Temecula’s City Council is considering a resolution describing socialism as a threat to the Constitution, prompting a backlash from critics who say the measure is un-American and stifles dissent.

Council members in the southwest Riverside County city will discuss the resolution at their regular meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday, April 23 at Temecula City Hall, 41000 Main St.

The resolution comes amid national debate over government policies, such as single-payer health care, described by many as “socialist.” In recent years, self-described democratic socialists, including Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., have gained attention for denouncing economic inequality that they blame on a predatory capitalist system.

Polls show socialism gaining in popularity, especially among younger Americans who don’t associate the term with Cold War politics.

Opposition to socialism has become a cornerstone of the GOP’s 2020 election strategy. Conservative critics and advertising frequently target Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez, and recent public statements by President Donald Trump and other GOP lawmakers warn that a Democratic victory in 2020 will hurt the country by giving rise to a “socialist agenda.”

Temecula, a city of 114,000, has a reputation one of the Inland Empire’s most conservative communities. Republicans hold a 14 percentage point edge in voter registration, and a majority of Temecula voters regularly choose GOP candidates. In 2011, the city made national headlines when some locals opposed plans to build a mosque.

The two-page resolution to be discussed on Tuesday, called “Reaffirming the Principles Outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America,” starts out by describing what the resolution’s authors view as the rationale behind the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, as well as the process for passing constitutional amendments.

The resolution notes that the Great Recession of 2008-09 “seemingly tore a hole in the fabric of the national economy and the American people’s belief in capitalism, (but) recovery occurred because of this framework, and not in spite of it.

“ … (A)all other economic and political schools of thought including socialism and communism, have emerged as a serious threat to our republic and representation described in our Constitution,” reads the resolution, which includes a dictionary definition of socialism.

The resolution declares that “socialism inherently conflicts with the principles outlined in the existing Constitution of the United States … we encourage all local, state and federal governments to reaffirm their commitment to the existing Constitution of the United States and to their oath of office by adopting similar resolutions.”

The resolution ends with Temecula’s council “reaffirm(ing) its commitment to support and defend the principles outlined above and set forth in the Constitution of the United States and in our oath of office.”

It’s unclear what economic principles in the Constitution the resolution is referencing. The Constitution doesn’t address economic philosophies, and the terms “communism” and “socialism” didn’t come into use until after the Constitution was written.

The resolution comes at the request of Mayor Mike Naggar and Councilman Matt Rahn. On his Facebook page, Naggar asked “Will you come out and speak for liberty?”

“Our young people need to know the foolishness that is being peddled, the value of liberty and what it cost.”

Comments on Naggar’s post were mixed. “Great to see some elected politicians with a spine that will stand up for our constitution and call out those who are bent on destroying our way life,” one commenter wrote.

But another commenter objected: “This resolution is pure stupidity, don’t you guys have a city to run?”

Alan Suarez, president and founder of the Temecula Valley Young Democrats, said cities should be nonpartisan, but the resolution “is leaning toward one side.”

“We’re allowed to, and have the privilege (and) the right, to believe in whatever we want,” Suarez said.

“Seeing a resolution like this damages that (right), and makes people enemies that have opposing political philosophies. I don’t think it does our city or our community justice.”

Suarez added that while he doesn’t feel threatened by the resolution, “I’m just worried about what this might say about our country, about our community … It might be perceived as non-inclusive.”

Another group, the Temecula Valley Democrats, put out a call to members urging them to attend Tuesday’s meeting. A sign-making party was being organized for Monday evening.

Brian Leshon of the Temecula Valley Democrats said his group “will have a strong turnout” at Tuesday’s meeting.

“I think (the resolution’s) purpose is not to serve anything beneficial to the community. It’s purely to drum up people’s ire at certain groups,” he said. “It’s totally about ginning up their base for the election.”

In a phone interview Monday, Naggar said the resolution is not about socialism. “The mentioning of socialism is anecdotal. It’s just a reaffirmation and celebration of the Constitution is all.”

Naggar said no specific incident prompted him to think of the resolution. “It’s something I’ve wanted to do for a long while.

Responding to critics, Naggar said: “Anyone who wants to believe in (socialism) is more than welcome. The point is there’s a mechanism to change the form of government we have now and there’s a procedure to do it. (The resolution) doesn’t disenfranchise anybody.”

Rahn said he wasn’t surprised “that not everybody agrees with the (resolution’s) language.”

“I’m actually glad that this resolution has fostered this discussion,” he said. “This is an unsettled area of policy and something many folks have struggled with. Discussion is healthy and necessary right now.”

Rahn, who has filed papers to run as a Republican in 2020 for the congressional seat held by Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, said the resolution has nothing to do with his political plans.

“I think we need to remember that government is an ongoing experiment,” Rahn said. “We all want to do what’s in the best interest of our community. I am going to our meeting Tuesday with an open mind hoping to hear from all sides of the issue.”

The resolution includes the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of socialism, the first part of which refers to: “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and… a system of society or group living in which there is no private property (and)… the means of production are owned and controlled by the state.”

But that description of socialism is inaccurate and “way too narrow,” said Christopher Chase-Dunn, a professor of sociology at UC Riverside.

“Why is the Temecula council talking about it.? Because (President Donald) Trump is talking about it,” Chase-Dunn said. “He’s using the idea of socialism and communism as a boogeyman to criticize Democrats.”

At the same time, Democrats are at fault “because they haven’t been too clear in a public way about what they mean by socialism,” although Sanders has done a better job as of late, Chase-Dunn said.

“It’s good that we’re having a national conversation about this,” he said. “Right now, it’s all happening at a level which is just about sound bites … That’s what I see going on with the Temecula council.”