A column published last Friday, written by Emma Rinehart, staked claim to the movie “The Hunger Games” as a champion advocate of the conservative ideals. She emphasizes what would seem to be a rather perturbing circumstance where President Barack Obama would steal the liberty and capitalist maneuvering right from under our feet.

Unfortunately, this movie does not, in any way, establish a sort of modern-day “Atlas Shrugged.” I find Ms. Rinehart’s analysis of the movie and the books to be disappointing, and it serves as a snub to both the writer and the director. It, and many other interpretations, exists as a mere stab at the Obama administration — a stab with a flimsy plastic knife.

Certainly, the obvious parallels to the Romanesque coliseum were ever prevalent throughout the movie, displaying the wealthiest few as the modern sadists. If anything, one could contend that this movie was rather opportunistic, and lucratively serendipitous, in its relevance to the Occupy Wall Street movement. However, I will not claim the movie to be of ideological substance, because I didn’t write the book.

However, the connections to totalitarianism, quite the opposite of Socialism (a conservative claim), would have absolutely no relevance to a president who is quite moderate and encourages compromise when it is necessary. The claim that regulations are totalitarian in nature is exceedingly quixotic. For isn’t it true that regulations are an attempt to prevent the impinging of rights, rather than taking them away?

First, let me provide a picture of what a true totalitarian state would look like. There exists the obvious prevalence of intolerance and repression. A prime example would no doubt be Nazi Germany, where one political party governs every aspect of society. As George Orwell details, media is morphed into a propaganda machine, there is widespread surveillance and citizens conform into myopic fiends — much like the pampered sociopaths of the oligarchy in “The Hunger Games.”

Yes, Obama has established a plethora of regulations, a delineation of power given to Congress under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. This does not imply a move toward totalitarianism. Interpreting the reasons behind a regulatory system requires diligence. The regulations the Obama administration has integrated are arguably necessary to economic growth, a product due in part to macroeconomic theory and government involvement.

For instance, regulations applied to derivatives markets and the mitigation of collateralized debt obligations is just one necessary step toward healing the economy. I find it quite ironic that the 2008 collapse was caused, in part, by the conspicuously risky decision-making of investors and banks, and yet we turn against the administration that is attempting to reduce these adverse effects.

As I’ve explained in other columns, the under-regulation of the derivatives market under the Bush administration led to the 2008 market collapse. The Wall Street Reform bill, passed by Congress, was no doubt a product of the 2008 debacle and an attempt to reduce the negative impacts of credit default swaps.

To claim Obama’s regulations as totalitarian in nature would be to usurp 80 years of economic policy. Such a claim would insult beneficial regulatory mandates such as the Securities Act of 1933, the Glass-Steagall Act and the Investment Company Act of 1940, all of which helped to prevent another Great Depression.

This brings us to our dependence on government to solve problems. “The Hunger Games” no doubt emulates a dystopia where the government seems to be the friend. The conveyance of trust is exemplified toward the beginning of the movie, where Effie Trinket displays an almost ingratiating pseudo-friendliness to the newly chosen combatants.

Our trust in the government is oftentimes betrayed and our representatives do not act in our favor. Instead, they oftentimes seem to work for themselves, and when confronted, they curtly respond with an attempt to instill compunction in the questioner. The dystopian government of “The Hunger Games” seems to have perfected this art.

NPR recently interviewed politicians, asking them about the financing of campaigns and the lobbying of interest groups. They found that, instead of lobbyists “stalking the halls of Congress,” it is actually the other way around. The congressmen stalk the interest groups. As Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., pointed out, “Most Americans would be shocked — not surprised, shocked — if they knew how much time a U.S. senator spends raising money.”

I find this to be rather humorous when referencing the sponsorship process of “The Hunger Games.” The combatants, prior to the games, must impress the sponsors in order to survive. Sadly, our politicians seem to think they will not survive without the enormous campaign funds. If they represent their constituency well (or in terms of “The Hunger Games,” their district), then they shouldn’t have to worry, right?

The idea of totalitarianism in our government, I believe, is the epitome of mass hysteria. In addition, it reflects a paranoid voting audience who would believe in anything, giving trust to pseudo-friendliness. Obama has performed nothing even comparable to the extent of “The Hunger Games.” If anything, he has taken us far away from the thought it.