With the midterms weeks away, Republicans are bracing for a potential loss of control in one or both chambers of Congress. If Democrats reclaim the majority, the incoming class is expected to be the most progressive in modern history—a bloc of lawmakers who openly embrace a socialist worldview and are eager to exercise federal authority to reshape American society.
Among the most outspoken is Darializa Avila Chevalier, a Democratic Socialist running for a House seat in New York City. In a recent interview, Chevalier made clear she has no qualms about wielding government power to achieve her goals. She argued that Democrats must shed any hesitation about using the levers of the state, dismissing concerns about overreach as an obstacle to the transformative change she and her allies seek.
Chevalier, alongside fellow candidate Claire Valdez, framed government power as a neutral tool—one that can be used for good or ill. But critics, including political commentators, contend that this perspective dangerously underestimates the coercive nature of state authority. The exercise of government force, they argue, inevitably involves taking resources from citizens and imposing mandates on their lives, from property use to contractual freedom.
The Founders, they note, envisioned a limited federal government focused on protecting life and liberty. Yet both parties have expanded its reach over time, with President Trump himself using executive authority for wars, tariffs, and other actions that stretched beyond congressional approval. Progressives like Chevalier, however, are not calling for restraint—they are promising to use the same powers, and more, to pursue their agenda.
What would that agenda look like? Chevalier and her allies have signaled support for sweeping economic regulations, new taxes on the wealthy, and stringent environmental and labor rules that could raise costs for businesses and homeowners. The Democratic Socialists of America, of which Chevalier is a member, has gone further, advocating for the abolition of borders, capitalism, and even the Constitution itself—positions Chevalier has not disavowed.
In the interview, Chevalier expressed eagerness to implement these ideas, unconstrained by the notion that power should be exercised cautiously. This stands in stark contrast to an earlier political era when candidates at least paid lip service to the idea of leaving citizens alone. That sentiment, commentators lament, has largely vanished from the progressive left.
As voters head to the polls, the stakes are clear: a Democratic majority would likely pursue a far-left legislative agenda, emboldened by figures like Chevalier who see government as a vehicle for radical change. Whether that vision resonates with the electorate remains to be seen, but the prospect of a socialist-led Congress has energized both supporters and detractors.
For those concerned about the expansion of federal power, the upcoming election is a critical juncture. The outcome will determine whether the next Congress seeks to curb government excess or accelerates it—and whether the United States moves closer to the socialist future Chevalier and her allies envision.
