We must teach them to elect good men
While most of US Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly’s testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee dealt with the nuts and bolts of the (unbuildable, as he acknowledged) wall of shame, and with spinning the lower rates of immigration as a result of the Trump Administration’s so-far mostly rhetoricial iniatives there was this statement, not reported in the New York Times or other US media (that I can find). I don’t have the exact testimony, so the wording may not be exact, but translated a report in Sin Embargo (via Prensa Latina) Kelly said:
We have a problem with Mexico. There is a lot of anti-American sentiment in Mexico. If the election in Mexico were tomorrow, a leftist anti-American would probably be obtained as President of Mexico. That can not be good for the United States […]. It would not be good for the United States or Mexico.
While he didn’t mention who the “leftist anti-American” was he had in mind, we can all guess. That said person is would not be good, for either the United States or Mexico, I’m not so sure. Nor even that he is all that “anti-American”… anti-US policy (especially when it comes to agriculture and financial controls) — well, that’s a different story.
One notes that the “establishment” is pushing the same things the left has been promoting for several years… broadening trade outside the NAFTA zone. Given team Trump’s own push to also lessen dependence on Mexican markets, and cut immigration, I’m not sure that “leftist” is all that much a threat to Mexico… unless, that is, one sees the new U.S. president as a threat to his own country’s prosperity and over-wheening dominence in the world.
As it is, with Kelly’s brief being to stop migration from Mexico, you’d think a candidate pushing for better conditions at home, and an end to violence within the country (especially that caused by the US appetite for narcotics) which the drivers of emigration here, he’d see our “leftist anti-American” as an ally in his own cause. Nah… while having been compared to the US President by his opponents in the financial community (with some exceptions), the real threat is not to US security, but to Wall Street interests.
In other words, on the side of ordinary people. Supposedly, so was Trump. Though why people in the US thought the son of a millionaire real estate developer (would be sympathetic to the interests of the working class and poor (unlike, say, the son of a rural grocer who went on to become a social worker and union organizer).
Anyway, I can’t think of a better reason to support the leftist anti-American candidate in the upcoming election than that given by Woodrow Wilson when it came to electing our own post-revolutionary leaders:
We must teach them to elect good men (or women, this being the 21st century).