Andres Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), was inaugurated President of Mexico today. He declared a war against corruption by slashing government spending, including government salaries, ending neo-liberal policies, and fighting drug-trafficking-related violence, all of which he believes he can achieve without new taxes. He will not prosecute corrupt officials of the past. He said little about President Trump, but his few words were positive.
***
* He rode in a conventional, white, 2010 VW sedan to his inauguration with a small police escort, not in a big, black SUV.
* He said:
-“Material things do not interest me”
-“I will cut my salary by 40%”
-“I will not live in Los Pinos” (a luxurious executive mansion)
-“I will end all corruption”
-“I will not allow my wife nor my children to gain through politics”
-“I don’t have the right to fail you”
-“In 2 ½ years you can vote me in or out”
Wow! The statements above, coming from a freshly elected president, rang loud and clear in my mind, and I think you know why, these days: our President Trump is openly benefiting from business ties and his children are too, and all we can do is gape open-jawed.
Mexico recognized AMLO as the new president today, December 1, 2018, and I saw and heard his entire inaugural speech on Televisa and was very encouraged. I regretted not being in Mexico City, even though, had I been a Mexican citizen, I wouldn’t have voted for him back in November.
Having followed the presidential campaign there, I was dubious of his candidacy in part because I’ve studied Mexico nearly all my life and concluded that he was an old 1970’s leftist who was out of touch with 21st century politics. I sympathized with his political leanings but felt that the political winds were moving on and so should he. I wrote as much on my blog.
He won with 53% of the electoral vote (he was one of 4 candidates) and his coalition party captured both houses of Congress. He achieved a clear and overwhelming victory and utterly defeated the PRI, the party that ruled Mexico for nearly a century, building up a selective and muscular apparatus of generously-paid government and party leaders. Clearly, Mexican voters turned their back on the political status quo. AMLO is now all powerful because his people-oriented party (populist?) will most probably endorse his initiatives; there was every indication of that today. No one would have predicted this last year.
AMLO in his VW sedan
I paid attention to things he said and did after he won and before he was officially installed today. An old-line politician, he hails from a modest, traditionally agriculture southern state (Tabasco) and his personal behavior also appears modest and unassuming, hence the 2010 VW white sedan instead of a big, burly, black SUV, and his refusal to live in luxurious Los Pinos on the edge of Mexico City (he’ll live and work in the presidential palace, in front of the zócalo, where most presidents did long ago). He strikes me as an honest ol’ chap; campechano, his friends might say.
Benito Juarez
He is inspired by 19th century liberal leaders, like Benito Juarez, Mexico’s only Indian president, many of whom fought to the death in favor of a secular and fully democratic republic. This is what AMLO pledged today, and this impressed me very much, since I too admire Juarez and his comrades.
As AMLO spoke in front of both chambers of Congress, I paid attention to his predecessor, Ernesto Peña Nieto, who minutes earlier had removed the tri-colored presidential sash from his shoulders, signifying executive authority, and handed it to AMLO. He sat impassively nearby, listening to AMLO’s powerful repudiation of his PRI administration and the other preceding regimes. (Historically, this is hugely important since previous outgoing presidents did not easily walk off the political stage).
No more corruption, AMLO promised throughout his campaign. He emphasized this message today too, in a country whose high-ranking government officials earn U.S. $ 65,000 to $100,000 per year when you include generous end-of-year bonuses, allowances for new autos, gasoline, I-phones, life and medical insurance, private hospital care, paid vacations, and so on. He vowed that no government employee will earn more than he does and swore today to cut his own salary by 40%, averaging about $65,000 annually. He’s also selling the nation’s presidential airplane and already stopped the completion of what would have been one of the world’s biggest airports near Mexico City. Mexico doesn’t need such costly expenditures, he insisted. Trimming these allowances will eliminate the need for new taxes, he contended, and there is no doubt it will affect many well-heeled families in a country where government jobs prevail and enjoy high status but where the average worker earns no more than $5 a day.
My biggest concern is that AMLO linked far too many challenges to corruption in his speech today. This is one of the reasons I would not have voted for him had I been a Mexican citizen—he spoke too vaguely about big issues, even today. For example, he devoted a good part of his speech to condemning Mexico’s neo-liberal economic policies of the 1980’s (i.e., free trade, privatization of government owned enterprises, and the general dominance of the public sector in the economy) suggesting that ending them would help eliminate corruption, somehow, yet he welcomed foreign investment and continued free trade!
He clearly suggested too that wiping out corruption would, by some means, bring down drug-trafficking violence but provided no details except for a reorganization of the nation’s security forces, controversial even now, plus a vague reference to amnesty, although he didn’t use the word. He won’t prosecute past acts of corruption but promised to bring closure to the 43 Guerrero students who disappeared.
Without going on too long here, the bottom line is that AMLO sounded good today, but as many street people interviewed on TV said: “I hope he keeps his promises.” AMLO recalled a young citizen on a bike riding up to him (AMLO doesn’t like too much security) recently and telling him, “you cannot fail us!” In his speech before Congress today he said, “I don’t have the right to fail you.” You can remove me in two and a half years if I do.
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.
The 2nd Mexican presidential debate was organized by INE (National Electoral Institute or the Instituto Nacional Electoral). It is an autonomous public organization in Mexico responsible for organizing federal elections.
I consider INE a prime example of Mexico’s progress in its political development because it is chartered to function independently of the president, congress, and the nation’s political parties; furthermore, it regulates funding for elections. As a result, tycoons and other powerful individuals cannot easily influence elections the way they do in the U.S., and the exorbitant spending that has come to mark our elections is kept under control by our neighbor to the south.
The INE has raised a lot of hackles (as you might imagine!) but what an intelligent way to do elections!
Please click the back arrow to return to my impressions of the 2nd Mexican Presidential Debate.
Summary: The 2nd presidential debate took place May 20th as a harbinger of Mexico’s coming elections, July 1st. The debate was superbly organized by a national election agency responsible for good and fair elections without the multi-millions of dollars that we spend in the United States. The candidates and their political organizations mirror the deep disenchantment that Mexican voters hold for their politicians and their political parties. The candidates represent an intriguing spectrum of politicians willing to take on a big load.
What does this mean for us, in the United States? The front runner, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (“AMLO”) has stayed ahead by saying little. His performance in the debate was dull; all he did was to repeat his two warnings: 1) I’m going to end corruption in Mexico, and 2) I’m going to deal firmly with our long standing “political mafia.” He’s an old leftist, everybody says, and his track record with the business sector has been frosty. He claims to be a nationalist (“Mexico First!” — you’ve heard that before from Mr. Trump) and if our own president up-scales deporting undocumented Mexicans in some dramatic way or another, it’ll be interesting to see how AMLO responds. The two men are similar in many ways.
More than 6 million Facebook users watched the 2nd Mexican presidential debate which took place in Tijuana, Baja California, Sunday evening, May 20, 2018.[1] I was able to see it on YouTube from my home in Seattle and, given my lifelong interest in the country of my ancestors, I share my observations here.
Yes, Mexicans go to the polls to vote for their next president soon, this coming July 1st, to be exact. They exercise this right, which is also an obligation, every 6 years, and so, as with us, 2018 looms as a very important election year
The INE defined the debate themes as follows: for the 1st debate (April 22nd), the role of government, politics, and human rights; for the 2nd debate (May 20th) foreign affairs, commerce and migration; and for the 3rd (June 12th) poverty, inequality and the economy. I missed the 1st debate.
My general impressions about the debate as a whole
My overall impression of the 2-hour debate in Tijuana is that it proceeded remarkably well. It was efficiently organized and carried out by two excellent moderators, Yuriria Sierra and León Krauze, who, in my view, performed better than any of our own recent presidential debate moderators because they really dug in with hard follow up questions and they commanded the proceedings effectively. The candidates yielded to them too
Also, Krauze openly recognized, at the beginning, that the 2nd debate represented a lesson learned from us, in the U.S., not only by placing the top four candidates in front of television cameras but also by inviting ordinary citizens to ask the candidates their own questions. This was a jolly good first.
The debate exposed several issues that caught my attention. For example, NAFTA arose as one of the biggest concerns to the citizens invited to the debate, the free trade agreement that Mexico signed with the U.S. and Canada in 1994. Personal security, in the face of drug trafficking violence, especially in some border cities, received attention as well. In my view, the candidates didn’t do it justice and one of them, hardly mentioned it.
All four candidates recognized the vexatious role that Donald Trump has scripted for himself and the challenge he represents for Mexico. Three of the candidates pointedly referred to his boorish anti-Mexican stance and one of them even read a passage from a Trump biography describing our president’s practice of aggressively squashing disagreement or dissent.
That the debate took place in the City of Tijuana was a virtuous idea because northerly migrant flows inevitably arrive at borders cities like Tijuana and thus become challenges for local officials and residents.
Here are the four candidates
Here are the four candidates who took part in the debate, followed by my own brief assessment of each, and a quick commentary on their performance in the debate. The list almost included a woman: Margarita Zavala, wife of an ex-president, ran as an independent candidate but pulled out a few days ahead of the 2nd debate. I list the four contenders in the order of their rankings by national polls.
A note about their parties: None of the candidates are representing a main line party. Three of them are backed by a coalition of parties, and two of them are running against parties they once belonged to. One of the candidates is representing, in his coalition, two mainline parties that have been opposed historically over the last twenty years. Go figure!
The reason for this political mishmash is that Mexico’s traditional parties (the PRI, the PAN, and the PRD[2]) have lost a significant amount of credibility among voters, and so the candidates obviously felt obligated to mix and match to be able to go on with their campaigns. This loss of credibility explains a lot of the cynicism and sarcasm mentioned above. Another reason is the survival of diminutive parties (like the PT[3]) that only gain barely enough votes to stay afloat, and so they find it necessary to attach themselves to other candidates or political groups.
The bottom line is that the old party system has suffered a good deal of disapproval from the average Mexican voter, and Enrique Peña Ñieto, the outgoing president, didn’t help matters much.
AMLO
Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Word to the wise: most Mexicans use compound surnames; in this case, López is the patronymic and Obrador is the matronymic). At 65 years of age, AMLO, as he is referred to in the media, has been leading the pack in this election. He’s from Tabasco, one of the poorer states in the nation, largely agrarian, never having produced a national presidential candidate, until now. He attended the local university and later transferred to the UNAM[4], Mexico’s big national university where it took him 14 years to complete his degree.[5]
López Obrador has switched parties and changed his political identity several times. He recently created his own “party” which is a super amalgam of a previous confederation of organizations known as MORENA[6], plus at least two more political groups. Most observers describe him, as I do: a canny, old fashioned Mexican leftist who nips and tucks politically to stay afloat. This will be the third time he runs for the presidency. He has been a government employee or an elected official nearly all his life. He served as governor of Tabasco and mayor of Mexico City and his accomplishments are reported as ambiguous.
His rise in popularity, I believe, is directly related to the rejection of the nation’s political leaders and their parties by Mexican voters. His one-message mantra, “I will eliminate corruption,” has resonated widely. Mexicans are fed up with the average politician who makes promises at the beginning and then simply sits back, once in office, to enjoy the high salaries, big cars and other perks. Corruption is the key word, and AMLO utters it every time he opens his mouth, in vague and simple language. I’ve talked with Mexicans who instinctively trust him and dismiss his ambiguity.
In the Tijuana debate he refused to be specific about anything, confident that he was on a roll. All he did was to repeat his ambivalent promise to end corruption. He repetitively blames the nation’s ill on the “political mafia,” personified, as far as he is concerned, by his competitors, Meade and Anaya, as mentioned below. His track record with the business sector has not been friendly–after all, he’s an old leftist. That’s going to be a big challenge for everyone.
Except for a more relaxed personality, he reminds me too much of Donald Trump in his vagueness, and in making all-purpose promises. Many call him a populist; his mayorship of Mexico City certainly indicates that. In my view Mexican voters ought to retire him. I do not believe he will be good for Mexico.
Ricardo Anaya
Ricardo Anaya Cortes. In mid-May he occupied second place in the polls, but quite far back in numbers, behind AMLO. He is the youngest, at 39, and he is a new political figure, claiming Querétaro as his home state, an industrial behemoth, just due north of Mexico City.
Different from AMLO who abandoned two main-line parties years ago (the PRI and the PRD), Anaya is most identified with the PAN, Mexico’s so-called “conservative” party, and served as its president recently. He exudes the well-healed, college-oriented, religious-minded families that gave strength to Mexico’s pro-Catholic political movement that eventually became the PAN. He excelled in school, all the way to a Ph.D., entering government service in his home state, and received mentoring from influential party leaders. In Mexican terms, one could say that he comes from a brahmin background, and this may be one of the reasons why AMLO seems repulsed by his presence (the feeling seems mutual). Nevertheless, his hard work and his fast-learning propelled him to the top where he is today. His colleagues consider him a whizz kid.
His role in the debate, I thought, was the best because he was specific in terms of what he would do in the areas covered by the debate. In articulate terms he said, among other things, he would raise the minimum wage, give poor people tax exemptions, find ways to stop the transfer of arms across the border, and search for ways to reintegrate Mexicans who are deported or otherwise reverted to Mexico, and so on.
Unfortunately, the animus he holds with AMLO, and visa-versa, obscured the practical assessment of his debate performance in the media afterwards; many reporters focused on the carping back and forth. I don’t think his loss in this election he will diminish his national role.
Jose Antonio Meade
José Antonio Meade Kuribreña. Meade, 49, is the candidate flying the PRI banner in this election, Mexico’s historic “official party,” the party that ruled for over 60 years This is a curious note because he has not been a bonified PRI member. The PRI drafted him in 2017 despite his nonpartisan identity to which he held on for a long time. Why the PRI decided to look for a candidate beyond its own kennel should serve as a juicy bit of political gossip.
Meade, reportedly of Irish and Lebanese origin, is the closest thing in this election to the controversial “technocrats” of the 1980s, meaning the no-nonsense professionals borrowed from their non-political jobs (usually an economist or an engineer) to do government work, as opposed to career politicians. Born in the nation’s capital-city-megalopolis, Meade too could be described as a brahmin, like Anaya above, having enjoyed a well-heeled upbringing by professional parents and undoubtedly familiar with posh country clubs. You can tell just by looking at the guy.
This may be part of the reason why AMLO refers to him too, in addition to Anaya, as belonging to the “political mafia.” (The enmity between the candidate from Tabasco and Anaya and Meade sounds to me more a like class- and race-based resentment, which it might very well be, especially when you consider educational backgrounds. This is not unusual in Mexico.)
Like Anaya, Meade also earned a Ph.D. abroad. He obtained it from non-other than Yale University! This is one of our elitist universities. He also earned two professional degrees from top Mexican universities, the UNAM, and the ITAM[7], the latter being Mexico’s most influential school of economics and finance. He’s got kudos, no doubt! With these diplomas, he went right to the top (Minister of Budgeting and Finance, for example). Having opened the door to very heady government circles, he worked both for the PAN and for the PRI. He has been presented as the least partisan-minded candidate.
His performance in the 2d debate was equal to Ricardo Anaya’s act. He was up to snuff on every issue discussed and he offered well-informed specifics, like combating drug trafficking and gun-smuggling across the U.S.-Mexican border with a powerfully organized border and customs force, he recognized the existence of economic inequality in Mexico and offered a crash investment program for the poorer states in the south, etc.
The PRI works as an advantage for him and his handicap too. It’s a benefit because it is the most powerful party in terms of experience, manpower and financing. It’s a handicap because it comes with the heaviest moral baggage. The nation can blame it for most of its ills, along with its accomplishments, of course, but government corruption and unbelievable blunders, past and present, dis-empower it. Outgoing Enrique Peña Ñieto’s administration exemplifies this very well: it approved some sorely needed reforms at the beginning of his term but began limping with the hard-to-believe-outright disappearance of 43 students in Guerrero. Its inability to curb the drug cartels from murdering each other out in the open made matters worse.
El Bronco Rodriguez
Jaime Heliodoro Rodríguez Calderón (“El Bronco”). Rodriguez’s nickname basically says it all: wild bronc. At 60, he is independent minded, brash, and straight-talking, in a Mexican cowboy sort of way, a true ranchero. He’s a northerner from Nuevo León; like we would say, a westerner. Dirt poor, one of ten children, a local merchant discovered him and paid for his college. He worked hard, breaking molds left and right, leading his classmates to support scholarships for poor students like himself. No other presidential candidate in the 20th century rises from a humble background like he does; AMLO may come close. None come close to Benito Juarez in the mid-1800s who rose from his Indian origins to become Mexico’s most famous president. AMLO likes to compare himself to Juarez.
Benito Juarez
Because it rides the pathway to the Texas border, Nuevo León was overrun by aggressive and murderous drug cartels circa 2012, so when El Bronco ran for mayor locally he hardened his view on how to quell them. The drug criminals retaliated; they wanted him dead. He stood up to them, and to corrupt local politicians too, when he competed for governor as an independent. He won, a truly exceptional feat; a historical first for Mexico. Against all Mexican political conventions, he has called for the adoption of capital punishment, and the chopping of hands for corrupt politicians too!
He is running for president as an independent in 2018, a first, once again, and he does not enjoy party support nor financing, other than the resources INE provides. He courageously accepts derisive disapproval from many people, even from haughty reporters on main line TV networks, like Televisa.[8] He gets dismissed not only for what he claims he would do about corruption and drug trafficking but also for his style, his speech, and his manner. Some of his solutions for social and economic problems sound ingenuous. He exudes the man-of-the-street, without a doubt, and he is last in the polls too.
His performance in the debate didn’t increase his chances of gaining supporters even though he revealed intimate knowledge of, and sympathy for, Mexico’s marginalized population. He stood as the odd man out.
What’s the bottom line? Answer: the candidate who performed the worst in the 2nd debate is way ahead in the polls. Does that make any sense? Did our own presidential election make any sense?
Go figure! Or, as Mexicans would say, ve tu a saber!
A caveat about me and this article.
While I expect mostly Americans will read this article, there may be some Mexicans who might happen upon it, so I offer the following caveat: I don’t live and breathe in Mexico’s political atmosphere nor have I suffered personal losses of any kind resulting from Mexican political relationships, and so I can see the possibility that my comments may ring shallow to some of these folks. I strive for the fewest possible words here, so this may add to the problem.
I do expect that my views will fall far from the harsh sarcasm that some Mexicans cynically toss at their political system, and I, of course, don’t question that. I know enough about Mexican politics, past and present, to say that the naysayers surely have their reasons to feel as they might. Thirty or so years ago, the government didn’t like critics and some of these cynics may hold a bad memory of those days, but things have changed considerably. In any case, I, a Mexican American who has studied Mexico for many years and lived there in the past, offer my remarks for what they may be worth.
