Obama, the Sorcerer, and Marx

The famous Mexican sorcerer Antonio Vásquez has given his prediction: Barack Obama will lose the presidential elections this coming November. And it’s not because this sorcerer is a Republican or a pessimist. This is so because Vásquez the sorcerer knows more than ever that Obama’s popularity is not what it used to be four years ago — for several reasons.

Obama assumed the presidency as the embodiment of change after a government already tired and the least popular since President Nixon. The Democratic option in 2008 emerged as the option for the youth, libertarians, minorities and majorities. It was the change of baton from one generation to another; it was the use of new technologies; Obama was the “cool” president. Everything pointed to the difficult issues that lay ahead: assuming power amid a great economic recession, a senseless war, unemployment and bankruptcy.

The Democrats share the idea that the economy should be monitored by the government. The only problem is that Obama has made certain decisions that are not congruent with the free market system of the United States. Moreover, 32 percent of American citizens consider Obama a socialist.

Hal Licino’s article “Top 7 Marxist Communist Policies Being Implemented by Obama Today” talks about how Obama’s decisions could be counterproductive for a capitalist country and a free market, even accusing some measures of being indicative of a communist system. A couple of points are worth mentioning. For example, according to American bankruptcy laws, secured creditors had to be paid before those unsecured in high-profile cases, such as the Chrysler and GM bankruptcy cases. But it wasn’t so.

Another one of the more controversial topics in [Licino’s] exposition is Obama’s health care plan, which is very similar to that of Cuba’s health care system. If the Republican Party does not approve it, the article accuses that the Democrats will change the rules of the U.S. Senate to approve legislation through a [simple] majority, instead of the 60 percent required in the Senate. And so, changing legislation according to the demands of a leader is a communist tactic, akin to those implemented by Chávez and Castro.

Regarding education, Obama has introduced legislative plans for the removal of private lenders for student loans, which would only be granted by the government. This means the president would have total and authoritarian power over who gets credit and who does not.

Licino’s article mentions that Obama has been culpable of demolishing the economy in order to replace it with state control. Statements like “we have to spread the wealth of the country through taxation”* reaffirm Obama’s commitment to the working class with a slight tinge of populism.

Licino’s article is a little extreme. Despite this, it is obvious that Obama’s policies have not been the most consistent on economic issues. Instead of supporting the free market, he is diminishing it. If things continue as they are going, Mitt Romney could be the next to occupy the presidential chair, with strategies a la Reagan and Nixon: The honeymoon has ended.

*Editor’s note: This quote, accurately translated, could not be verified.