reply to post by Rezlooper
I'm sorry, but Mark Hendrickson is grasping at straws.
First off, he admits Obama is not a socialist. Apparently he's a 'Leninist-Marxist.'
Then, he claims that Obama is specifically emulating Lenin by 'striving to increase state control over...energy, healthcare, and education...' and
so on. There are multiple problems with this. First, the idea that anyone who nationalizes anything is attempting to channel Lenin is absurd. Are the
British emulating Lenin with their NHS? Did the New Zealand government consider Lenin when they decided to nationalize their rail system? Was Portugal
being run by Lenin disciples when they decided to nationalize their banks?
The answer is of course not. And yet Hendrickson makes the claim that Obama is consciously 'mimicking Lenin's policies' by nationalizing
industries. Nothing but weasel words with no substance.
Other problems (besides the fact Hendrickson seems to draw all of his 'evidence' from the articles he's written for his Center For Vision and
Values think tank)? Hendrickson's evidence is flimsy, and Obama isn't even doing what Hendrickson claims he's doing. Hendrickson cites such things
as raising taxes and providing energy subsidies as evidence that Obama is nationalizing the transportation and energy industries. This plain doesn't
make sense. The problem is that Hendrickson's mind is already made up that Obama is a Marxist-Leninist, and he is spending the article attempting to
prove this foregone conclusion via whatever connections - however tenuous - he can draw.
Next, he attempts to claim that Obama is following Karl Marx's 10 steps to socialize a country's economy. The problem here is that, once again, the
connections he draws are tenuous at best, and fanciful at worst.
1. State control of productive property. Hendrickson's example is that that Obama and Congress are 'thwarting the development of domestic energy
supplies' via regulations. The problem is that regulations do not equal state control. By Hendrickson's logic in this statement, any regulation on
any industry is a Marxist-Leninist scheme. Also, Obama is not unique in being for stricter regulations for certain industries.
2. Progressive income taxes. First off, Obama didn't 'create' the progressive or graduated income tax in America. Does that mean that every
President and Congressman since its inception has been a willing accomplice to a Leninist-Marxist takeover of America? Hendrickson cites Obama's
'obsession' (there's another weasel word) with raising the taxes on certain brackets as evidence that he's embraced Marx's 10 step plan, but this
just doesn't add up.
3. Abolition of inheritance. Hendrickson claims that by supporting estate taxes, Obama is supporting this 'plank' of the plan. But how? There's a
wide difference between taxing inheritances and abolishing inheritances. Obama obviously does not support abolishing inheritances, ergo, he isn't
actively pursuing this 'step.'
4. Confiscation of the property of emigrants and rebels. Hendrickson uses Obama's alleged crackdown on offshore tax havens as an example of this.
Flimsy. Hendrickson claims that Obama is unfairly seeking to tax multinational corporations (confiscating the property of emigrants), but what he
leaves out is that those multinational corporations are being incorporated by American citizens as a way to avoid paying taxes (so they're not really
emigrants after all). Not to mention I fail to see any indication, anywhere, of Obama seizing the assets of 'rebels.' Hendrickson's whole point
falls apart here. He is literally doing backflips to try to come up with some scenario to make Obama's policies fit into this 'plank.'
5. Centralization of the country's financial system. He claims that Dodd-Frank is a 'step' in this direction. He has no other evidence. For those
who don't know, Dodd-Frank increases government oversight in things like derivatives trading. It does nothing to nationalize banks. Once again, he's
doing backflips to make his case.
6. State control of means of communication and transportation. As evidence of state control of communication, he claims that the Obama administration
has 'denounced' Fox News and wants to revive the 'Fairness Doctrine' (which, even if it was brought back, would do nothing to nationalize media).
That's it. I can't make this stuff up. As for transportation, he cites the auto bailout (started under Obama's predecessor, Bush), Obama's
high-speed rail plans (denied funding; no chance of it actually happening), and Obama's vocal support of green transportation alternatives. So,
basically, because the Obama administration dislikes Fox News and says they like bicycles, Hendrickson takes that to mean they control all
communications and transportation.
Running out of characters, so remaining points will be addressed in the next post.