David Ignatius’ fluff interview with Xochitl Galvéz in the 20 August Washington Post was brought to my attention by a post by Eric Loomis in Lawyers, Guns and Money (one of my favorite general cultural/political discussion sites) to which I hastily responded. Maybe a bit too hasty.
And I was much too nice before…
On substack: https://mexfiles.substack.com
What’s the word?
One reason to enjoy Latin American history is that our historical figures and revolutionary hero(ines) are soooo much more interesting than those in the history of the United States. Betsy Ross? Uh, let’s see… she was a respectable seamstress, I guess. Abigal Adams? I donno… she wrote some letters. And you can’t imagine George Washington stepping out on Martha, nor Martha doing much besides knitting and maybe whipping the slaves now and again.
Ah… but here. Rosa Capuzano… Manuela Sáenz… Maria Rodriguez de Velasco (aka la Güera Rodríguez) — what do we call them? Founding mothers? None were particularly motherly, and hardly “respectable” women, but the trio played key roles in their nations’ foundation.
Campuzano (1796 – 1851) was the illegitimate duaghter of a Ecuadorian cocao magnate (not coco, from which cocaine is grown… the little more “respectable” source of another addictive substane: chocolate). If illegitimacy wasn’t enough of a stain on her criollo heritage, taking up the notorious trade of a stage actress clinched her reputation as a femme fatale.
Of course, a “mere” actress, might not be invited into the salons of respectable mixed company… but “gentlemen’s clubs”… military gatherings… the coffeehouses and taverns where radical idea were discussed, plots were hatched, and loose lips could sink ships (or lose battles)? And all she had to do was keep her ears open? Naturally, she wasn’t on the side of the status quo, and committed to the revolution to come. Which, when it did, forced her … like her more conventionally acceptable, but even more notorious friend, Maneula Sáenz, to flee to Peru.
In Lima, Capuzano, although still not “respectable” was able to make a more than comfortable living (how exactly, no one seems sure, or wanted to know) and regularly held “salons” open to all… especially to those with unconventional ideas like independence. When José de San Martín, working his way up from Buenos Aires to liberate the Americas, come what may, made it to Lima, she quickly became indespensible, bringing the varied Peruvian patriots and San Martín together to drive out the Spanish and to try (as they still seem to be doing 200 years later) to work out some sort of functioning government for the country.
San Martín may have been a family man, but his family was very far away. While we are not completely sure of his personal relationship with Capuzano, she was one of his inner circle of advisors, and lived on and off with him, until his withdrawal from what he saw as a hopeless cause (that, and his worsening health). Although decorated by the new Peruvian nation for her services, and widely known as “la protectora” (San Martín being “el protector”) she would live the rest of her life in relative obscurity, had two sons by different husbands (one of whom she actually married) and dying in relative poverty in Lima in 1851.
Maneula Sáenz (1797 – 1856), the rebellious daughter of a respectable Quito family was just one of those kids. Managing to get herself tossed out of the best schools, and too unruly for her parents to do the respectable thing and pop her in a convent (none … or the nuns rather… wouldn’t have her for love or money), she was married off to an aging English doctor, who… having business interests up and down the Pacific coast… was seldom home. Leaving Maneula to do what she pretty much what she always did… raised hell and had a good time… and read, spoke to the best minds of her generation, and was basically a beatnik before her time. Another natural revolutionary.
Although… when you think about it… beakniks seldom actually join a revolution. Maneula had followed the exploits of Simón Bolivar in what media (i,e. newspapers and gossip) there was, and was more than anxious to do her part. That Bolivar (a widower at 20) was not exactly known for fidelity, made introductions all that less awkward. When the two caught up with each other in La Paz, two strong egos found their perfect match. Much to the consernation of his subordinates and advisors, Manuela (self-promoted to colonel) would remain Bolivar’s closest advisor, political consultant and bed partner even as he was being hunted by the very subordinates who were anxious to seize power after driving Spain from the continent.
Following the Liberator’s early death, and driven out by the new leaders, she found refuge in the Peruvian port of Pieta. Having had that English husband way back when came in handy, having picked up enough English to make her candy and grocery store known to British and American whalers… both to stock up for the long sea voyages, and an informal post office where homeward bound ships would pick up the mail from those heading out: well enough known to earn her a cameo appearance in Moby Dick.
La güera Rodriguez (1778-1850) would not, like Rosa or Maneula fade into obscurity. Several years older than the other two, she’d earned her reputation as an independent woman of exceptional intelligence well before independence was on the horizon. By 1800, she had already left her husband… rather dramatically when, having refused to return her dowry, she shot him (not fatally) which not quite convincing him to return her sizable fortune, she added the threat of denouncing him to the Inquisition as a “sodomite” to give into her demands for an independent life. Which she took full advantage of.
Her own home was across the street from that Prussian polymath then a temporary resident, Alexander von Humbolt (who… who, being a presumed “sodomite”, but immune from the Inquisition … which was toothless by now anyway) made a perfect “walker” for her excusions throughout Mexico City… for a time in the company of the adolscent Simon Bolivar as he waited to journey onward for military training in Spain. One is tempted to speculate on whether or not this was a factor in Bolivar’s own great respect not just for women as sex objects, but for their intelligence as well.. preferably in the same person, as with Manuela.
Mexico City’s elites, while less priggish than those in Lima about such matters, welcomed la güera into their salons… in part because she was not, as were Rosa — born on the wrong side of the blanket — or Manuela — openly contempuous of social convention, where the talk, like elsewhere in the colonies, was of the French and American (and Haitian) revolts. Besides, how disreputable could she be, her marble image as the Virgin Mary prominently displayed in the Church of Corpus Christi?
As a “society lady” in (relatively) good standing, she was well placed to know who among the prominent and wealthy families were willing to work for the Revolution and who against. She knew who to recruit to flirt with Spanish officers, who might be willing to donate to the cause, who had access to printing equipment , or weapons. As it was, who would expect that the “ladies who lunch” were gun running or passing along troop movements to those ruffians in the countryside?
Having been long separated from her husband it was understood that la güera would have discreet… and sometimes not so discreet… affairs. Including one not so discreet with Royalist General Agustin Iturbide. Her “feminine wiles” — or more likely the deterioring political situation in Spain, combined with the royalists getting their butts kicked, and the Mexican economy in collapse — is credited with convincing Iturbide to switch sides, and with la güera working out the formula (the “Three Guarantees”… giving the people universal male suffrage; the Catholic Church status as the state religion; and leaving the crillos in control of the economy) that clinched independence. Unwisely, perhaps, rather than follow the suggestion of either becoming a full republic, or a constitutional monarchy under a foreign prince, she also convinced (or so it is said) that Iturbide, like Napoleon Bonaparte (his role model) make himself Emperor…
Despite the messy indpendence and turbulance of the early independence ere, la güera was well regarded and continued to fascinate those (like Fanny Erkine Calderon de la Barca) who would go out their way to meet her up to her death in 1856.
So… the question. These three women are remembered mostly in terms of their relationship to a powerful man… and, in the histories, are usually called their “Mistress”: retro if not sexist, given they had their own political agendas, and — while subordinate to the caudillo — held their own as political figures. “Partner” isn’t right either… missing the romantic (and sexual) nature of their relationships. Some Spanish language texts use “Concubina”, which while it may be the legal term for their relatiionship sounds like something sordid translated into English.
HELP!
Is the bishop a Marxist (Groucho, not Karl)?
Before a crowd of 20,000 religious pilgrims, Morelias Archbishop, Carlos Garfias Merlos, explained his objections to the roll-out of a new and revised educational system and its accompanying textbooks:
Arguing that education is “ideologizing” (when was it ever not?) he condemned the texts that, in his words, “I haven’t read, and I’m not going to read”.
According to the El Financiero poll, assuming the next June’s Presidential election is between united opposition (PRI, PAN, PRD) front runner Xóchitl Gálvez, the Morena-PT-Green’s Claudia Sheinbaum, and Citizen’s Movement’s Samuel García, Sheimbam would still come out ahead, 42% to Galvez’s 34%, with Garcia at 8% (more than sufficient to keep his “centerist” party relevant and eligible for a decent showing in proportional legislative seats.
While the various factions have yet to announce their candidates, Sheinbaum has shows a small advantage over her most credible rival for the nomination: former foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard. We don’t know how internal polling within the runing coalition has been going (the party is using a series of polls in lieu of US type primaries, but polls show Sheinbaum at 28%, and Ebrard at 21%, with the other “primary” candidates all far behind. This is one point more for Ebrard and down two for Sheinbaum, so it is still very likely that the Morena coalition candidate could be Ebrard.
In that scenario… and assuming Galvez and Garcia is on the ticket, Morena still holds a even stronger lead: 44% for Ebrard, 34% for Galvez. Garcia’s numbers don’t change.
Of course, Galvez might not be the opposition candidate (and the Citizen’s Movement could back either of the two major coalitions… or the opposition coalition could cocievably split between a PAN-PRD and PRI candidate… Santiago Creel (PAN), Enrique de la Madrid (PRI) and Miguel Angel Mancera (PRD) are at a staistical tie of 14,13, and 12 percent respectively.
Methodological note: National survey conducted by El Financiero by telephone among 500 adult Mexicans on July 28-29, 2023. A probabilistic sampling of residential and cell phones was made in the 32 states. With a confidence level of 95%, the margin of error of the estimates is +/-4.4%.
(Also on Substack)
https://mexfiles.substack.com/
Whether anything useful or not (and it’s doubtful) from the meeting in Jeddah to discuss a peace plan for Ukraine, there was a brief mention the other night from one of those “international affairs analysts” that have popped up all over the internet lately, that the first country to turn down the invitation to the meeting was Mexico. Which, incidentally, was also the first country to suggest a peace proposal… naive as it might have been (under which a settlement would be negotiated under the auspices of the Indian Pirme Minister, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and the Pope).
The Mexican position was that there was no point in the meeting if Russia was not invited, and the “peace plan” under discussion just seems designed to strongarm, or persuade, neutral states to sign on to the Ukrainian “all or nothing” position, or… for those states that lean towards the Russians, to at least take a neutral position.
A shame in a way… Mexico could provide a model for a – if not peaceful – then less bellicose future for Ukraine. The analogy is far from perfect, but one worth considering. If nothing else, it makes sense of the Mexican position and … more relevant to the present situation . . . a model of a defeated nation that preserves its own values, cultural identity and for the most part, independence.
Both Mexico and Ukraine are victims of their own geography, neighbored by huge, aggressive, military and economic powers. Both have lost territory… or are losing territory… to aggressive neighbors, whose causa belli was ostensibly the supposed mistreatment of their own ethnoc-religious brethern (in reality – like all wars – economic advantages).
Both Mexico in the mid 19th century, and Ukraine now, are largely agrian nations, politically unstable, and with large armies that at the start of their wars appeared to be in a strong position. At the outbreak of the US-Mexican war, the Duke of Wellington (Britains Prime Minister at the time) predicted Mexico would prevail, given the ineptitude shown by the US Army in its recent Seminole War, the size of Mexico’s army, and because it was fighting a defensive war. But, as we known, the Mexican Army had its successes and its soldiers often performed well, it was a rout. While Ukraine has done much better, and had some limited sucesses in repelling the Russians, no independent analyst (and even several pro-Ukrainian ones) see their army as “winning” so much as deteriorating slower than expected.
A minor point of comparison… one I have to take on the word of people who understand such things… is that the Russians, like the United States in the 1840s, has much, much better artillery and supplies than the Ukrainians. Certainly, advanced foreign weaponry is flowing into Ukraine whereas Mexico had only surplus Napoleonic War artillery on hand, but it looks to be too little, too late.
No doubt then and now, the aggressor committed more than their share of atrocities, nor that the defenders (including under-trained, under-supplied conscripts) fought bravely and (to use an old fashioned virtue) nobly gave their all for their country. And Mexico, its capital occupied, was forced into a treaty in which it could only negotiate the most minor, and humiliating concessions… many of which, like the rights of Mexican citizens in territory ceded to the United States would be largely ignored. One hopes it doesn’t come to that point with Ukraine, but the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo at a minimum would ironically solidify Mexico’s national identity and independence.
At some point the “realists” take over… no one in Mexico was seriously wanted, as the line in the Himno Nacional has it,”every son a hero’s grave” any more than anyone wants to “fight to the last Ukrainian”. The United States took massive swathes of Mexican territory, but despite those calling for total annexation, it was obvious the costs would outweigh the benefits. The Russians are likely to demand territory as well… although not half (lightly populated) as opposed to about 20 percent. But, in an odd way, it made the United States something of a guarantor of Mexican independence.
When one reads, “How would the US like it if the Chinese set up a base in Tijuana” or whatever, in response to those alleged to be pro-Russian for taking seriously Russian concerns about NATO on their doorstep, the response is “Of course, the United States would object. And it’s not going to happen. The Mexicans are well aware of their limitations, and have no interest in becoming a target for their more powerful neighbor.” When various US based “filibustros” did attempt to invade, the United States government was unsupportive. Even when there were Mexicans on the US side of the border seeking to foment armed conflict in Mexico, the US used its government to stem the action. Even when both the United States and Mexico were being torn apart by civil wars (the American Civil War and the Mexican Reforma Wars) which led to an attempted intevention by an overseas power (France), the United States was instrumental in preserving Mexican independence, providing material, diplomatic and intelligence support (the French puppet state’s diplomatic correspondence passing through the United States was being turned over to the Republican government, while US diplomats were leaking negative gossip about Maximilian and his court to the European and American press, as well as transferring seized Confederate arms across the border).
This is not to say there haven’t been any number of “cross-border incursions” (generally from the north, a few from the South, especially during the Revolution). However, the United States has always been careful to legitimize them as protecting whatever government the Mexicans had at the time. Although it wasn’t on the “right side of history”, in the early 20th century, Mogonistas iand other anarchists planning revolution in Mexico were hunted down and persecuted by US authorities for the benefit of the then-entrenched Diaz administration. During the counter-revolutionary Cristero War of the late 1920s, which saw massive support in the United States for both the Mexican government and the insurgent Cristeros, the Cooldge Adminstration was instrumental in ending the slaughter despite the general view in the United States of the Mexican government as “Bolshevek Mexico”.
While Mexico has had “stable” relations with the United States since 1848, and its motives have been in its own interests rather than Mexico’s (“Plan Merida” and the slaughter-house “war on drugs” comes to mind), in general Mexico has avoided becoming a “satellite” of the United States. Don Porfirio in the later 19th century had excellent relations with the European states unfriendly to, or rivals of (like Germany) the United States, and throughout the 20th, continually took positions directly at odds with US interests… recognizing the Soviet Union early, selling oil despite a US embargo to Germany and Italy in the late 1930s, while simultenously supporting the Spanish Republic (while officially neutral, the US leaned towards the Francoistas) and providing assistance to both the 1930s “Sandinistas” and their later incarnation. It also, for all the good it did, in the league of Nations, stood alone in supporting the less than democratic nations of Ethiopia and Austria, when both were abandoned to their fates. And refused to go alonh with the US boycott of Cuba, maintaining relations going back to the colonial era, regardless of the government of that island.
And, it provided refuge and assistance to people considered “non grata” in the United States for their political or cultural affiliations… Spanish Republicans, European Jews in the 1930s and 40s, Latin American leftists during the so-called “dirty wars of the 1970s and 80s (in spite of its own domestic “dirty war”) and otherwise refusing to simply kowtow to whatever the United States policy happens to be at the time.
Not to say the United States doesn’t resort to economic blackmail at times. Again, geography is destiny, and The United States remains overwhelmingly Mexico’s main trading partner although, much to the consternation of the United States, China and Brazil are growing in importance. And… Russia… which is its main fertilizer supplier (meaning, in a round-about way, that the US market for Mexican agricultural products depends on Russian exports)
Obviously, Mexico’s neutrality is limited, and history of US subversion, bribery and double-dealing (not to mention attempts at economic blackmail, like the present dispute over corn imports… the US demanding Mexico buy corn treated with glyphosphate, despite its own health and food safety regulations), but as a nation and minor power it has been able to more than hold its own weight in the world. It enjoys a fairly stable export market, something Ukraine would continue to have, going both east and west. It most likely will continue to be under the thumb of its oligarchs (as does Mexico in many respects) and Russian oligarchs will probably swoop in should Ukraine continue to push the neo-liberal policies proposed by those offering to “assist” in reconstruction. And, it will suffer from mass emigration and remittances will be an important revenue source… but the same is true about Mexico although Ukrainians have more choices on which direction to head if they leave.
Despite that, Mexico has more freedom of action, and doesn’t automatically have to ask “how high?” when the US says “jump!”. There’s some flexibility in how much pressure is put on “dissident factions”. The so-called “drug war” and its intensity depends on how much interest not the United States, but the Mexican administration at the time puts into it, and how much the United States is willing to concede in return. During the Calderón Adminstration, it was largely viewed as a way of legitimizing a stolen election (and, given recent revelations of the involvement of high officials in “coahoots” with various cartels) as politically expedient, and a revenue source. The present administration’s “abrazos no balazos” policies, with only partially implremented while the “mano duro” approach with pitched battles continue, the present adminstration is forcing the US to make concessions regarding its own out of control gun running problem. Mexico can… and does… vehemently criticize the United Stares, have economic and political ties with governments not acceptable to the “Colossus of the North”, and largely conduct its own internal policies as it sees fit … keeping in mind the limitations of a massive military power on their border.
For Ukraine, for Mexico, for any of us… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness depends first of all on staying alive.
Comment if you must, but comments will be monitored, and “Fuck you, Ivan” or “NATO tool!” types will be deleted.
Follow the money?
The bizarre outburst by TV Azteca’s star newsreader, Javier Altorre, devoted 10 minutes (OK, 9.24 minutes) to attacking new school texts (150 million given free of charge to the country’s 24.5 million students, and 2 million teachers and school administrators) is perhaps best seen as a “Hail Mary Pass” by the opposition parties to find a cause … any cause… to derail the “Fourth Transformation”… or — just maybe — to save the network’s largest shareholder from an embarassing tax problem.
It’s not unusual for Mexican newscasters to editorialize, and no secret that the “mainstream media”… i.e., the corporate media, opposes the present administration…and its overwhelmingly popular majority, short of a miracle scheduled to hold on to power in next years’ elections… Altorre’s “report” was something well beyond the normal sniping and nitpicking the networks usually resort to.
Communism?
While, hilarously, Altorre at one point seems to have trouble finding the page and passage he presents as “evidence”, I suppose that references to Paulo Freier (in a teacher’s guide) and including questions for student on issues like whether or not they think (and that seeems the most commie of things, to ask students to think) there are social classes, and if there are people who are oppressed, or who oppress others. And… most egregiously of all… in a text apparently meant for minority language schools… it says that all languages are of equal worth, and … perhaps more appallingly… includes a small lesson meant on defusing an all-too common “microagression” (specifically, a Spanish word commonly applied to indigenous people, In other words, building in lessons on sharing, community values, and conflict resolution are… so we’re told by Altorre… a “communist virus”.
But… but…
It’s not as if there are not some leigitmate complaints about the new texts… some spelling errors (or perhaps typos), notably the wrong date for Benito Juarez’ birthday, some misleading charts and graphs… the kinds of things that an errata sheet calls for. But, there are the more serious concerns from the right… such as this chart.
Shocking… huh?
This was posted on a “facebook” page by someone carping that the texts are not so much communist as they are undermining the “traditional family” (which, shen it comes to that is probably the “Familia extensa”) and went to the trouble of circling the specific type of family to which the comentator objected.
That… and the specifics of some sex education material (one of the upper grade health texts includes a chart showing the difference between a flacid and erect penis) earn the texts their most voal critics, Padres de Familia.
Padres… and los padres
“Union Nacional de Padres de Familia” is not, as one might expect, your local PTA, but rather a right-wing pressure group, similar to goups like “Focus on the Family” or “Moms for Liberty” in the United States. Since its founding in 1917, it has fought against secular education, in the 1920s, “socialist education”, sex education in the 1930s, “Communism” since the 1940s, free textbooks (also seen as a Communist plot) when they were first introduced in 1961, and (of course) sex education since the 1970s, more recently, recycling US conservative anti-abortion and magrriage equality propaganda not always well-translated into Spanish, or exactly suited to Mexican cultural expectations.
Although they are not, at least officially, a Catholic group, it enjoys support from not only PAN and their “piety wing” but, at least tacitly, from the hierarchy, which as always pushed for religious education in the public schools.
PAN-ic attack
Given UNPF’s ties to PAN (which fits, given PAN’s own roots in the Cristero movement of the 1920s, and Mexican Fascism), it’s been suggested that the ferocity of the attack on the new text by their party leader, Marco Cortés … who beyond claiming the texts “indoctrinated” children, claimed they were illegal (exactly how is uncertain, although a few judges have been found willing to issue injunctions against their distribution… which are being ignored) and… made a suggestion: parents should cut out the parts of the texts with which they disagree (video from Bloomberg for those interested)!
Red-baiting for pesos?
Or… as Julio Hernández López, in his influential Astillero column in Friday’s Jornada points out, Altorres’ rant reflects perhaps not his own views (though presumbably they do), but those of the network’s majority shareholder, oligarch Ricardo Salinas Pliego… whose Grupo Salinas owns, among other properties, department store chains, banks, the second largest internet provider in the country (Totalplay), a motorcycle manufacturer, and TV Azteca… originally, a state run television network, which he picked up on the cheap back during the presidency of Carlos Salinas (no relation) in return for an unsecured “loan” to the then-president’s bagman and brother, Raul.
Salinas Pliego (no relation to Carlos and Raul Salinas) has reasons to end the Transformation and bring back the now discredited “mainstream” parties, beyond the just conservative bent of most extremely wealthy people. Having prospered during the “neo-liberal” era, Salinas Pliego has not seen the Transformation as in his best interests… snubbed by the Morena government when he suggested that the country needed “wise heads” to manage the economy… specifically naming himself as the person to lead some sort of Business Council. And, much worse for him, during the recent pandemic, he was forced to close his Electra stores (selling electronics and clothing mostly) when only essential services were permitted to open, under the claim that his stores have branch banks (which he owns) and he HAD to let in shoppers,because they might also use the bank window. Or, a food delivery person might need to buy his brand of motorbikes (he owns… and sells at Electra) for their essential service. Or something.
AND WORSE… he owns a shit-ton of back taxes, that previous government were all to willing to defer or write off. Oligarch having to pay their taxes? Communism indeed!
Vicente Fox… what a dope(r)!
Under the apparently mistaken belief that he is still politically relevant, former president Vicente Fox stuck in foot in his mouth… twitteraliy (or is it now “X” rated) … last week when, in support of the candidacy of Xochitl Galvez whom he presents as the only “authentic” Mexican … or rather the most authentic… proposed sacrificial victim (er… conservative coalition candidate) who will face the Morena candidate in next July’s presidential election. The odds on favorite being Claudia Sheinbaum, Fox describes her… not as a scientist, an environmentalist, a skilled politician… but as something more, uh, down to earth: A Bulgarian Jew.
In another triumph, Fox’s new gig… selling marijuana based products under the “Paradise” label …has fallen afoul of the regulatory agencies. During a routine health inspection, Fox’s line of CBD based (or so claimed) products were lacking “evidence of safety, quality or manufacturing origin”. At least one shop (his products are sold on-line and through regular cannibas shops) owned by Fox’s company was closed.
He who casts the first stone… stoned…
20 July 1923
The assassination of Pancho Villa.
New math: 9300 bicycles = 1400 trees
(from Proceso)
According to Semovi (Secretariat of Mobility) sources, Mexico City’s “ecobike” program has led to the reduction of 466 tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide, equivalent to the amount sequested by 1400 trees.
With 637 ecobike stations, and 9300 bikes available 24/7, users cover 11.5 thousand Km per year on just the public bicycles. Registration (either on-line here or at a few kiosks) and payment for a day (118 pesos), three days (234 pesos), week (391 pesos) or year (a huge discount: 535 pesos!) allows uses to take a bike from, and return to any, of the 637 stations for 45 minutes at a time.
According to Semovi, most trips are for two Km or less, replacing trips that would otherwise be taken either in a private automobiles (which alone account for about 34% of CO2 emissions in Mexico City), taxi or by bus and/or metro.
This doesn’t count privately owned bicycles and their use… something that has always been part of the city’s transportation, especially by those without the financial resources to invest in a car. It’s just that more and more people are realizing they really don’t need a car, even if they can afford one, for most travels.
It was bound to happen
Santiago Creel…the scion of the Creel-Terrazas dynasty (going back to the earliest days of the Republic) has been thwarted again and again in his quest for the Presidency. As only #2 in the polls for the “sacrificial victim” as candidate to run agains whomever Morena decides upon, he, like so many of his ancestors (who were renowned for “dynastic marriages”) to look northward. The #1 opposition pre-candidate presented as “indigenous” and therefore more “authentic” than someone from the old elite, and the sitting President openly mocking him for representing that class, what else can he do but reach into the “playbook” of every disappointed elitist in the US.. and yell “reverse discrimination”:
https://www.jornada.com.mx/notas/2023/07/18/politica/creel-acepta-equivocacion-al-hablar-de-discriminacion-inversa/
Porfirio Muñoz Ledo 1933 – 2023, D.E.P.
It was inevitable that Porfirio Muñoz Ledo would be a politician. His mother helped him overcame his stuttering by forcing him to speak and read faster and faster until he could clearly articulate 300 words per minute. And it seems, he never shut up afterwords.
As a small child, his political inclinations might already be seen. One of his playmates was his life-long friend Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, even before he attended the Rosa Luxemburg Elementary School, where he was considered a “rebellious” child who excelled at oratory… And, as a teenager attending a Catholic prep school, he picked up another talent for dispute settlement… boxing.
He obtained a law degree from UNAM, and considering the possibility of a diplomatic career, did post-graduate study at the Sorbonne. At UNAM, he had become president of the student body, indicating he would be having a political career as well, although much of his early actitity was in academia, working in Mexico, France (where he met his first wife), Britian, and Morocco, and in various government positions. Which, of course, meant being in politics… specifically the PRI at the time, evntually rising to Secretary of Education, and party chair.
The PRI was, in the words of Mario Vargas Llosa, a “perfect dictatorship” in his time. In 1976, Muñoz was a “pre-candidate” for President, and as party chair had a good claim to the position given the leftist-progressive image outgoing president Echivierra had tried to present to the world. Muñoz would later date the beginning of what would be his break with the old system to Echivierra’s “dedazo” (finger pointing) — the personal selection of his successor — José Lopez Portillo. Still, Muñoz stayed on as party chair while simultaneously serving as Mexico’s permanent representative to the United Nations, including a stint as chair of the Security Council. He was considered a contender for the Secretary General’s position, although, he joked that a Mexican Secretary General was as unlikely as a Mexican Pope.
All the time, despite… or perhaps because of… his privilged position within the ruling circles, he had doubts about the validity of the “Mexican system”. Despite the world prestige that Mexico enjoyed at the end of the 1970s, Muñoz Ledo recalled in a later interview that the country was not well served as a de facto one party state “I had participated in the system, having been president of the government party (Institutional Revolutionary Party), it was evident to me that despite the efforts that had been made to open up, it was a state party, we lived a system of state parties”.
Together with his childhood friends Cuauhtemoc Cardenas and Ifigenia Martínez. Muñoz Ledo, founded what was called the Democratic Current and then the National Democratic Front (FDN), joining dissident PRI members (including the young Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador), and the smaller left-leaning parties in a thwarted attempt to break the PRI’s hold on power. Although the cobbled together front only failed to gain the presidency through what is pretty well documented to be fraud, the new force, joining with the right-wing PAN, forced through constitutional changes that opened up (at least somewhat) a multi-party, more transparent political system.
While the FDN was unable to hold itself together, and some parties have come and gone… Muñoz was hardly alone in jumping from one to another party into the 2010s, he was a constant office holder.. in the Mexico city assembly, the Senate, the Chamber of Deputies … the grand old man of the left, and at when he passed away over the weekend, President of the Chamber (roughly equivalent to the US Speaker of the House).
A distinction.. and a difference
Somewhat jokingly, I posted that there was something was missing when discussing the similarities between Morena front-runner Claudia Sheinbaum, and the opposition coalition “Va por Mexico” group, Xochitl Galvez. Both being engineers with long political and professional pedigrees, both members of minorites (Sheanbaum is Jewish, Galvez Otomí) and… gee… what?
Their economic policies, of course!
Translated (more or less) from Sabina Berman, “Xóchitl o Claudia”, El Universal, 2 July 2023
The race for the presidency is shaping up not bad at all. If recent poll number hold up, it will be a contest between two women.
Two women who are also noted, unusually among the usual crowd of corrupt politicians, for a sense of thenics.
Furthermore, two women with hearts on the Left.
Both embrace ethnic and sexual diversity —and both recognize that Mexico owes an enormous debt to the poor— and therefore see a need for not just continuing, but expanding the social safty net.
What’s somehat ironic is that the salvation of the Right lies with a woman, something of a triumph for the Left, in that it is something the right fought for a century.
And yet it is important to clear up the idea that Claudia and Xóchitl are twins. That you can just choose the one who think is nicer, and the results will be the same.
They are not the same — and their biggest difference is not minor, it is the economic model that each one would favor if they became president.
Xóchitl puts it like this:
“I agree with López Obrador that poverty must be ended. I differ in method.”
I asked her about her method. specifically, “Would you raise taxes on the oligarchy to also distribute that wealth downwards?
“No,” she replied. “I would ask employers to increase wages. There is no better wealth distribution system than that, fair wages .”
Would Galvez then, as president, intervene with employers? Her reply was a simple, unequivocable “No,”
And from the context of the conversation it was understood that Xóchitl believes the Free Market by itself will increase wages.
“You have to grow the blanket,” [an untranslatable metaphor, more or less “a rising tide lifts all boats”] as she said in another interview.
In other words, according to her, wealth must grow and then it will be enough for everyone. That has been the promise of Neoliberalism in a nutshell.
In contrast, Claudia Sheinbaum does not believe in the spontaneous generosity of entrepreneurs or the Free Market.
Let’s be honest, who can, in a country like ours, where after 36 years of Neoliberalism, 356 families have more money than the other 112 million citizens?
Claudia rather considers that the duty of the State is to intervene “to guarantee all citizens a base for well-being ” in her words.
The proposed model is therefore the Welfare State. Grow the state via the Free Market, while the state provides free –or cheap– services to everyone: health, education, day care, electricity, water, housing, public transport. That is, to give an even floor to the entire population, regardless of social class, to ensure everyone equally a dignified life.
Neoliberalism with social aid (Xóchitl) or the modern Left (Claudia): the option that is emerging is that simple.
As for their sex —being both women— it is up to the voters not to be myopic or romantic. No, it is not enough to have a female president, for the women of the country to benefit. We must demand that they state their feminist projects and compare them.
What has Xóchitl done for women? And if she became president, what would she do?
We know Claudia’ ‘s pro-woman public policies from her governance of Mexico City. Extensive actions with encrypted results*. How much can she expand that into a national project to eradicate misogynistic violence and to finally give women a level playing field?
But, when all is said and done, it is not bad at all how the contest is shaping up. It’s good that we don’t have to choose between the lesser of two corruptos. Or between a illiterate feminist and the fascist . Or between [again, a paraphrase] AIDS and cancer.
At least according to this week’s polls, the level of the contest has risen. The air is becoming clearer, and the electoral option more dignified.
- Not exactly clear what Berman means here… although she seems to be implying that Mexico City policies, especially in public security have led to some better statistics when it comes to crimes against women, and to more women in public office.
mexfiles.net 