By: Cliff Kincaid
The Washington Post is a die-hard Democratic Party newspaper that occasionally recognizes Obama’s drift into Marxism. The December 19th editorial on Cuba is a case in point. Not only does the Post understand the nature of Obama’s betrayal of a free Cuba, it is beginning to wake up to the failures of bipartisan policies that have built communist Chinese economic power in the name of capitalism and reform.
The paper says that Obama “should have learned and applied some of the hard lessons of normalization with China and Vietnam—most notably that engagement doesn’t automatically promote freedom. When the United States debated extending ‘most-favored-nation’ trading status to China, we shared in what was then the conventional wisdom: Economic engagement would inevitably lead, over time, to political reform inside that Communist dictatorship.”
The paper goes on to admit it was duped. But Obama should know better, shouldn’t he?
The Post notes that the Chinese regime has been strengthened, not weakened, by policies of “engagement.” The Chinese communists “were determined to reap the fruits of foreign investment and trade—for themselves and their families, first, but also for their country—without ceding power. So far, confounding expectations, they have succeeded,” the paper commented.
In the case of Cuba, the Post said, Obama could have proposed normalization only after certain freedoms were given to the Cuban people. Instead, Obama “spurned” the “brave freedom fighters” on the island in the form of ordinary citizens risking their lives to protest against the Castro regime and to demand basic rights. Obama simply ignored their struggle.
So what are we to conclude? The Post is the paper which sent a reporter by the name of Dana Milbank to our news conferences over the years to ridicule our warnings of Obama’s Marxism. It looks like the editorial board, at least, is coming around to the realization that Obama is deliberately pursuing a Marxist policy in the case of Cuba. This is a breakthrough.
In a separate editorial, the paper called Obama’s change in Cuba policy a “bailout” of the regime. It said, “Mr. Obama may claim that he has dismantled a 50-year-old failed policy; what he has really done is give a 50-year-old failed regime a new lease on life.”
The editorial fails to take note of the role of Pope Francis in the betrayal. However, a separate article in the paper indirectly took note of the development, highlighting that while Pope John Paul II was “extremely public in his fight against communism,” Francis seems dedicated to being known as a “master builder of bridges” between the communist and free worlds. This is to the advantage of the communists.
The article notes that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)—who is Catholic—was critical of the pope, saying he should “take up the cause of freedom” rather than facilitate Obama’s deal with the Castro brothers. But we have heard enough from the pope, in terms of his attacks on capitalism, to know where he stands.
Rubio told ABC News, “The pope is a spiritual leader and he always, naturally, is going to want to bring people closer together. And I respect that as a spiritual leader.