Obama Has Won. Thankfully.

Indeed, thankfully Obama won the election in the United States; the possibility that the Americans opted for the Republican candidate would have opened a bleak view of the world that aspires to be different. However, the very close vote result shows that an extremely conservative and xenophobic sector in that country is in force. I am glad that the Democrat won due to the fact that his detractors accuse him of being a “communist,” friend of Castro and Chavez, inclined toward government intervention in the economy—and hence toward the cancellation of the sacred free trade—favoring subsidies to poor people and respect for human rights, including those of migrants, etc. I do not think that that is the true nature of Obama, but if people voted for him despite this, some hope the possibility of a restructuring of the empire from its very foundations opens up.

But I do not get too excited about it. As far as the rest of the world, there is not much of a difference between both sides of “gringo” politics. Both share the imperial concept. One is more warlike than the other, but both know that their manifest destiny is to put their interests before the world’s. Four years ago, Obama meant an alternative of peace and justice. In Trinidad and Tobago, Latinos gave him the benefit of the doubt and were open to the possibility of another form of relationship that respects the sovereignty and dignity of nations. Little of the charm lasted; nothing changed. Some kept their hope, assuming that Obama would not jeopardize his re-election. We will see now if things change.

One interpretation could be that the social responsibility of the government has won over the extreme neoliberalism—at least in the campaign rhetoric—to the point of forgiving the shortcomings of Obama’s administration when faced with the danger of returning to the regime that caused the disaster in the economy and social welfare. It is an interesting contrast to the European election results, which have favored the right. But [it differs] even more with that recorded in Mexico, where the neoliberal model imposed thirty years ago prevails despite its disastrous consequences. If Obama had been a candidate in Mexico, he would have been dismissed for representing “a danger to Mexico” and eliminated from the political scene through fraudulent means.

Here the social responsibility of the government and everything related to the prioritization of national interests is disqualified for being considered “ideological bondage” or reminiscent of the past. So without further argument, there is no opportunity to discuss and provide reasons. A labor reform is carried out, supposedly to achieve greater economic competitiveness and create more jobs, with a speech that hides the reality of concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few. A rumor has been spread that an oil reform will be carried out to reinvigorate the performance of PEMEX, which hides the fact that the national wealth will be in the hands of Exxon or Spanish consortiums. It has been warned about the bankruptcy of Social Security, and the focus has been put on the workers’ regime of the workers. But this hides its real cause: unemployment and the degradation of labor, to say nothing of the prevailing corruption. To oppose such aberrations, according to technocrats, is to go against the clock of history and ignore the promising future of slavery. Worst of all is that the capacity of the deception, deeply rooted in misleading manipulation, that spreads over a majority that is fond of soap operas, folly contests and news propaganda.

I insist that the priorities are culture and education. Political action has to change people’s attitudes who do not learn from speeches or marches that they do not understand. It comes from being the main individual in their respective microcosm, learning about democracy by applying it directly on matters that interest them without being entangled in matters of elections. Lacking a suitable culture, they will always get lost.