Opinion critique #2: Sanders, AOC and other socialists are wrong – Socialism is a cause of poverty, not the cure

This FoxNews article, written by Justin Haskins, speaks on how socialism is a cause of poverty—not the cure to it. Haskins also speaks about Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Throughout the article, the theme is clear: socialism is bad and isn’t the way to end poverty in America. The opening sentence begins as follows: “Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders and his fellow socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez say the only way to end poverty in America is to destroy the economic system that made the U.S. the most powerful and prosperous country on Earth and the land of opportunity.”

There is also ample research evidence about why Haskins believes socialism is not beneficial for the well-being of the United States. As Haskins mentions, “One of the keys to tackling poverty is improving education. Study shows that young people who receive a high-quality education are far more likely to rise out of poverty than those who are trapped in failing schools.”

Haskins provides another way to reduce poverty, in which he states “One of the biggest problems with government poverty programs is that they don’t provide a way for people to escape poverty. Instead, they often trap people in welfare systems by making it difficult or even impossible to stop receiving government aid without losing access to essential services, such as coverage.”

In addition to giving examples of how to reduce poverty levels, he gives a brief history lesson about the Russian Revolution of 1917, as a rebuttal to Sanders and AOC’s argument that the United States needs to supersize government.

Haskins also uses alarming statistics, such as the fact that more than 38 million Americans lived below the poverty line in 2018—nearly 12 percent of the population.

In my opinion, Haskins uses a diverse number of sources to support his argument, such as empirical studies, applicable world history facts and other prevalent statistics. In short, Haskins made sure to use evidence from a variety of sources to support the arguments he made.

The lead of this piece didn’t start off particularly strong, but merely average. As stated in an aforementioned paragraph, the lead is as follows: “Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders and his fellow socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez say the only way to end poverty in America is to destroy the economic system that made the U.S. the most powerful and prosperous country on Earth and the land of opportunity.”

The lead—which closely follows an anecdote lead—could have more color, perhaps through an alarming statistic. However, I did find the kicker to be stronger than the lead. As Haskins writes, “The way to lower the poverty rate in the United States isn’t to embrace principles that have destroyed nations and led to economic turmoil, but rather to embrace the ideals that made America the economic powerhouse it is today: free markets and individual liberty.” I believe using a full circle kicker made this piece particularly strong. Throughout the piece, Haskins kept my attention through an adequate usage of quotes and statistics to support his argument.

Further, Haskins made use of clear and colorful transitions. Haskins used repetition as a writing device, specifically mentioning the pitfalls of socialism and explaining why he believes it isn’t the cure to poverty. I think it is also important to add that there wasn’t any part of the article that made me lose interest and want to stop reading.

Haskins uses powerful vocabulary and uses prevalent facts to support his argument. Haskins even offers ideas that the United States should pursue—which is undoubtedly important to the elements of audience interest.

I did not find any fallacies upon reading this piece. I believe Haskins constructed a well-rounded argument that was supported by facts and proper research.