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!
Stay alert because something sinister is a brewing in the White House this week before Christmas.
Rumors are flying that President Trump is going to fire Special Counsel, Robert Mueller. The reason seems to be that Mueller’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s campaign last year may ultimately reveal that Donald Trump did indeed have connections with the Russian government, which helped getting him elected. This is treasonous.
If President Trump finds a way to get rid of Mueller, major repercussions will come to pass.
If you are confused about the Russian investigations, here is an article that summarizes things. It is written to provide you the larger idea more quickly. Look at it.
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.
The Making of Donald Trump by David Cay Johnston (Brooklyn: Melville House, 2016), a book review by Carlos B. Gil
The author of this book is a widely recognized investigative crime reporter; I see him interviewed on television from time to time. In 2001, he won a Pulitzer Prize for Journalism for his work on tax dodges and loopholes. Because of the way he works, critics and admirers tagged him the “de facto chief tax enforcement officer of the United States.” I therefore consider his book as credit worthy. He wrote the book as a warning, as I explain below.
I took the time to read The Making of Donald Trump in an effort to comprehend our current president, hoping, in a way, that I might find something redeeming, but I did not. Johnston’s sleuthing and investigating failed to turn up any evidence contradicting the image that Donald Trump has carved out for himself in his first twelve months in office. His tweeting, and his speeches, if they may be called that, serve to confirm Johnston’s findings. Johnston helped me by tracing and explaining some of Trump’s ways of saying and doing things but the point is, that Trump hasn’t changed an iota since Johnston began investigating him.
Because the subject of this book is the President of the United States, I began taking extensive notes, something I do not do for other book reviews that I publish online. I append these notes below for your going-over, if you so wish. They provide more details.
Trump’s apparent “obsession with money,” is something he learned from his ancestors, according to Johnston. His father, Fred, appears to have taught him the tricks of the trade, including his worldview: money means everything, and looks are second in importance. There is no mention of Donald Trump’s mother, by the way.
Despite his silver spoon upbringing, the ways of the Bowry (one of New York’s rough and tumble wards) seem to have gotten stamped on Donald Trump. His closest friends turned out as shady characters, in some cases outright gangsters.
The best example is Roy Cohn, one of America’s most malicious figures, who served as Senator McCarthy’s right hand man, back in the 1950s. McCarthy took it upon himself to find Communists in the U.S. even when then there were not any, and ruined the lives of many people in the process. He quickly became a hated figure and ultimately resigned in disgrace, but Cohn, his lawyer, who looked like a gangster himself, egged him on with wicked malevolence. Cohn taught young Trump to smear anyone who was not friendly: confuse and disarm your critics by attacking them ten times as hard with foul words and false lawsuits. Indeed, we’ve seen this pattern many times, already. The two were close friends.
Johnston’s reasons for writing this book echo my own for reviewing his book and sharing it here. He wrote that he gathered “nearly half a century” of documents to bring them to the attention of American citizens. They “are most important for voters to ponder,” he explained, because they reveal much about “that person’s character. He adds that Donald Trump’s “obsession with money and the trappings of wealth…and his many comments about women, not as equals but objects,” tell us much about him. Moreover, “His vision is, in many ways, not that of a president but of a dictator.” (my emphasis)
Johnston’s deeply felt conclusion about our president is easy to see since Trump entered the White House. His one-sided immigration bans, insulting judges, even his own Attorney General, dismissing the importance of the FBI, and his constant flattering of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s dictator, come to mind immediately, alongside his out-and-out accusations of Hilary Clinton.
The crowning illustration of this tendency, for me, made the news recently when Trump shook hands with the President of the Phillipines, Rodrigo Duterte, who vowed to get rid of drug traffickers. Thousands of Filipinos have died at his command because he accused them of dealing drugs. They didn’t have to be arrested, they didn’t need a courtroom. Duterte’s accusatory finger was all that was needed. Duterte has blood on his hands and is proud of it. He boasted of killing people himself, even when he was a teen ager, “A human. I stabbed him because he starred at me.”
Trump was quoted as saying, “I just wanted to congratulate you because I am hearing of the unbelievable job on the drug problem…Many countries have the problem. We have the problem, but what a great job you are doing…” He may have also kept in mind that his business organization was in the process of building a Trump Tower in Manila.
I do not believe any American president, up to now, would have shaken hands with Duterte or even be seen with him on the same platform, not even the two Bushes, conservative as they may have been. Their moral standards would not have allowed them.
The editors of the New York Times wrote that Trump fawns and smiles, offering “effusive rhetoric” in the company of strongmen like Putin and Duterte. “Perhaps he sees in them a reflection of the person he would like to be.” Amen, to that.
Notes for a review by Carlos B. Gil of The Making of Donald Trump by David Cay Johnston (Brooklyn: Melville House, 2016).
–Johnston has been an investigative crime reporter since the 1980s. In 2001 he won a Pulitzer Prize for Journalism for exposing tax dodges and loopholes, he earned the nickname, the “de facto chief tax enforcement officer of the United States.” ( x). [words in quotations are taken directly from Johnston’s book and the page numbers are placed in parantheses]
–Trump followed the footsteps of his father (Fred) from whom he learned the ways of a landlord: own fancy apartment buildings for well-heeled whites and avoid Blacks and Puerto Ricans. Woody Guthrie rented an apartment in Beach Haven and when he discovered this pattern, he called it “bitch haven” and so he wrote a song about it:
Beach Haven ain’t my home! / No, I just can’t pay this rent! / My money is down the drain, / And my soul is badly bent! / Beach Haven is Trump’s Tower / Where no Black folks come to roam / Old Beach Haven ain’t my home! (35).
–In gathering information, Johnston had lunch with Trump in 1990 (104)
—Chapter 5 “Making Friends” is about Roy Cohn, who was “nearly a second father,” according to Trump himself (33). In the 1950s Cohn became infamous as Senator Joseph McCarthy’s lawyer and adviser; McCarthy was the disgraced legislator who hounded Americans as Communists.
–When the Department of Justice accused Donald Trump and his father for refusing to rent to people of color, Donald Trump sought Cohn’s advice and the two became close friends. Johnston informs us that Cohn served as a lawyer for “two of America’s most powerful Mafia figures” at the time. (39) Cohn taught Donald Trump a lesson that he took to heart: when someone threatens you, you attack that person harder: file a huge lawsuit and wear him or her out in the process (37).
–In a 1973 law suit filed against Donald Trump for racial discrimination in renting his apartments, Trump “folded and settled;” it was “a complete loss for Trump” (38), but he spoke about it as if he had won. He broadcast his own positive angle on the matter, a lesson learned from his father: spin the news in your favor; people won’t know the difference. “Offer a simple and quotable narrative” and then just move forward (38). Trump employed this strategy as a politician.
–When Donald Trump began the construction of the Trump Tower on the Atlantic City boardwalk, he was required to submit to an 18-month personal investigation by state authorities to make sure he was not connected with any gangsters. Trump used his connections, financial and political, to dodge it. As a result, his application to build the Tower was approved in a record 5 months’ time and his shady relationship with Mafioso union leaders was overlooked. He used union labor run by Mafia gangs to build his Trump Tower in record time. See “Trump’s Most Important Deals.” Chapter 6.
—Chapter 7, “A Great Lawsuit.” In 1983 DONALD TRUMP invested into the New Jersey Generals, a football club associated with the USFL (US Football League), which was trying to compete with the NFL; he became part owner of the USFL this way. He thereupon devised a lawsuit against the NFL for monopoly practices arguing that the NFL had violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. He wanted to force the NFL to admit his team and the USFL and thereby share in the NFL’s money making capacity. Aided by his Mafia lawyer, Roy Cohn, he sued the NFL and the court agreed that the NFL had violated the Act; he won on the monopoly part of the lawsuit, but was awarded only one dollar for damages! An appeals court ruled that the NFL had indeed violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by maintaining “monopoly power in the market consisting of major league professional football in the US.” (55)
However, the one dollar damages award meant that the USFL and Donald Trump couldn’t break into the NFL because they had not done the slowly built legwork that the NFL accomplished over many years. Johnston views Trump’s actions as “seeking quick and easy riches from the lawsuit.” (55) Trump appealed to the Supreme Court and it declined to hear the case but required the NFL to send a check to the USFL for 76 cents as interest on the dollar (55). Trump’s strategy to get rich quick via the NFL failed. Years later, however, he issued his own fake news by calling it “a great lawsuit.” As he would do often, he blamed someone else for the loss, his USFL TV associate, calling him a “loser” in disgust. (57) The author emphasizes that DONALD TRUMP employed “a ruinous legal strategy” that “flouted conventional rules of conduct.” (58)
Chapter 8, “Showing Mercy,” has to do with Joe Weischelbaum, a drug trafficker and racketeer friend of President Trump whom he helped and nurtured whenever he got in trouble, even let him live in the Trump Tower after serving time in prison for drug trafficking and tax evasion. Weischelbaum offered Trump helicopter services, confirming the President’s friendliness with shady characters. Johnston suggests that Trump was receiving as yet unnamed services, in addition to piloting the helicopter, but he doesn’t clarify this allegation.
Chapter 9, “Polish Brigade,” looks at Trump’s willingness to cheat and lie in order to get his way, and make money at the same time. In order to build his Trump Tower, on 5th Avenue, New York City, Donald Trump had to tear down the BonWit Teller Department Store. He did so by hiring hundreds of Polish undocumented workers to do the job, all non-union, with no safety standards of any kind, all using sledge hammers! No hard hats, no goggles, no power tools, no face masks, no nothing! In addition, he promised to pay them $4 an hour, and then reneged so that some of the workers went to the extent of threatening the life of the superintendent. Trump had asked Roy Cohn to help him get workers and the Mafia lawyer made it possible by hiring nonunion workers in a pro-union state thanks to his contacts with Mafia-ridden union officials. One worker, Harry Diduck, sued Trump for cheating on the workers and the judge agreed, finding Trump guilty of violating his fiduciary duty to the workers and to the union. Donald Trump settled secretly.
Chapter 10, “Feelings and Net Worth,” reveals Donald Trump’s consistent hiding his net worth in a court room, and out of it. The author writes that Trump lies about it under oath and insists on deliberate ambiguity. In a 2005 lawsuit, he charged an author for undervaluing his net worth. The author’s lawyer asked him under oath what his net worth was and Trump answered, “it varies,” according to how he feels, Johnston added. The judge dismissed the case. (79) The author further remarked that Trump’s ego is imperative. He presents his net worth in high values to bankers, investors, and the public, but low for tax authorities, contractors, or vendors. (95)
Another example regarding net worth involves Mar-a-Lago, his estate in Palm Beach FL. It was originally owned by the heiress of Post Cereal who gave it to the US government for use as a presidential winter home, but the government put it on the market. Donald Trump boasted that he bought it for “cash” in 1985, but this was a lie. He borrowed from Chase Manhattan based on a non-recorded mortgage, guaranteed by his signature, agreeing to pay the loan back on time.
Chapter 11, “Government Rescues Trump,” examines Donald Trump’s mismanagement of his Atlantic City casinos, the Trump Castle and the Trump Plaza, between 1986 and 1990. He drained the cash out of them to the tune of $375 million. (87) As a result, in 1990, he could not pay his bills. Consequently, his creditors took over the casinos to try to make sense of the financial mess and discovered that Trump had borrowed from 70 banks at once, owing them all money and with no way to pay them. The bottom line of this story is that the New Jersey Gaming Commission overseeing the economic functioning of Atlantic City decided Trump was too big to fail and ultimately agreed to rescue him at a great loss to the State of New Jersey. In the spring of 2016, during his campaign, he admitted that he borrowed “knowing you can pay back with discounts. And, I’ve done very well with debt. Now, [I know that] I was swashbuckling, and it did well for me…” (93)
Chapter 12, “Golf and Taxes” describes Donald Trump’s managing property taxes to his advantage by finding a way to devaluate his property. His Trump National Golf Club Westchester, 30 miles from the New York Trump Tower, is an example. He bought a failed golf course there in the 1990s, fixed it up by adding a clubhouse, and so on. Members paid $300,000 initiation fees (including Bill Clinton). Boasting that the value of the course now rose to $50 million he declared the tax value as $1.4 million. When news reports publicized this unusual devaluation, Trump upped the declared value to $9 million. A local legislator complained bitterly that the local county was subsidizing a billionaire “so he can enjoy even more profits at that property.”
When a big storm hit the area and water run off flooded the municipal swimming pool near the golf club, obligating the city to spend money to clean it up, Trump refused to cooperate. It was the city’s fault, he insisted. The suit was unresolved when Trump began his presidential campaign. Johnston added that other golf courses owned by Donald Trump reveal similar chicanery on his part.
Chapter 13, “Income Taxes,” lets the author explain why Donald Trump can boast he can pay little or no incomes taxes: Congress allows real estate professionals to take “unlimited tax deductions against their other income.” Therefore, in 1992 and 1993, Donald Trump “had no income tax obligations” because “he had losses so large that he could apply them to future tax seasons.” (108)
Chapter 14, “Empty Boxes” is about Donald Trump buying expense jewelry worth $15,000 and mailing it out of state to save on the sales tax. When New York auditors discovered this, he avoided prosecution by cooperating and settling with them to avoid back taxes.
Chapter 15, “Better than Harvard” takes a look at Trump University in New York, an outright fraud. In 2005, Donald Trump announced to people interested in signing up that, “We’re going to have professors and adjunct professors that are absolutely terrific—terrific people, terrific brains, successful! We’re going to have the best of the best.” (118) We’re going to teach you better than business schools can teach you.” (118) These were all lies.
When the State of California sued Donald Trump for civil fraud about it, in 2012, the California Attorney General, Rachel Jensen, asked him to identify any one person in the faculty. He could not. He couldn’t remember even one. They were not real professors. They were real estate agents posing as faculty, “one managed a fast food joint.” (118)
The State of Texas investigated his Trump University seminars and discovered they were subterfuges for selling “Gold Elite” packages for $35,000.
The bottom line is that “the desperate and the gullible” paid Trump about $40 million dollars for what turned out to be the outcome of high-pressure salesmanship.
Chapter 16, “Trump Charities.” Johnston writes, “These day Donald Trump calls himself “an ardent philanthropist” but there is almost no public record that he has made much in the way of charitable gifts, and certainly not gifts in line with his claimed wealth of more than $10 billion. (132)
Chapter 17, “Imaginary Friends.” In this chapter, Johnston shows that in the 1980s Donald Trump made it a practice to impersonate a public relations officer for himself, often using the name John Baron, and feed reporters information that made him look like he was closing a lucrative business deal, or how “this or that woman was in awe of him.” (135) Libby Handro’s unflattering film, Trump: What’s the Deal, illustrates this allegation and it remains on YouTube even though Trump threatened Handro with a lawsuit if she went public with it. (138)
In Chapter 18, “Imaginary Loves,” the author writes that Trump also used this mode of deception to boast about his male prowess. Johnston describes how “beautiful” women often looked for him or called him.
Chapter 19, “Myth Maintenance” reviews two core strategies that Trump has employed to manage his public image, one he has “spent decades creating, polishing, and selling.”
A) “He exploits a common weakness in news reporting” which is an avoidance by reporters to analyze and insert themselves, so they try to stick to the facts. Trump’s objective is to strike fear in his critics by threatening to sue, even when he knows he is going to lose. This was the case with Tim O’Brien and his 2005 book, Trump Nation (78-79). O’Brien reported that Donald Trump was inflating his self-worth. Johnston quotes Trump as saying, “I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.” The court dismissed Trump’s lawsuit but O’Brien’s publisher had to pay legal fees. (147)
(B) The second strategy is that he “distorts information, contradicts himself, and blocks inquiries into his conduct by journalists, law enforcement, business regulators and other people’s lawyers.” (140) Trump’s track record in public office amply demonstrates this.
David Cay Johnston identifies Trump’s friends as shady people. One is Joseph Cinque, a drug mobster, also known as Joe No Socks, who claimed attending Trump’s New Year’s parties. Another of his friends is Felix H. Satter, a “convicted stock swindler.” (162).
Why JOHNSTON wrote this book: He writes that he collected “nearly half a century” of documents regarding Trump’s conduct. He believes these documents “are most important for voters to ponder” about. Then he added if you examine someone’s conduct “you gain a better understanding of that person’s character. Donald Trump’s “obsession with money and the trappings of wealth…and his many comments about women not as equals but objects” tell us much about him (206). “His vision is, in many ways, not that of a president but of a dictator.” (209)
Today the editors of The New York Times published a spectacular rebuke of President Donald J. Trump that I believe has no historical precedent and you should know about it, if only for that reason. You may read the full editorial in the attachment below but here are the highlights:
“With each day, President Trump offers fresh proof that he is failing the office that Americans entrusted to him…This, in essence, is where we are now: a nation led by a prince of discord who seems divorced from decency and common sense.[my emphasis]”
As only one example of his “failing the office” he holds, the editors properly called his penchant for twittering as “twitter bursts of anti-historical nonsense.” I would say twitters that betray his infantile mind. The latest one cites General John Pershing stopping Islamic terrorists in the Philippines a hundred years ago by killing them with “bullets dipped in pig’s blood,” suggesting our soldiers should imitate him. Only an undeveloped intellect, a man who is still a child, would make such a claim publicly—and he is our president!
As a measure of our national “despair,” the editors write, “we find “ourselves strangely comforted” by his inability to carry out his half-baked ideas, like “destroying the Affordable Care Act [Obamacare],” or fully implementing his “demonstrably cruel deportation policy,” and, I would add, building his border wall, and scuttling plans against global warming.
“Here is yet another oddity,” the editors remind us (and I am glad they did because otherwise it would fly past us without our giving it a second thought). As Americans we are proud of our democratic civilian society, free of military dictators, yet Mr. Trump appointed three military men as top aides (John Kelly, the new White House chief of staff; H. R. McMaster, the national security adviser; and Jim Mattis, the secretary of defense). Why does he willy-nilly violate our important political tradition by having three generals help run our country? The answer is, “to stop Mr. Trump from going completely off the rails.” (God succor us, right?).
In my young-man-hood, I proudly served in the State Department helping to press for our nation’s interests diplomatically, but under Mr. Trump the State Department “has been robbed of expertise and traditional diplomacy [and it] has been marginalized,” which many of us consider a gigantic mistake.
Lastly, the editors find comfort with “signs that our democratic system is working to contain Mr. Trump” but what are we to think or make of the Americans (a small minority) who blindly support him? “The deeper question…is..[a] moral [one]…will they continue to follow a standard-bearer who is alienating most of the country by embracing extremists” including white supremacists? What’s the answer?
In closing, the editors refer to Mr. Trump’s statements about Charlottsville: “He chose to summon not America’s better angels, but its demons.” I agree.
Again I say: how low we have come! How can we regain what we’ve lost!?
KENMORE, WA. We Became Mexican American narrates the story of a family emigrating from Mexico to the United States in the 1920s. Author and family member, Carlos B. Gil, tells how his folks settled against all odds to pursue the American Dream in southern California. This award-winning book offers you the following:
It reviews what the Latino immigration experience represented for the author’s family,
It explores the cultural shock of arriving in the U.S. for the first time,
including the difficulties of raising children in a new culture,
It unveils the cultural conflicts inside the family as the children began growing up in America,
It describes living in a Mexican barrio near Los Angeles, California, and it
It discusses the personal process of slowly becoming Mexican American.
We Became Mexican American was awarded “BEST BIOGRAPHY” in two book competitions in the United States in 2013. And, in 2015 it won an “HONORABLE MENTION in Biography/Autobiography” at the 2015 Book Festival in Amsterdam (The Netherlands). The 2013 honors came from The 15th Annual International Latino Book Award ceremony held at the Cervantes Institute in New York City, May 30, 2013: 1) Best Biography in English and 2) Best Latino Focused Work. On March 8th his book also won Best Biography at the 2012-2013 cycle of the Los Angeles Book Festival for independent authors and publishers. As a result, his book “sits” at “The Table of Honor,” digitally speaking, which you can visit at: http://tableofhonor.com/?product_cat=biographyautobiography ).
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)
2013 BEST BIOGRAPHY, at the 2012-2013 cycle of the Los Angeles Book Festival March 8th for independent authors and publishers.
2013 THE TABLE OF HONOR at http://tableofhonor.com/?product_cat=biographyautobiography for “the best of international book festivals.”
2013 BEST BIOGRAPHY IN ENGLISH at the 15th Annual International Latino Book Award ceremony held at the Cervantes Institute in New York City, May 30th.
2013 BEST LATINO FOCUSED NONFICTION BOOK at the 15th Annual International Latino Book Award ceremony held at the Cervantes Institute in New York City, May 30th.
2015 HONORABLE MENTION IN BIOGRAPHY/AUTOBIOGRAPHY at the 2015 Book Festival in Amsterdam (The Netherlands).
2016 BEST BOOK IN THE CATEGORY OF BIOGRAPHY from Pinnacle Book Achievement Award, National Association of Book Entrepreneurs, Winter.
2017 Featured on the front cover of Book Dealers World (vol. 2 no. 38 Spring) National Association of Book Entrepreneurs.
We Became Mexican American was published in 2012 by XLibris and a revised edition in 2014 by The GilDeane Group.
