Flexner, James Thomas. Washington: The Indispensable Man (Boston: Back Bay Books, 1974) The author wrote four volumes of the life of our first president in the late 1960’s and condensed them into these 423 pages, but the text is “almost all together new,” he advises in the “Preface.” Now deceased, the author received the highest awards for his work and so I imagine that his knowledge and appreciation for George Washington remains unequaled to this day.
I gained a special appreciation for the father of our country thanks to the author’s emphasis on the personal aspects of George Washington’s life. For example, I was touched to learn that almost everyone he met, from the time he was a young man to his last years, trusted him almost immediately for his honesty and good will, and fully expected him to execute a plan, whatever it might have been. His famous crossing of the Delaware, as commander of the bedraggled American forces, to surprise the British at Trenton, is probably the best-known example of how his men loyally followed him even when he had been losing numerous battles. He was not a trained warrior, but he was not afraid to take the lead and do his best for his upstart nation. He stressed heavily on this account.
Washington owned slaves who worked on his plantation, Mount Vernon. Contradictorily, however, the author portrays him as a man so concerned about the welfare of others that he refused to sell his slaves to avoid separating family members, something that made him stand out in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Consequently, Mount Vernon gradually loaded up with a surplus of slaves that simply added to Washington’s mounting indebtedness. This situation came to an end after his death only when his wife liberated them all, at a high cost, to be sure. Flexner’s knowledge of George Washington is outstanding, of course, in part because of his secure familiarity with Washington’s writings, letters, mostly. I found the author’s writing elliptically old-fashioned throughout, but it was worth turning every page. His bibliography must be the best up to 1974, the date of publication.
Donald Trump’s firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions today, November 8, 2018, is nothing else but the first step to get rid of Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel investigating Trump’s unlawfulness.
Mr. Trump is a mini-dictator desperately trying to rise to the status of big-dictator. His constant battle with the press (Trump’s removing Jim Acosta of CNN from the White House press pool, for example) and his many negative encounters with his own Justice Department (not only Jeff Sessions but many others) are just two examples.
We must stay alert and give strength to our national institutions that can protect us from a Trump dictatorship. We must also press our senators to create a barricade against despotism. Write to them today and tell them: “STAND UP TO TRUMP! PUT UP A BARRIER AGAINST DESPOTISM!
Is there anything good to say about Donald Trump’s administration on the eve of the November 6th elections?
Short answer:
No. I must confess I’m bending backward in trying to answer this question. But, I can say the following, in trying to be honest with myself and with you and be as fair as possible with this man that we have in the White House:
Yes, there are a couple of things to which I give a reluctant but very limited endorsement. One, is the issue of trade, and the other is immigration.
Beyond these two issues I cannot find anything positive in Trump’s administration. I conclude below that he is a danger to America and to the world.
Longer answer:
Regarding trade with China
On this topic I endorse the direction of his thinking. I say “thinking” because, as you know, he is unable to explain anything intelligently. He can’t say more than 5 meaningful words about any idea or policy. So, I can only refer to the actions executed in his name by his top officials. Knowing, or guessing at the direction of his thinking, they assemble the facts, he nods in approval, barely reading a page or more of what they write, and they produce a Trump action or policy. I think that’s the way his administration is running.
His nod, in this case, recognizes that our trade relationship with China is not right. I agree. The Chinese governments makes demands of American companies wanting to do business there that our government generally does not require of foreign companies wanting to do business in the U.S. In some cases, our firms are prodded to share critically important internal information with local Chinese officials. Apple, Google and Amazon are cases at the top of an iceberg there.
This puts our American firms in jeopardy. The fact that the Chinese practice a form socialism is very much involved here, and that fact changes the playing field, but that’s a huge and separate topic. Chinese muscling American companies is unfair in any case. (Curiously, Mr. Trump hardly ever complains that almost everything we buy at the store is made in China.) There are many other one-sided situations that put our companies and our country against the wall there.
For those of you following these matters you may agree that Obama didn’t push very hard in trying to find a balanced relationship with the Chinese and Bush didn’t either.
So, what is my beef? Why do I give Mr. Trump a failing grade? The answer is that while I support his facing off with the Chinese about trade matters, his approach has been to throw the baby out with the bath water. To use a different metaphor, instead of fixing the house he is wrecking it with a giant backhoe. The tariffs (import taxes) he has ordered on Chinese goods arriving at our ports have the effect of a wrecking machine.
And, how have the Chinese answered? With more tariffs against things we sell to them, in other words, more wrecking machines. It’s the Hatfield’s versus the McCoys. Shoot them before they shoot you. Is that smart? Ask an American farmer about this and he’ll/she’ll tell you how they’re hurting.
If you’ve done some homework on Mr. Trump, you’ll agree with me that he is doing to the Chinese what he used to do when selling real estate in New York and New Jersey. He didn’t negotiate with his business partners, he’d try to cheat them or threaten to sue, or find ways not to pay his due if he didn’t get his way. He left a string of unpaid business partners and employees before campaigning for the presidency, and he paid only if a judge ordered it, settled quietly. That’s who the guy is. (See my book review, The Making of Donald Trump at https://carlosbgil.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/a-book-review-about-donald-trump/).
So, I give him an F for failure on trade with the Chinese even though I recognize he is looking in the right direction.
Regarding trade with Mexico
The other trade-related comment has to do with NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. We’ve had this pact with Mexico and Canada since 1994. Mr. Trump swore up and down he was going to tear it up because it was “worst trade deal the U.S. ever signed.” Now that the negotiations are done we discover he didn’t tear up anything, but claims he has. Lying and posturing is what he does. The truth is that his trade officials badgered Mexico and Canada to sweeten the agreement a bit, but not much.
We now have a NAFTA 2.0. The biggest changes have to do with all those cars we buy, made in Mexico and Canada–that they will now have more parts made in the three countries than before, 75% up from 62.5%. Another big change is that workers, mostly Americans, will begin earning $16 an hour beginning 5 years from now, but only some of them, less than half. Five years from now, did you get that? So, big deal. Amazon is paying employees $15 an hour now. American NAFTA 2.0 workers will have to wait five years to get a raise! And, NAFTA products and merchandise will cost us more money too.
So, has Mr. Trump resolved the “worst ever trade deal?” Of course not. He deserves an F for failure here too and a U for unsatisfactory in lying about it. That’s what I give him, and you should too.
Regarding immigration.
Here, again, as I read and hear about the “Central American caravan,” I bend over backwards in trying to assess this issue as honestly as possible. I theorize that when he decided to run for office, Mr. Trump discovered that our immigration program needed major repairs, but only then. Even so, I agree that it needs major work; I’ve been saying as much for a long time.
However, I am convinced that when he discovered immigration to be a hot button issue he also decided he would handle it in a red neck fashion in order to gain voter support. And, he did, and he got it. Bless our blind-sided folks, right?
You know the dismal story about Trump’s views of immigrants and immigration. Referring to people like us, and the people we’ve known all our lives in San Fernando CA, where I grew up, he called us “drug traffickers” and “rapists,” and has refused to explain or apologize so far. He doubted the efficacy of a Mexican American judge who made a decision that he didn’t like, just because the judge was Mexican American—like me! My daughter is a judge! He may as well have said that about her too! That made me so angry!
His comments about Muslims and Muslims immigrants to the U.S. tell us that he doggedly refuses to separate the few bad ones from the rest. His comments about Africans and Africa reveal his crude and abysmal ignorance of that part of the world. The fact is that all Americans of color are suspect in his juvenile brain. He is a bigot.
Our immigration program (the sum of all our immigration policies) needs fixing, for sure. Having to witness the “Central American caravan,” plodding northward as I write these words, underlines this fact. (By the way, Mexico has prevented more non-documented northward crossings than we have.) There is no doubt that our country possesses the right to control its borders, like all other countries. But, the men and women who are responsible for our immigration policies, including Mr. Trump, insist on overlooking the fact that migrants from Mexico and Central America (the biggest portion of Latin American immigrants at this time) come for jobs, primarily. They are economic migrants, for the most part. They want a better economic life, like my ancestors did, and possibly yours too. They come here because our economy attracts them, like bits of metal to a gigantic magnet and this means nothing to our government leaders. This magnetic attraction has been going on for a hundred years.
If we had recognized the economic pull decades ago and assisted Central American leaders in the creation of more jobs there, we wouldn’t have to be fretting about these Central Americans knocking at our southern door today. Have we addressed this option in a forceful and intelligent manner? No, we haven’t. The fact that Mexican illegal immigration has diminished to historic lows while Mexico’s economy has grown, is testimony to what I’m saying.
Instead of helping El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras strengthen their economies in order to create more jobs and assist them in the way the govern their countries, we’ve directed most of our efforts at the eradication of illegal drugs. It hasn’t worked a bit; money misspent.
Migrants crossing our southern border have gained more attention lately because drug gangs have taken advantage of many of them, forcing some of them to transport drugs into the U.S. While recognizing that there is a whole lot more to say about this, I cut to the core directly:
It is our demand for marijuana, methamphetamines, cocaine and other such drugs that lies at the bottom of this Trumpian scare about immigrants posing as security threats. Drug gangs in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras are endangering ordinary citizens there and further corrupting local government officials with the piles of cash they get from selling drugs to us, and now to their own people. What has Mr. Trump said about this? Besides flashing the idea of a death penalty for drug traffickers. He’s said nothing.
So, what are his flagship answers to fixing our immigration program?
Build a wall! Bar all Muslims! Separate immigrant children from their parents at the border to stop the flow of Central Americans! These simple-Simon proposals further show his incompetent leadership.
So, I give Mr. Trump an absolute failure for the way he has handled our immigration problem.
Other reasons why Mr. Trump is a total failure:
Russian interference in our 2016 elections: everything indicates that he accepted, at the least, their interference placing him a hairline away from treasonous; illegitimate in my view;
Global warming: he refuses to accept that our Mother Earth is being choked by industrial fumes. He doesn’t care that these gases are causing us to endure ever increasing wild weather, like the more recent hurricanes, and the end of many forms of animal and plant life. How to understand this colossal disregard? He’s not a reader to begin with, and he is protecting his business supporters who stand to lose money with earth-friendly policies;
Good health for Americans. Mr. Trump does not seem to care that far too many Americans, especially those who support him (can you believe this?) lack health insurance and they lack health care (something he’s never been without) . He tried to kill President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, but Americans have fought back because healthcare is important for them and it appears Mr. Trump can’t stop them.
Hatred for woman. He has no qualms in disrespecting women, all the way from Hillary Clinton to Stormy Daniels and now it’ll be Senator Elizabeth Warren. Has he ever talked about his mother? She must have done something to him to make him a misogynist when he was a child.
Disregard for NATO and our most important allies. Being the ignoramus that he is, he has brushed aside our vital relationships with Europe. He ignores their past internal wars and Russia’s expansionary designs on them. Mr. Trump is weakening the peace-oriented system we helped build after World War II.
Safe and honest college education for young Americans. Mr. Trump’s education secretary has been looking for ways to protect the fake universities that cheated many young Americans. Trump University is the best example of the fraudulent institutions that preyed on American families eager to higher-educate their children. Let us not forget that he paid $25 million to keep Trump University details from being exposed in court. What shame!
The list of Trump’s incompetent and disastrous decisions is long. Don’t you get it by now? He’s a danger to America and to the world.
This is a portrayal of criminal gangs in Honduras and how the government there responds to them. Alberto Arce, a Spanish reporter, gathered the pertinent information sometime between 2012 and 2014 which he poured into his book (Honduras a ras de suelo, 2016) and which I reviewed on Amazon.com, separately. This is not the review. There is no English version of Arce’s book so far.
Alberto Arce
I decided the paragraphs below helped me understand why Central Americans are seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexican border in 2018. They might help you understand too. (The Spanish language title is a play on the word “honduras,” which means the hollows or deepest parts, so the title could be translated as: the depths closest to the ground).
The Associated Press assigned Arce to work and live in Honduras during the years mentioned. I am familiar with Honduras because I lived there too, many years ago; one of my children was born in Tegucigalpa, and so I have some affection for and familiarity with the country.
I believe the information below, which I’ve translated, offers a background to the petitions for asylum that Central American migrants are making at present to our federal officers stationed at our southern border. It sheds light on the dilemmas our officials must face in granting or denying asylum. The main question they must answer is, does the asylum seeker really have a “credible fear” of harm or loss of life? A positive answer may lead to asylum. This is a controversial matter today.
Honduras a ras de suelo
The text below (see citation below-my words appear in brackets) I believe is a composite of information which Arce gathered from different Honduran citizens including a taxi driver whom he mentions. It supplements what I know about Honduras (I taught the history of Central America for many years at the University of Washington). Read on.
Gangs have existed in Tegucigalpa since the 1970’s. In the beginning they were no more than groups of youngsters from different schools who differentiated themselves according to the music they listened to, the way the dressed, or the haircuts they used, and they would fight with sticks and fists over the parks they preferred. ‘The tops,’ ‘the bottoms’ or the ‘associated wanderers’ were their names. They didn’t sell drugs nor extort people. The society to which they belonged hadn’t broken down yet.
Everything changed around the mid-1990’s. The United States, which did have a problem with violence and drugs in the suburbs, began to deport Central American immigrants back to their countries of origin. Many of them were teen agers who barely spoke Spanish and didn’t have relatives in Honduras who could help them. They began to congregate in the city parks and take care of each other. There was no interest nor capacity to deal with the new arrivees, and soon arms and drugs began to spread. My taxi cab driver Mairena, remembers it well.
At the beginning they were just deportees who wandered the streets asking for a few pennies to buy a soda while they looked after your parked car. People felt sorry for them. No one gave it much thought. No one looked ahead, and no one tried to find a solution. The police, even less, because they are under paid, ill-trained, and half-literate and, in many cases, are cousins or neighbors of the deportees themselves. They share the food they get on credit from the local stores and live in the same card-board dwellings.
The gangs are generally known as maras, a word used in the local Honduran jargon to refer to a friend. That’s the way they see each other, insecure youngsters from dysfunctional families beaten down by domestic violence.
In 1998 Hurricane Mitch destroyed a portion of the national infrastructure leaving thousands of orphans and displaced families in its wake forced to live in temporary housing. This became a recipe for the recruitment of new mareros, young maras. If you’re nobody, if you feel you don’t have anywhere to go, you have no future, no way to study something, and you’re tired of going hungry, or your step father beats you all the time, then you get into the maras.
Barrio 18 and the Salvatrucha Mara, also known as “13,” named according to the areas they originally controlled in Los Angeles, began to fight over barrios or districts in Tegucigalpa, toward the end of the 1990’s. Later, smaller groups, like the Chirizos or the Combo That Doesn’t Give Up, began taking over parts of inner city.
A large part of violence in Honduras is connected to drug trafficking. The gangs serve as transporters and sicarios [mobile assassins] for the drug cartels. Their services are often paid in kind, merchandise, which must then be monetized on the street, by peddling drugs in small amounts. They also charge a “war tax,” classic “protection” extortion. Most taxi cabs and city buses as well as businesses find themselves obligated to pay. Most of the time they must pay two gangs. If you don’t pay, you die. Recently, some home owners have been charged a tax. In Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula entire neighborhoods stand vacant for this reason because the owners moved away, refusing to pay or be killed.
It’s hard to find a gang member older than 30 because they’re either dead or in jail but also because gangs recruit children. First, they serve as look outs, then as couriers, peddlers, then extortionists. The highest position is a sicario. Gangs order ever younger kids to kill someone because they’re easier to manipulate, and because penal law applies only to someone over 18.
Women, mothers and children have specific but secondary roles within the organization. When a gang controls a neighborhood most everyone feels compelled to submit. The least expected of you is to stay silent. You don’t see, you don’t hear, you don’t speak. When someone [a gang member] has to hide, these organizations require full compliance [from the neighborhood], full support or cover up, voluntarily or out of fear.
There are no official statistics of gang responsibility in the overall violence picture. Experts assign them as the primary perpetrators of violent acts in the country. It’s not possible to know how many gang members there are. Perhaps 10,000. They control practically all the districts in the city. In those they don’t control they can go in and commit a crime anyway. This access gives them impunity.
Honduras approved an anti-gang law at the beginning of the century that penalized gang membership. It has been a total failure. The application of the mano dura [iron fist] has only triggered a war between the maras and the security forces. On the other hand, gangs are becoming more discreet. Identity rules for such things as clothing or tattoos are now only visible in prison or on the bodies of the most important and oldest members, people who got tattooed long ago. Nowadays, they’re sending their smartest kids to the university. They need administrators to move the money they accumulate. They even have doctors on their lists and secret clinics, allowing them to avoid having to go to a hospital when they’re wounded in action.
If during the civil wars and the revolutionary upheavals that afflicted Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Honduras on a smaller scale, there were groups of soldiers and police who summarily executed people just because they were leftists, since the early 2000’s human rights organizations have been denouncing the existence of social cleansing policies against gang members. [Arce’s book is a case by case report of how these policies are applied]. Officials have always attributed the deaths of gang members to their own internal conflicts. [This means that] Every so often the death squads return [meaning Honduran security forces].
This is an excerpt from Alberto Arce, Honduras a ras de suelo: Crónicas desde el país más violento del mundo, Ariel 2016), pages 148-151, translated by Carlos B. Gil. A permission to translate was submitted to Arce by Gil via LinkIn.
Young Mexican voters will settle for a “blank slate” in their presidential elections, on voting day, July 1st, according to the article linked below.
As I wrote in my recent blog, (https://carlosbgil.wordpress.com/2018/05/26/the-2nd-mexican-presidential-debate-may-20-2018-a-few-impressions/ ), Mexican citizens in general are turning to an independent presidential candidate who has promised to clean up Mexico’s “swamp.”
Maria, a student quoted in the article, reflected this sentiment: “We have gone out to the streets to protest, to demand change and answers about the thousands of disappeared people, the violence, and nothing changes. It feels like we have no control left over our lives.”
Indeed, she and her fellow citizens seem to be fed up with their traditional politicians. Mexico has long been afflicted with government officials, elected or otherwise, who do little or nothing for their constituents and prefer to kick back and collect their fat checks when they’re not involved in corrupt deals of one kind or another.
The independent candidate is Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, a 65-year-old politician, also known as AMLO (his initials), who relied on a simple, 2-point campaign slogan: 1) I will eliminate corruption along with the political mafia that enabled it, and 2) the corruption money will be used to pay for social programs.
AMLO has offered no details about how he’ll accomplish this.
And, Mexicans, young and old, appear to be so fed up with the status quo that they are reportedly intent on electing him, anyway, like saying, it’s better to start from scratch, from a blank slate. One person in the article below is reported as saying, I prefer to hold my nose for a while to see what happens.
Do you think a senior, independent politician, who has promised the world, will be able to do as he says? I have grave doubts. In any case, we’ll see.
Oddly, we, in the United States, find ourselves in the same situation. We elected an independent candidate who promised the world and we elected him blindly. Now, we are well into his first year running our country, internally and externally, and you can’t dispute the fact that it has been chaotic, puzzling, disheartening and downright frightening.
One major difference between AMLO and Donald Trump is that AMLO maybe an ambiguous populist who may lead Mexico into a series of crises but he is not the bruiser, racist thug that Trump is. God help us!
El Segundo Debate Presidencial Mexicano: impresiones de un méxico-americano
Por Carlos B. Gil
[Esta es una traducción adaptada de mi artículo blog en inglés, “The Second Mexican Presidential Debate, May 20th,2018”]
Más de 6 millones de usuarios de Facebook sintonizaron con el segundo debate presidencial mexicano, el que tuvo lugar en Tijuana, Baja California, la noche del domingo 20 de mayo de 2018.[1] Pude verlo en YouTube desde mi casa en Seattle y, dado mi interés en el país de mis antepasados, ganancia de toda una vida, comparto mis observaciones aquí.
Una advertencia
Aunque los estadounidenses representan mi público lector, en lo general, van a ver algunos mexicanos que se topen con este correo y a ellos ofrezco la siguiente advertencia:
Yo no respiro la atmósfera política de México, ni he sufrido pérdidas personales debido a las relaciones políticas mexicanas, y por lo tanto puedo ver la posibilidad de que para algunos lectores mexicanos mis comentarios aparezcan someros o carezcan de profundidad.
Pero sí estoy seguro de que mis opiniones van a caer lejos del duro sarcasmo que algunos mexicanos disparan contra su sistema político, y yo, por supuesto, no cuestiono eso. Conozco lo suficiente lo que ha sido la política en México, de ayer y de hoy, para decir que estos pesimistas seguramente tendrán sus razones. Hace treinta años, o más, al gobierno no aceptaba las críticas así nomas y algunos de estos cínicos seguramente tendrán un mal recuerdo de ese entonces. Pero yo creo que las cosas han cambiado bastante. De todos modos, yo, un mexicanoamericano que se ha dedicado al estudio de México durante muchos años y ha vivido en el país de sus ancestros en temporadas, ofrezco mis comentarios por lo que puedan valer.
Así es que reconozco que los mexicanos acuden a las urnas para votar por su próximo presidente el 1º de julio. También reconozco que ejercen este derecho, lo que también es una obligación, cada 6 años, y así, como nosotros en EE. UU., el año que corre, 2018, se perfila como un año electoral muy importante.
Acerca del INE
El debate fue organizado por el INE, que tiene la responsabilidad de organizar las elecciones federales en México. Considero que el INE representa un excelente ejemplo del progreso de México en su desarrollo político porque está certificado para funcionar independientemente del presidente, el congreso y los partidos políticos. Es más, el INE está programado a controlar los gastos electorales, todo el negocio electoral, incluyendo la publicidad, y como resultado, los magnates y otros individuos poderosos no deben de influir. He sabido que el INE ha levantado un montón de desafíos, ¡pero como no iba ser así!
¡Vaya si tuviéramos nosotros un INE en los Estados Unidos! Lo que nosotros gastamos en elecciones federales es algo descomunal y, yo diría, inmoral. Es más, el hecho de que hombres poderosos con montones de capital invierten para torcer elecciones a su favor representa la ruina de nuestra democracia y la investidura de una oligarquía.
En todo caso, el INE definió los temas de los debates de la siguiente manera: el primero (22 de abril) trató el papel del gobierno, la política, y los derechos humanos; el segundo (20 de mayo) puso a consideración asuntos exteriores, de comercio y de migración; y el tercero (12 de junio) analizará la pobreza, la desigualdad y la economía. Me perdí el primer debate.
Mis impresiones acerca del debate
Considero que el debate, de 2 horas, en Tijuana, avanzó muy bien. Fue organizado eficientemente y llevado a cabo por dos excelentes moderadores, Yuriria Sierra y León Krause. Estos, en mi opinión, se desempeñaron mejor que cualquiera de nuestros moderadores de debates presidenciales recientes porque lograron formular duras preguntas de seguimiento y se encargaron de todo el procedimiento muy eficazmente. Es más, los candidatos cedieron a ellos, lo que no siempre ha sido en nuestro caso.
Vale la pena anotar que Krauze reconoció, al principio, que el segundo debate representaba una lección aprendida de nosotros, en los Estados Unidos, no solo de colocar a los candidatos frente a cámaras de televisión, sino también de invitar a ciudadanos ordinarios a hacer preguntas a los candidatos. Esto fue muy bueno.
El debate expuso varias inquietudes que me llamaron la atención. Por ejemplo, el TLC (el Tratado de Libre Comercio) surgió como una de las preocupaciones mayores para los ciudadanos invitados al debate. La seguridad personal frente a la violencia del narcotráfico, especialmente en algunas ciudades fronterizas, recibió atención también. En mi opinión, los candidatos no reconocieron estas inquietudes suficientemente, y uno de ellos apenas lo mencionó.
Los cuatro candidatos reconocieron el papel vejatorio que Donald Trump ha desempeñado, y el desafío que representa para México. Tres de los candidatos se refirieron deliberadamente a su postura grosera antimexicana y uno de ellos incluso leyó un pasaje de una biografía de Trump que describe la costumbre de nuestro presidente de aplastar agresivamente a los que difieren con él.
Que el debate tuvo lugar en la ciudad de Tijuana me pareció una idea virtuosa debido a que los flujos migratorios hacia el norte inevitablemente llegan a ciudades fronterizas como Tijuana y por lo tanto se convierten en desafíos para los funcionarios y residentes locales.
Aquí están los cuatro candidatos
[Por favor, mexicanos, acuérdense que este escrito está dirigido a mis compatriotas norteamericanos que saben muy poco acerca de México.]
Aquí están los cuatro candidatos que participaron en el debate, seguidos por una evaluación que hago brevemente de cada uno, y un comentario rápido sobre su desempeño en el debate. Los presento según su ordenamiento en las encuestas nacionales.
Nota: Ninguno de los candidatos representa a una línea política establecida. Tres de ellos están respaldados por una coalición de partidos, y dos de ellos se postulan en contra de agrupaciones políticas en las cuales alguna vez militaron. Uno de los candidatos representa, en su coalición, a dos partidos que en los últimos veinte años estuvieron contrapuestos, enemigos, uno del otro. ¡Imagínense!
¿A qué se debe esta esta mezcolanza política? Se debe a que los partidos tradicionales de México (el PRI, el PAN y el PRD) han perdido una credibilidad considerable entre los votantes, por lo que obviamente los candidatos se sienten obligados a mezclar y combinar para poder seguir adelante con sus campañas Este menoscabo de credibilidad explica mucho el cinismo y el sarcasmo que mencioné anteriormente. Otra razón es la supervivencia de los partidos que les llaman paleros, como el PT, que solo ganan los votos suficientes para mantenerse a flote, por lo que consideran necesario vincularse a otros grupos políticos.
Es fácil concluir que los partidos tradicionales han sufrido una profunda desaprobación por parte de los mexicanos, y Enrique Peña Ñieto, el presidente saliente, no ayudó mucho en sanar esta situación.
AMLO
Andrés Manuel López Obrador.
A los 65 años, AMLO, como se lo menciona en los medios, ha liderado el grupo de candidatos en esta elección. Es de Tabasco, uno de los estados más pobres en la unión, en gran parte agrario, y que nunca ha producido un candidato presidencial hasta ahora. Asistió a la universidad local y luego se trasladó a la UNAM donde lo critican porque tardó 14 años en completar su carrera.[2]
López Obrador cambió de partido varias veces. Recientemente creó su propia agrupación política, que viene siendo una super unión de una confederación de organizaciones conocida como MORENA, más al menos dos grupos políticos adicionales. La mayoría de los observadores lo describen como un izquierdista mexicano a la antigua que se escurre por doquier políticamente para mantenerse a flote. Y lo ha hecho bien. Esta elección de presidente será la tercera a la que se postula. Ha sido un empleado del gobierno o un funcionario electo casi toda su vida. Se desempeñó como gobernador de Tabasco y alcalde de la Ciudad de México y sus logros los reportan de ser ambiguos.
Su auge popular, creo, está relacionado directamente con el rechazo, por parte de los ciudadanos, de los líderes políticos de la nación y de sus partidos. Su mantra, “eliminaré la corrupción”, ha resonado ampliamente. Los mexicanos están hartos de los políticos que hacen promesas al principio y luego simplemente se recuestan, una vez en el cargo, para disfrutar de los altos salarios, los coches finos y otras primacías. La corrupción es su palabra clave, y AMLO la pronuncia cada vez que abre la boca, en un lenguaje impreciso y simple. He hablado con mexicanos que instintivamente confían en él y descartan su ambigüedad.
En el debate de Tijuana se negó a ser específico; confía en la ventaja que tiene a la mano. Todo lo que hizo fue repetir su promesa ambigua de acabar con la corrupción. Culpa a “la mafia política” repetidamente, personificada por sus competidores, Meade y Anaya. Las palabras “mafia política” también forman parte de su mantra. Se reporta que tampoco ha sido amistoso con los hombres de negocios.
Con la excepción de tener una personalidad más relajada, me recuerda demasiado a Donald Trump en su vaguedad y en hacerle promesas “al pueblo.” Muchos lo llaman populista; su alcaldía de la ciudad de México ciertamente fue eso. En mi opinión, los votantes mexicanos deberían retirarlo. No creo que sea bueno para México.
Ricardo Anaya
Ricardo Anaya Cortes.
A mediados de mayo ocupaba el segundo lugar en las encuestas, pero se encontraba bastante atrás de AMLO. Él es el más joven, a los 39 años, y lo veo como una nueva figura política que reclama Querétaro como su estado natal, gigante industrial que se encuentra justo al norte de la ciudad de México.
A diferencia de AMLO, que abandonó el PRI y el PRD hace años, Anaya se identifica con el PAN, el llamado partido “conservador,” más que nada, en el que desempeñó recientemente como su presidente. Reboza de las familias adineradas, orientadas hacia una educación universitaria, y con una mentalidad religiosa que afianzó al movimiento político-religioso que eventualmente se convirtió en el PAN. Anaya se destacó en la escuela, llegó a obtener un doctorado, ingresó al servicio gubernamental queretano y recibió mentoría de líderes influyentes del partido. En términos mexicanos, se podría decir que tiene origines brahmanes, y esto pueda ser una de las razones por las cuales AMLO no lo aguanta (el sentimiento parece mutuo). Sin embargo, Anaya ha sido un aprendiz rápido y muy trabajador, lo que lo ha conducido a la cima donde ahora se encuentra. Sus colegas lo consideran un niño genio.
Decidí que su papel en el debate fue el mejor porque insistió en ser específico en lo que haría con los temas asignados al debate si llegara a ser presidente. En términos relacionados, dijo, entre otras cosas, aumentaría el salario mínimo, otorgaría exenciones impositivas a los pobres, encontraría formas de detener la transferencia de armas a través de la frontera y buscaría maneras de reintegrar a los mexicanos deportados o revertidos a México, y así.
Desafortunadamente, la animadversión que mantiene con AMLO y viceversa, nubló la evaluación práctica que después le dieron los medios de comunicación; muchos reporteros se centraron en la crítica entre los dos, de ida y vuelta. No creo que su pérdida en esta elección disminuya su rol nacional.
Jose Antonio Meade
José Antonio Meade Kuribreña.
Meade, de 49 años, es el candidato que enarbola la bandera del PRI en esta elección, el histórico “partido oficial” de México que gobernó durante más de 60 años. Esta es una nota curiosa porque este no ha sido un miembro bonificado del PRI. El PRI lo seleccionó en 2017 a pesar de su identidad independiente la que protegió por mucho tiempo. Por qué decidió el PRI buscar un candidato fuera de su propia perrera debería servir como un jugoso chismorreo político.
Según los informes, Meade, de origen irlandés y libanés, es lo más parecido a los polémicos “tecnócratas” de los 1980s, es decir, los profesionales tomados de sus empleos no políticos (generalmente un economista o un ingeniero) para hacer gobierno, a diferencia de los políticos de carrera. Nacido en el DF, Meade también podría describirse como un brahmán, como Anaya, por haber disfrutado de una educación destacada, ser hijo de padres profesionales adinerados y, sin duda, acostumbrado a los elegantes clubes de campo de la ciudad. Se le ve nomas al mirarlo.
Esto puede explicar en parte porque AMLO lo tacha a él también, además de Anaya, como perteneciente a la “mafia política”. (Pienso que la enemistad entre el candidato de Tabasco, y Anaya y Meade, me suena más como resentimiento de clase y raza, lo que bien podría ser, algo que no es inusual en México, especialmente cuando se consideran los antecedentes educativos.)
Al igual que Anaya, Meade también obtuvo un doctorado en el extranjero. ¡Pero lo obtuvo de Yale, una de nuestras universidades más elitistas! También ganó dos títulos profesionales de las universidades mexicanas más destacadas, la UNAM y el ITAM. ¡Vaya que tiene títulos de prestigio! Armado con estos diplomas, llegó directamente a la cima (fue Ministro de Presupuestos y Finanzas, por ejemplo). Así logró acceso a los más altos círculos gubernamentales donde trabajó tanto para el PAN como para el PRI. Ha sido presentado como el candidato menos partidista.
Su actuación en el segundo debate me pareció al mismo nivel que el de Ricardo Anaya. Estuvo a la altura de todos los temas discutidos, ofreciendo averiguaciones bien preparadas: combatir el tráfico de drogas y el contrabando de armas a través de la frontera entre México y los Estados Unidos con una fuerza fronteriza y aduanera organizada poderosamente, reconoció la existencia de la desigualdad económica en México y ofreció un programa de inversión urgente para los estados más pobres del sur, etc.
El PRI funciona como una ventaja para él y como una desventaja también. Representa un beneficio porque existe como el partido más poderoso en términos de experiencia, de gente capacitada y de recursos financieros. Es una desventaja porque está cargado con el equipaje moral más pesado. La nación puede culpar al PRI por la mayoría de sus males, junto con sus logros, por supuesto, pero la corrupción del gobierno, en general, y los errores increíbles, pasados y presentes, que se le achacan simplemente por estar en el poder, le quitan el poder. El gobierno saliente de Enrique Peña Ñieto ejemplifica esto muy bien: aprobó algunas reformas muy necesarias al comienzo de su mandato, pero comenzó a cojear con la desaparición de los 43 estudiantes en Guerrero. Su incapacidad para frenar a que los cárteles de la droga se asesinen los unos a los otros al aire libre también empeoró las cosas.
El Bronco Rodriguez
Jaime Heliodoro Rodríguez Calderón (“El Bronco”).
El apodo de Rodríguez básicamente lo dice todo. A los 60 años, es de mente independiente, impetuoso y franco, en una especie de vaquero mexicano, un verdadero ranchero. Es un norteño de Nuevo León como nosotros diríamos, del oeste. Hijo de ejidatarios y uno de diez niños, entiendo que un comerciante local lo descubrió y pagó por su universidad. Trabajó duro el muchacho, rompió moldes a izquierda y derecha, lo que llevó a sus compañeros de clase a apoyar becas para estudiantes pobres como él.
Ningún otro candidato presidencial en el siglo 20 se levanta de un fondo tan humilde como lo hace Rodríguez; AMLO puede acercarse. Claro que ninguno se acerca a Benito Juárez a mediados del siglo XIX que se elevó desde sus orígenes indígenas para convertirse en el presidente más famoso de México. He visto que AMLO le gusta compararse con Juárez.
Debido a que se sitúa sobre el camino hacia la frontera con Texas, Nuevo León fue invadido por cárteles de la droga alrededor del año 2012. Y cuando El Bronco se postuló a una alcaldía local, se reporta que fue duro con ellos por ser agresivos y asesinos. Los capos criminales tomaron represalias; lo querían muerto Se enfrentó a ellos y también contra los corrompidos políticos locales cuando compitió de gobernador como independiente. Y ganó; fue una hazaña verdaderamente excepcional; histórica para México. Contra todas las convenciones políticas mexicanas, pide la adopción de la pena capital, especialmente para los narcos, ¡y también cortarles las manos a los políticos corruptos!
Y, ahora, una vez más se postula para presidente como independiente. No cuenta con el apoyo ni el financiamiento de partido porque no tiene partido, fuera de los recursos que proporciona el INE. Acepta con valentía la desaprobación burlona de mucha gente, incluso de reporteros arrogantes en las principales cadenas de televisión, como Televisa.[3] Lo desprecian no solo por sus métodos contra la corrupción y el tráfico de drogas, sino también por su estilo, su discurso y sus modales. Entiendo que algunas de sus soluciones para atacar problemas sociales y económicos suenan ingenuas. Destila ser el hombre de la calle, sin lugar a duda, y él es el último en las encuestas también.
Su actuación en el debate no le ayudó. No aumentaron sus posibilidades de ganar seguidores a pesar de que reveló un conocimiento íntimo y una simpatía verdadera por la gente marginada de México. Pero, aun así, se paró en el debate como el hombre sobrante.
President Trump and Secretary of Education, Betsy De Vos, do not care if you or your children enroll into a fake school or college and waste your money as a result. Think of the enormous feeling of deception for a youngster too. A fake school or college places profit above honest training or education. Their degrees are suspect and sometimes totally fictitious.
You can check-out the list of these fake schools here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_for-profit_universities_and_colleges .
Left
Center
Right
Remove
click to add a caption
President Trump’s failed and disgraced Trump University is the best example of what I’m talking about. I discuss Trump University in my book review of Donald Trump in my blog: www.carlosbgil.wordpress.com
The topic of for-profit colleges became newsworthy last week when reporters discovered that Secretary De Vos’s department stopped investigating fraud in these phony schools. President Obama had initially ordered a crack-down on these sham schools and so, obviously, Trump is now rolling it back and De Vos is ok with this. Frontline, a well known investigative television program made the announcement.
If you or your children are considering educational training beyond high school, check out the wikipedia list of schools I identify above before you make a decision.
Our American economic system allows quack schools to flourish just for the sake of making money. This is immoral, but many Americans uphold this practice as a basic American freedom without thinking too much about it, most Republicans included. Other countries do not allow this kind of social forgery. Go figure!
I gave my last lecture today for my “KEYS IN UNDERSTANDING MEXICO” course, at the Lifetime Learning Center in Lake City, Seattle, to retirees, mostly. In evaluation forms they reported to have all loved it. It seems I became a minor sensation. Wow!
After I retired from the University of Washington (14 years ago!) I became heavily involved working with my wife, Barbara Deane, at our GilDeane Group offices, doing training and consulting, some of which I really liked. When all that came to a lull, I began writing my recent book (We Became Mexican American) but also thought of looking for some part-time teaching.
It was then that I discovered that if I did that, I’d be preventing some newly minted Ph.D. person from getting a foot in the door wherever I applied. I knew that it takes gobs of time, energy and money to get that darned degree, so I said to myself, “No. I won’t compete with them.” So I just continued with my writing and several years slipped by.
Having finished my long written pieces (including the translation of We Became Mexican American--and I’m looking for a publisher), I decided I needed to keep my old brain busy. Why? I was forgetting too many words, here and there. So, I started worrying about it, and said to myself, “I need to teach again,” to keep my mind from going dark.
This is how I found the Lifetime Learning Center 15 minutes from my home and where I offered to teach the course mentioned above. The director said, “Yes, we’d be pleased to have you,” and so I committed myself to 8 classes, one per week. I started in April and now, its over! I’m so glad I did it, and I’ll most probably teach the course again, next Spring. They certainly want me to.
My students told me they learned a lot (they too wanted to keep their brains busy). Thank goodness. So I’ll give some more lectures. ¡Qué bueno, pues!
Today is December 12th, a day in which the entire Spanish language world pays tribute to La Virgen de Guadalupe. Special masses were being said today in Buenos Aires, Madrid, and Mexico City. And, of course, in San Fernando, California, my hometown—and, nowadays, here in Seattle too.
December 12th was hard to overlook, when I was a boy, because we rose early in the morning, before dark, to attend “Las Mañanitas,” sung full throat by hundreds of Mexicans jammed into our Santa Rosa Church. We sang “Las Mañanitas” because it was her birthday. When I was in my 20s, mariachi musicians became accepted as part of the musical tributes, which had been entirely religious up to that point. I remember attending a December 12th mass in Tijuana in the early 1970s, when I was in a very emotional period, and feeling gratified and comforted by it. I’ve witnessed the overwhelmingly exotic December 12th festivities in the famous Basilica in Mexico City many times too.
There is a fascinating story that gave rise to the culto, or the sum total of devotional happenings, around La Virgen de Guadalupe. Legend has it that she appeared about 15 or so years after Hernan Cortes, in the company of his fellow Spaniards, conquered Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital. It was a bloody conquest, of course, and a spiritual one too: it was Catholicism over Aztec paganism, which had included human sacrifice. Many people heralded the Spanish victory with mystical significance even though the winners were no more than a bunch of bawdy and rough-hewn Iberians who didn’t know what they were getting into.
The basic point here is that the legendary appearances, which form the core of the culto, served to solidify the conquest psychologically. Historical studies show that the subjugated Indians became more willing to abandon their ancient beliefs and begin to accept Spanish Christian ones, after word spread about the Guadalupe appearances.
There is a mountain of historical information about this, but suffice to say here that December 12th always tugs at my heart and soul even though my religious fervor cooled long ago. Nevertheless, I still remember and pine for those old feelings. They’re so comforting.
Gil writes with a cinematic eye for detail, delivering intricate word pictures of the people, places and activities….Vivid, highly informative and entertaining, Gil’s book shines and should be a staple on the bookshelves of history teachers and their students. (Blue Ink Review, October 2012)
As a lifelong educator in a variety of capacities I find this author’s provocative, endearing life story a special must read for all members of the American School System, regardless of their niche or expertise in the field of education.” (Leo Valenzuela, October 2012)
Gil plays the role of storyteller and mass organizer in this textbook-thick account of how his family crossed both land and social boundaries to improve their living conditions and be together….[I]t’s an interesting, well-written account of an adaptable, immigrant family. [It p]rovides a unique perspective into the complex cultural struggles immigrant families face and the circumstances that bring them here. Kirkus Book Reviews (November 2012)
It’s almost poetic. This has to be used in the classrooms for generations to come. You bring everything together in ten different ways: economics, social mobility, immigration, politics, etc. You bring it all together; you offer the big picture. (Phillip Boucher, November 2012)
[It is a] rich, textured portrait…. [This work] shows how the hard work and determination of these Mexican immigrants led to greater economic success and higher social status with each generation. Black-and-white photographs inserted throughout the text vividly express this change of fortune. (Clarion Reviews December 2012)
Your book is not only inspirational, it is thought provoking and educational. I love history and your book personalizes historical events. As an immigrant myself, I can connect with your family. (Ignacio Marquez, April 2013)
I loved your book! All my daughters want to read it, and my mom. There were lots of things I could relate to. (Molly Montoya, April 2013)
Your honesty was brutal but told in a loving way. I, we are so proud of your book and talk about it all the time. (Rebecca Cruz, May 2013)
Quite an accomplishment. Something I wish I had done for my own family. I learned a lot…about the Mexican American experience, including its regional variations. The book also brought me…to reassess my own [Swedish] family’s experience which in some ways parallels your family’s. Chuck Bergquist, May 2013)
Reading about my great great grandpa Basilio Alvarez in his book brought me to tears. What a journey this book is taking me on…¡Gracias! (Vera Delgado, November 2014)
Again I was blown away by your discussion on why your family would not have been attuned to racism due to the idea of there not being a contradiction to the reality they began life with. Such a tender defense of these people, and I can apply that to my family too. (Abe Pena, February 2014)
It was fantastic! I was so drawn in and fascinated with the stories of his family and all they went through. I’m so glad to have gotten that glimpse into his family’s journey and a better understanding of the lives of some immigrants. (Mary McLaughlin Sta.Maria, March 2014)
