Socialist party supports radical, unrealistic campaign platform

Socialist vice presidential nominee Niles Niemuth visited Geneseo for a discussion hosted by the Geneseo chapter of International Youth and Students for Socialist Equality on Thursday Oct. 27. In my view, the question and answer session of this discussion showcased the intellectual weakness of the Socialist Equality Party. The SEP is a relatively new political party, modeled largely on the ideas of Soviet Red Army founder and prominent Marxist Leon Trotsky, whose influence was instrumental to the rise of communism in the Soviet Union. The SEP believes they are a liberal alternative to the Democratic Party.

The IYSSE discussion began with a quick presentation about SEP’s policies, followed by a question and answer session. When asked a question about United States foreign policy and the Islamic State, Niemuth quickly asserted that many global conflicts and issues were a result of capitalist greed with the epicenter located in the U.S. Niemuth also argued that a solution to U.S. foreign policy problems—including tense relations with Afghanistan and Russia—would be to withdraw all U.S. and European troops from occupied areas.

This platform is utterly idiotic. If the U.S. withdrew its troops, a worldwide power vacuum would be created. Powerful nations such as Russia and China would attempt to fill this space, creating widespread violence.

Niemuth added that by withdrawing U.S. troops and ceasing United Nations funding, a worldwide socialist revolution would occur. This is a utopian vision of the world. Socialist revolutions have rarely panned out, leading to disastrous results in Venezuela, the Soviet Union and Cuba. It’s clear that the SEP has no specific foreign policy plans for individual problem regions around the world.

In terms of domestic policy, the SEP makes Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders look like a Tea Party member. Niemuth argued that Sanders and the Democratic Party are merely capitalist pawns keeping the status quo in equilibrium.

Economics-wise, the SEP follows much of traditional Marxist doctrine, which calls for the seizure of the means of production, nationalization of industry and equalization of outcomes. Contrary to the American dream and economically illiterate, socialism is fundamentally wrong. The economies of capitalist countries tend to perform far better than their socialist counterparts. For example, after the split during the Cold War, East Germany followed a Soviet command economy, while West Germany followed a U.S.-style market economy. While the two sides were relatively equal before the split, eastern Germany’s gross domestic product in 2015 is only 67 percent of its western counterpart’s, according to The Economist. In my opinion, economics is not the strong point of the SEP.

All the talk of revolutions by the SEP is very disturbing. Niemuth spoke of a worker’s revolution at length during the Q&A. The SEP supposedly espouses violence, but when was the last peaceful communist revolution?

Overall, Niemuth’s presentation was extremely disappointing. The SEP vision of the U.S. and international community is very far removed from reality. Rhetoric seems to triumph over coherent policy for this group of socialists. Hopefully, not too many people will be writing in the SEP on the ballot this election.

Clinton’s political past, actions deem her unfit for presidency

The current presidential election cycle so far has largely focused on the indiscretions of Republican candidate Donald Trump. This is understandable, since Trump is a sexist, racist and alarmingly unintelligent man. Former Secretary of State and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has major flaws as well. The media, however, have hidden Clinton’s transgressions from our view with a never-ending stream of Trump criticism.

Two weeks before the election, I would like to make the case for why voters should not vote for Clinton.

Clinton has been involved in so many different scandals that it is difficult to know where to begin. Most voters are familiar with her use of a private email server, which she most likely knew violated various national security guidelines.

The Clinton Foundation is also a popular topic of discussion, as Clinton promised to step back from the foundation in order to keep it separate from her being Secretary of State, according to The Washington Post—but she did not.

As Secretary of State, Clinton accepted foreign donations from both Russian nuclear corporations and Saudi Arabia. Shortly after Clinton approved a business deal involving a transfer of Uranium from a United States corporation to a Russian Uranium corporation, the Clinton Foundation began receiving donations from the very same Russian corporation, according to The New York Times.

This is clear, documented evidence that Clinton staffers set up a pay-to-play list prioritizing donor nations and corporations over others in official State Department business. The only reason why Clinton isn’t in prison right now is because she’s a part of the Clinton family and is above the law.

Additionally, Saudi Arabia has donated between $10-25 million to the Clinton Foundation since its inception. This is a conflict of interest, as the Secretary of State should not accept million-dollar donations from a known illiberal state.

Many LGBTQ+ rights advocates support Clinton because she supposedly supports LGBTQ+ issues. The Clintons, however, took millions of dollars from both Qatar and Saudi Arabia. For example, representatives from Qatar offered President Bill Clinton a $1 million check for his birthday, according to The New York Times. Saudi Arabia, however, is a nation that punishes the “crime” of homosexuality with death.

Additionally, Saudi Arabia also rejects basic human rights for women. Women in Saudi Arabia do not have the right to get an abortion, speak their minds or even go outside without a male escort.

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders—the former popular choice among young voters—was known for taking a hard stance against Wall Street corruption. Sanders was adored for his honesty and common sense on these issues.

Clinton, on the other hand, has been paid millions for giving speeches to investment banks and law firms. It’s perplexing how supporters of Sanders could vote for a candidate that has received the backing of some Wall Street bankers.

Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street investors because they help fund her campaign. Political Action Committees and individuals from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs have made donations nearing $1 million to Clinton campaigns. Again, Clinton has one position on Wall Street that is public and one that she hides from the American people at all costs.

It is a dangerous precedent to elect Clinton as president. Her agenda is buried deep in the thousands of emails that her staff deleted while under a congressional subpoena.

Before you vote, think: does Clinton really have your back on the issues you hold dear? Geneseo, do America a favor: vote your conscience and don’t vote Clinton.

Johnson a deserving third party candidate

Most would agree that this tumultuous election season has been a disappointment for informed voters on both sides of the party lines. According to RealClearPolitics.com, nearly 55 percent of Americans view Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in a negative light, and 57.3 percent of Americans view Donald Trump the same. Ultimately, the American voter is being asked to choose the candidate they hate least. There is another option, however: former New Mexico Gov. and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. Johnson is a self-made businessman who successfully started a construction company from scratch in 1976, taking it to $38 million in annual revenue with over 1,000 employees.  Johnson also won two terms as a Republican governor in a deeply blue state in the 1990s.

After two terms, Johnson then took an unsuccessful stab at the 2012 Republican nomination as pro-choice, anti-war and a staunch supporter of limited government power. Johnson was also appointed as president and CEO of medical marijuana company Cannabis Sativa Inc. in 2014.

Johnson is a choice candidate because he has ethics and isn’t a criminal or racist—terms often used to describe the major party candidates. He also has actual executive experience. As president, Johnson plans to enact several key policies designed to balance our budget and protect our rights.

Ending the War on Drugs is a priority for Johnson. As governor, Johnson was one of the first politicians to support the legalization of marijuana. By legalizing several recreational drugs, illegal trade and distribution can end and will be regulated by the government. This can create revenue through new economic activity, which can—in turn—be taxed. In addition, our prisons would no longer burst at the seams due to unnecessary sentences for marijuana-related crimes.

Johnson also plans to decrease United States military involvement in areas of the world that do not directly affect our national safety. Too many American soldiers die on sandy battlefields far away from home—often while defending interests not common to the American people. Johnson wants to be more careful in how we wield our military might.

Another important issue is taxes. Simple and fair taxation is necessary to help reverse the trend of excessive spending and inefficient tax collection. Johnson wants to scrap our current 70,000+ pages long tax code and remove the bulk of the exemptions for big business and partisan special interest groups. No longer will savings or investment be penalized—taxation will focus on how much you consume.

Arguably the most important tenet of Johnson’s campaign are civil liberties. Johnson believes that people should have control over their own lives, free of government control or over-watch. This includes marriage, abortion and privacy rights. Johnson agrees that marriage and abortion are very personal decisions that the government should have no say in.

Johnson’s qualifications and policy positions provide a real alternative to the two corrupt candidates for the presidency. Some people are sick of having to choose between the lesser of two evils, and Johnson is a solid third-party candidate on the ballot.