declined to indict the lawmakers.
Whatever one thinks of the video, Slotkin's other comments raise a more troubling question: Should Americans fear future vengeance simply because they worked for a president the opposing political party despises?
Slotkin is hardly alone.
Susan Rice, who held senior positions in both the Obama and Biden administrations, clearly threatened what would happen when Democrats regain power.
They're going to be held accountable by those who come in opposition to Trump and win at the ballot box.
I think whether you're a law firm, whether you're a university, whether you're a media entity, whether you're a big corporation, whether you're big tech, you need to play a long game, not this short game that has been so detrimental.
Accountable for what, exactly?
For breaking laws? Committing fraud? Violating constitutional rights?
Or for cooperating with an administration that Democrats oppose?
This is payback. Vengeance.
There is an enormous difference between holding people accountable for actual misconduct and threatening retribution for supporting the wrong political party.
The former is the rule of law. The latter is the stuff of banana republics.
When political power changes hands, the new ruling class punishes those associated with the previous regime. Loyalty to the incoming regime becomes more important than adherence to the law.
Would a President AOC, Newsom, or Harris demand the same of Trump officials? And where would such accountability end?
Would it apply only to senior officials in the Trump administration? Or might it extend to political appointees, advisory committee members, interns, contractors, and ordinary Americans whose principal offense was supporting the wrong president?
These are hardly theoretical concerns in a country that has spent the past decade watching politicized accusations, investigations, and prosecutions chase Donald Trump and his supporters.
From Russiagate to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, from the Mar-a-Lago raid to Jack Smith's investigations and Trump's New York prosecutions, Americans have witnessed a hyperpartisan series of political and legal witch hunts.
The prospect of government power being used to punish political opponents should concern Americans regardless of which party controls the White House.
Recent revelations concerning former special counsel Jack Smith's investigations make that concern especially relevant.
Congressional disclosures found that Smith collected personal and financial information from hundreds of thousands of Trump-supporting Americans, including campaign donations and purchases of MAGA hats.
Some individuals reportedly contributed as little as one dollar.
Think about that.
An American makes a small political donation or buys a MAGA hat, perhaps as a gift. Years later, that innocuous and lawful political activity is vacuumed up in a federal investigation.
What safeguards prevent information collected during one administration from being misused by another administration?
Imagine a Harris administration deciding that political supporters of its predecessor deserve special scrutiny.
Perhaps not criminal prosecution. But what about tax audits, de-banking, security clearance reviews, or placement on government watch or no-fly lists?
This potential for abuse is precisely why Americans should be concerned about political rhetoric that suggests association with a disfavored administration warrants punishment.
The government holds enormous power over ordinary citizens. That power should never be used as an instrument of partisan revenge.
And some Democratic figures have suggested that political opponents require a visit from the thought police.
Paula Collins, a Democratic congressional candidate in New York, spoke about the need for post-Trump "reeducating," even referring to what sounded like a "reeducation camp."
Hillary Clinton offered a similar sentiment when discussing Trump supporters.
She compared them to a "cult" and suggested that "maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of cult members."
Deprogramming? Reeducation?
Didn't the Nazis have "reeducation camps"? Didn't Pol Pot? Isn't China getting away with this now with the Uyghurs?
These are not words Americans ordinarily associate with a free society where citizens are free to disagree with their government.
They are terms more commonly associated with authoritarian systems that regard political dissent not as protected speech but as a crime.
George Orwell imagined a government that sought not merely citizens' obedience but control over what they were permitted to think.
In 1984, Winston Smith's crime was not simply disobeying the state. It was thinking independently of the ruling party.
America was founded on the exact opposite principle.
The question is not merely how many Democrats are willing to make such statements publicly. It is how many others would acquiesce or stay silent if threats of political retaliation became government policy.
Corporate media obsesses over Trump's rhetoric, parsing his every word for supposedly authoritarian implications. Yet comparable scrutiny of threatening language from prominent Democrats is met with crickets.
Imagine the outrage if Republicans suggested deprogramming Democratic voters or reeducating Biden supporters. Democrats would declare it the "end of democracy" and already have drafted articles of impeachment.
And rightly so.
Such rhetoric is abhorrent regardless of which party employs it. Yet the outrage is conspicuously one-sided.
The upcoming midterm elections are about more than taxes, spending, immigration, or the usual policy disagreements.
They are also about the proper limits and abuses of government power and whether Americans can participate in political life without fearing retaliation when their candidates lose.
Perhaps these threats are merely political bluster. Perhaps they are intended to energize partisan supporters rather than announce a party platform.
But Americans should not have to guess whether political leaders mean what they say about punishing, reeducating, or deprogramming fellow citizens.
A free society depends on the principle that losing an election does not mean losing one's rights. The Constitution applies regardless of which party controls the White House.
Democrats are telling Americans what they believe should happen when political power changes hands.
When they promise what they intend to do, listen and believe them.
And vote accordingly.
Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Colorado-based ophthalmologist who writes frequently about medicine, science, and public policy.
Follow Brian: Twitter/X: @retinaldoctor Substack: Dr. Brian's Substack Truth Social: @BrianJoondeph LinkedIn: Brian Joondeph Email: [email protected]
Source link
