Scott Smith Holds Campaign Kick-Off (Full Video)
Scott Smith holds a Campaign Kick Off Event at Thomas Bull Memorial Park in Montgomery, NY, September 8, 2020. Smith is the Serve America Movement (SAM) Cand...
Scott Smith holds a Campaign Kick Off Event at Thomas Bull Memorial Park in Montgomery, NY, September 8, 2020. Smith is the Serve America Movement (SAM) Candidate running in New York's 18th Congressional District. The candidate explains why he is running and elaborates on the priorities of his campaign. Learn more at www.MrSmithForCongress.com
In this video I describe the dangers of our current division-based political paradigm as well as highlight some very concerning facts about my opponents.
The Scott Smith for Congress Campaign has worked to keep the Press/Media informed, but have they been informing you?
Baskin Robbins Justice Is No Justice At All
Some of us are old enough to remember Baskin Robbins’ commercials advertising their 31 different flavors of ice cream. An ice cream connoisseur’s paradise. You could literally try a different flavor every day and depending on the month you’d have to flip the calendar page before you’d tried them all. Variety is the spice of life, a welcome quality in so many aspects of our existence. One place however where variety does not belong is in the realm of justice.
Justice is a critical principle and a foundational pillar of our civil society. Unfortunately, as has occurred with so many of our fundamental principles a certain degree of fluidity has been inflicted upon it by those who are served by its ambiguity. In an effort to be clear, allow me to review what justice is. To define justice we must first define the concept of law. Law is, as defined by Aristotle, “Reason, free from passion”. Justice in turn is the “equal, impartial application of the law”. Therefore, when any party is held to the law they should be viewed equally and as such no regard given for any qualities that may distinguish them, and nor should passion be allowed to stir in response to any commonality or contrast in such. Justice, as they say, must be blind.
Over the past several years there has been an increasing clamor for various forms of justice. These range from economic justice, to gender justice, to social justice, to racial justice, to environmental justice, or is it climate justice, and more will undoubtedly be birthed in the days to come. The problem with these flavors of justice is that although the underlying concerns they stem from may be valid, the diversification of justice is anything but. Along with a myriad variety of justices comes the inevitable clash or conflict of the varieties. What is one to do when such conflicts arise? How shall we decide which variety of justice prevails? Is my justice more just than yours, or yours more just than mine?
Before you become too concerned about resolving the most just among the forms of justice allow me to put you at ease. The government is here to help. Embodied with the most honest, sincere, and selfless among us it will devise a guide, a rubric if you will, to evaluate each instance and to see to it that the proper justice is done. The rubric will evaluate criteria such as gender/gender identity, age, race, creed, cause, socioeconomic status, sexuality, quotas based on proportionality, and last but certainly not least, party affiliation. And there you have it, the justice that is the “most justest” will prevail.
If it sounds kind of silly, it is a bit perhaps, but you can witness it occurring today. In recent weeks whether you were punished and ridiculed for not complying with Executive Orders, or whether you were permitted and praised for doing so was based entirely on your purpose. Further, whether or not you were charged and prosecuted for certain crimes was entirely based on what cause you served, rather than on your actions measured against an objective application of the law. That, ladies and gentleman, is literally as far from justice as you can get. We all believe in and desire to see justice done, but you cannot serve a principle by sacrificing it. Oh, and let’s not even talk about freedom of speech, wait, am I allowed to say that?
Forget, Repeat, Forget, Repeat.....
In government, politics has become the main event, doing the actual work is a distraction. Governing responsibly and effectively has become Washington's side-gig. Even now, politicians angle for advantage and try to attain objectives they have been unable to achieve under non-crisis circumstances. As a result, we have been caught flat-footed by COVID-19, how much better prepared could we have been if government focused on it's work?
The problems we are experiencing regarding preparation and implementation were foreseen, but never actually addressed. This is a GOVERNMENT failure. It's not a Republican or Democrat failure, it's a Republican AND Democrat failure.
A quick survey of articles from the time of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic quickly makes clear that major hurdles to an effective response at that time were: dependence on raw materials and reagents from foreign sources, a lack of adequate vaccine production capacity within the US, and inadequate reserves of critical supplies. Sounds familiar doesn't it? The press reported, the elected opined and held hearings, and everyone insisted they would see to it that it did not happen again. Yet it did. Many in government now were there in 2009.
Nothing would be significantly different if we were in the midst of a Democrat administration. We'd be hearing the same words just out of different mouths. Those condemning the Trump Administration excused the Obama Administration, and vice versa. Otherwise we'd be in exactly the same situation. If we don't get past the same routine, then 10 years from now there will be another pandemic threat and we'll get to watch it all over again.
The true test of this administration, in fact the true test of us as a nation, is not this contemporary pandemic, but rather the next one. Will we have changed the story that lies ahead or will it be groundhog day all over again?
Any office holder or candidate for office must commit to the following priorities in this regard:
Repatriate production of medical supplies to the US
Repatriate vaccine production to the US
Fully Stock the SNS to the level necessary to address a Pandemic
Get Government out of the way in advance and when necessary
There will be short term pain with this, but it is nothing compared to the pain of failing to act. How many times must we revisit the potential consequences before we recognize the risk and see the value of the investment?
Mother nature creates, and she does so with elegance and ferocity. Some of her creations do us harm, and for that we can't really blame her or hold her accountable. However, there is something much more lethal to us all as individuals and to our nation. That pathogen is politics. There are two distinct strains, each equally devastating, and together synergistically so.
Lastly, politicians suddenly finding shadows of the character and integrity that their office demands, only when faced with a pandemic, does NOT justify maintaining them in office.
Smith Shares Stance on Term Limits
Candidates for office are quick to voice their support for term limits without offering broader discussion or perspective on what it really means or how it would function in practice. I would also remind people that in recent history many candidates and the elected proclaimed they would among other things, “Stop Common Core," or “Repeal and Replace the ACA," or “Limit the influence of big money in politics”. These and so many other pledges share the distinction of having gone unfulfilled. Words are easy.
In regard to the Term Limits pledge, examine what it says. The pledge reads as follows: “I, __________, pledge that as a member of Congress I will cosponsor and vote for the U.S. Term Limits Amendment of three (3) House terms and two (2) Senate terms and no longer limit.”
If you have paid any attention to congress over the years one thing that is glaringly apparent is that they vote on all kinds of things, over and over again, more often than not to no actual consequence. Show votes or votes of political theater are the norm, not the exception. Therefore, to pledge to “co-sponsor and vote for” an amendment is largely inconsequential. Granted, making the pledge is in the scheme of things better than not making it, but recognize it for what it is. The substantive pledge would be to impose a term limit upon oneself regardless of whether Congress and those who embody it ever develop the will to legislate such. I don’t recommend holding your breath while waiting for such a bill to become law.
I have proposed term-limits since I first declared my candidacy in the 2104 race and further pledged to never work as a lobbyist. Not only have I said such things, but I have previously acted in accord with them. While serving on the City Council in Middletown, I opposed the removal of voter implemented term limits by the Council (1). It is instructive to note that the ability of the council to remove the term-limits by mere council vote was a by-product of then NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s shenanigans in pursuit of a 3rd term (2). It is a rare thing that politicians will limit themselves; it is more commonly the opposite.
Another, and perhaps more important consideration, is the notion that limiting the “professional politicians” to a certain number of terms will necessarily have a large impact on governance. Perhaps many people are not familiar with the inner workings of the electoral process, particularly in terms of ballot access and candidate selection, or the degree to which it is monopolized by the two Major political parties. Already in NY efforts are underway to further inhibit access to the ballot and to thwart electoral competition. To get straight to the point, the candidates for office are selected by the party infrastructure. Removing candidates by way of term limits will not change the fact that their replacements will then be selected by the same party infrastructure. It is highly optimistic to believe that the resulting “new” candidates will not be selected to serve and advance the parties interests just as the “old” candidate had done. Again, term limits should be implemented; however, people must temper their expectations as to their efficacy.
Although candidate Farley states “Term limits will make members of Congress accountable to the people they represent, instead of to Washington insiders,” she must recognize that it will take much more than that including broader honest competition. Similarly, Congressman Maloney speaks often of the competitive nature of the 18th District and how he welcomes open competition. In addition, he has on more than one occasion stated that he believes there should be more policemen, firefighters, and teachers running for congress. However, when he had the opportunity to act on those proclamations his deeds fell far from his words.
In light of all of this I make the following challenge to Ms. Farley and Mr. Maloney: Make and stand by the pledge that I have made. Pledge to adhere to a self-imposed term-limit AND to never work as a lobbyist following your service. In addition, endeavor to have your actions align with your words.
(2) https://www.recordonline.com/article/20100828/NEWS/8280326
