Asymmetrical Information

How exactly does this have anything to do with the American right? Is the American left responsible for Saddam's torture and murder (after all, a whole lot of lefties marched to keep him in power, whereas no righties have marched to support anyone in Mexico)?

As a Right-leaning American, I take no responsibility for the undemocratic tactics of both major Mexican parties, the leftish PRI and the righist-business oriented PAN. both of them are trying to block the far left Mexico City mayor from the presidential ballot, and this is deeply wrong. Mexico below the surface is, I think, more unstable than most Americans realize, and the attempt to keep the mayor off the ballot is both wrong and dangerous. I surmise the Kleiman cares little for what actually happens in Mexico, he is merely using this as a tactic to smite Chimpy BusHitler.

As a right-winger, I believe what those people need in Mexico is for us to come down there in our pith helmets and spats and show those nimrods how to run a country. A few generations under our colonial rule will possibly be enough to teach those simpletons a thing or two about such things as the rule of law and basic free market economics. If they refuse to submit to our instruction, then to hell with them; shut the borders and let them stew in their own juices. They have no excuses for being such wasterels and failures. Damn it pisses me off when I see a country with such an abundance of natural resourses and so much poverty those IDIOTS those WORTHLESS FOOLS. I'm not joking, someone needs to slap those people around some. And don't get me started on the rest of Latin America!

Yes I know I spelled "resources" wrong, tough shit.

How exactly does this have anything to do with the American right?

It does not, Apparently in Mark Kleiman’s worldview if we don’t demand that our government to get Mexico to change its laws in order to allow a criminal on their presidential ballot because he’s closer to Mark Kleiman’s worldview, we’re somehow “hypocrites.”

I dont think democracy is a cure for everything wrong in every country. Im much more concerned with how Mexico effects the US, then with their internal political matters. They could put Saddam in power as President and if he closed the border down and negotiated trade agreements more favorable to US citizens then NAFTA I'd gladly tip a Tequila to him. Seriously, how much has democracy helped the Mexican people to this point?

Note that this is one case where the U.S. has enormous potential power, if we choose to use it discreetly; if the word gets through to the Mexican business class that authoritarianism is bad for trade, the PRI and the PAN will figure out a way to make Sr. Lopez Obrador's legal troubles disappear. - Mark A.R. Kleiman

I guess I'm a little confused about exactly when the "reality-based community" is in favor of strong-arming foreign governments and when it isn't.

Having a legitimate democratic process is far more important than having someone whose policies I agree with in office, and I hope that other libertarians and conservatives feel the same way. - Jane Galt

It depends. If the "legitimate democratic process" results in the eradication of private property, the government-enforcement of sharia, herding all [insert ethnic, religious, or ideological minority of choice here] into concentration camps, or any one of a number of nightmarish schemes that 51% of a given population might conceivably vote in favor of, then I'll take a (more) benevolent dictator any day. Democracy, if severely limited by a strong constitution, is surely the best and fairest way to run a government, however it doesn't deserve anywhere near the amount of fetishization it receives in the West these days. Two cheers for democracy (if that many), three cheers for freedom!

Incidentally, it irks me when people refer to a law as having a "spirit" which extends beyond it's "letter" (invariably in a way that the person who invokes this notion fervently approves of), as if there is often some ineffable je ne se qua to a law that our tongue-tied legislators can't quite put into words. Call me a strict constructionist, but laws are not poetry, and if our legal terminology fails us to the degree that they are wide-open to any touchy-feely exegesis we feel like applying, we may as well not write them down at all.

tough shit - big john

Hey! You heard the lady, this is a family blog.

I guess I'm a little confused about exactly when the "reality-based community" is in favor of strong-arming foreign governments and when it isn't.

It shouldn’t be. Just remember if it might advance some interest of the United States, they’re generally against it. If it might hamstring or be adverse to some interest of the United States, they’re generally for it.

As far as this being a “family blog” since our beloved hostess has seen fit to drop the F-bomb a time or two in her front page article, I doubt that it makes much difference what we post in the comments section. Still, her blog, her rules.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, I am a Goldwater man, and a borderline libertarian. I think the comments here sum up why so many people (nearly half the country, but not quite) are skeptical about the stated policy goals of todays conservatives. Jane is right, democracy (and I'll add the rule of law) is more important than whether or not someone agrees with us. It has to do with good old fashined conservative values. Truth, trust and standing up for what is right. How can someone claim to be conservative if they are tied up in liberal relativism so deeply that they change with the wind? If Bush is serious about his stated policy goals, then yes, some pressure should be applied to this. If he is just fobbing us off and really only supports American dominince, then he should only care about whether or not they are our 'friends'.

As I said, I don't see how any of the comments I've read on this page could be conservative. A conservative means what they say, and stands by the moral and legal code that they stand for.

You know, if it is possible to violate the spirit of a law while staying within the letter, that's bad lawmaking, not a left wing conspiracy. After all, the right impeached Clinton on a technicality that was not at all within the spirit of the law.

Violating a judge's order sounds an awful lot like what is called contempt of court in the U.S. While in the U.S., contempt of court is not a felony, it can be a crime of moral turpitude which is a disqualifier for holding certain offices.
Before I take a position on this, I'd have to know an awful lot more about Mexican law and about how their political system deals with similar matters than I presently do.

Nick

It shouldn’t be. Just remember if it might advance some interest of the United States, they’re generally against it. If it might hamstring or be adverse to some interest of the United States, they’re generally for it.

"They"? Who are "they" exactly?

"They" are the poopy left wingers who whine about Bushhitlerchimpy all the time. America bad, anti-america good. You know the song, hum along . . .

Mark Kleiman is entitled to demand that dem debbil Right Wing Americans stand up and get involved in Mexican politics. As seen so far others are free to invite him to buzz off. Senator Goldwater would have asked why it was the business of the United States to tell Mexico once again how to run their elections...

I frankly am more concerned about President Bush's refusal to enforce law on the border...starting with the law that regulates how people are to enter the country. It's all very well to fret about whether the Institutional Revolutionary Party and the National Action Party are playing fair in Mexico City, but that doesn't affect citizens of these United States nearly as much as the hundreds of unknown persons illegally entering the country every single day through the Naco - Bisbee area alone.

Mexican government has always been a corrupt mess. Nothing short of a miracle could change this, and I don't think the American right possesses divine powers.

Hey, we can't get Washington state to run clean elections, so exactly what are we expected to do in Mexico.

What in hell is Mark Kleiman talking about? I feel absolutely no moral or pragmatic obligation to speak out on this matter. However, I am somewhat flattered. I previously had no idea that I presumably possessed God like powers to rule the world. It certainly isn’t reflected in my paycheck.

"...... then I'll take a (more) benevolent dictator any day. Democracy, if severely limited by a strong constitution, is surely the best and fairest way to run a government, however it doesn't deserve anywhere near the amount of fetishization it receives in the West these days. Two cheers for democracy (if that many), three cheers for freedom!"

Democracy by itself doesn't fix everything, but without it, what are the chances for achieving freedom? To enforce basic rights, one needs checks and balances (such as "majority rule with minority rights"), which are hard to come by under even a benevolent dictator. And the chance of finding a truly benevolent, and competent, dictator is extremely low.

Democracy done poorly can be pretty bad, but most other systems stink even when they're done relatively well. Mexico still has a long way to go, but it won't get there any faster if it backs off from what little progress it has made.

"Sure I'm corrupt, but not as corrupt as they are," has been and always will be a pathetic excuse. He knew that breaking the law would ruin his political future, and consciously chose to do so anyway. This man knew the risks and broke clearly deliniated rules.

Feel free to call this prosecution bullsh--, err, what ever you will, but keep in mind this man had a choice, and stepped over the line on his own.

The last I checked, democracies don't set aside their constitutions just because a candidate was popular. As I recall hearing long ago, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time."

Americans need to help Mexicans establish the rule of law, which seems to be the necessary and sufficient precursor to successful democracy, OR we need to build an impregnable wall from San Diego to New Orleans.

Which do you choose? We can't absorb all the people in Mexico and places more southerly who have been or will be shortchanged by the Latin American failure to establish the rule of law.

The election of leftist heads of state in Latin America is going to be nothing but trouble. It will be interesting to see how many of them will be democrats, and how many will be one-man-one-vote-one-time leftists of the Chavez-Castro-Allende cut. The Mexicans have been pretending to have elections for a century, re-electing PRI candidates without except until the accidental election of PAN last time.

Antiwar.com is way ahead of the curve on this, as usual:

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5516

Glenn Reynolds says this isn't his issue, but why should democracy in, say, Lebanon come ahead of what's happening south of the border?

Antiwar.com can claim to be "ahead of the curve on this" because it can be said to have been on every side of an issue, depending on the circumstances.

Do this for us Justin, offer a recommended course of action for Mexico that hasn't already been done the the US at some time in the past 5 years for one country or another. Just one recommendation, so that you can righteously complain when don't do because he have never, ever done it before.

Or does it all depend on context, i.e. the ideology of the occupant of the White House or some party (in the generalized sense) in the downtrodden foreign country. If so, you're all "blah, blah, blah."

My personal opinion, I think Justin would be happiest if Mexico was run by a Hugo Chavez clone no matter how he came to power. His complaint over the judicial chicanery is hot air grasping for an excuse. Just like many righties are just fine when some thug runs a country, but is friendly to US interests, and respond with "Sure, he's a bastard, but at least he's our bastard."

Opportunism.

I sure hope some Mexican government official (preferably Vicente: or, better yet, his American patrons in Washington)is reading this, because I don't want to waste these cool recommendations:

Recommendation #1: Let Obrador run in the 2006 election.

Recommendation #2: Get new computer equipnment: remember last time the PRD was close to winning, the computer counting the votes had a "breakdown" and the PRI came out ahead after the "problem" was "fixed"....

Jane, just out of curiosity why would it be a BAD thing, as in contrary to “liberty and justice for all,” to say that the people of Mexico have a right to set their own standards for who can run for office even if that means disqualifying someone who broke the law by abusing the power of eminent domain in order to seize someone’s private property?

Seems to me that libertarians and conservatives ought to not only support the right of the people of Mexico to use that as a disqualification, we ought to put pressure on our elected officials to make that a disqualification for running in the United States as well.

I think that libertarians and conservatives ought not get trapped into hand-waving "liberty and justice for all" as some set of ideals that are malleable from one people to the next. Talk about relativism!

Mexico should be allowed to use this as a disqualification to run for political office. But what is ugly about this is the horrid appearance that this is being used selectively. It doesn't pass a smell test, so-to-speak. The use of this law now is unjust because it's enforcement appears arbitrary. Suddenly, right now, they want to apply the law.

As much as rampant corruption, on a scale that horrifies the average cynical American, gives Mexico a bad reputation, so does the unpredictability of this kind of enforcement.

My brother's wife is from Mexico so I have more than passing familiarity (doesn't make me any authority, though). I can't begin to express how sensitive they are about American meddling, or pushiness, in their affairs. IMO, for America to take an official foreign policy position on this situation would only anger one significantly large segment of the Mexican population, IMO.

I don't exactly know how the US "patrons" (talk about a fuzzy, demogogic term, *shrug*) would "Let Obradro run", or give Mexico "new computer equipment", would be something that the White House could do. Unless you're working with conspiracies...

I think the U.S. State Department is fully capable of handling this professionally and diplomatically. Doesn't mean I'm not worried...

Thorley-
I don't think that PAN/PRI conspiring to keep this guy off the ballot can be equated to "the Mexican people setting their own standards for who can run for office".

As for bringing this custom up here, I believe it as a very bad thing when a faction manages to criminalize a policy dispute. The Iran/Contra affair grew out of one such attempt here (the Boland amendment).

Thorley: what's happening in Mexico basically seems to be a frame-up. The attorney general (a political appointee) brought a case against Obrador over, of all things, an access road to a hospital. Obrador was cited for contempt of court. As Mayor, he has immunity from these sorts of things because it's a legitimate function of his office; Congress voted to strip him of this immunity. It's as if the national Republican party arranged to have Mayor Bloomberg prosecuted for violations of the Clean Air Act, and then used that to keep him from running for president. it adheres to teh letter of the law, but egregiously violates the spirit.

Democracy by itself doesn't fix everything, but without it, what are the chances for achieving freedom? To enforce basic rights, one needs checks and balances (such as "majority rule with minority rights"), which are hard to come by under even a benevolent dictator. And the chance of finding a truly benevolent, and competent, dictator is extremely low.

Democracy done poorly can be pretty bad, but most other systems stink even when they're done relatively well...

Ann, I agree with you. My point was not that democracy is undesirable, or irrelevant, or bad in any intrinsic way. To the extent that political power should exist at all, I would prefer to see it wielded by elected representatives. However, note the words that I chose to emphasize it that last sentence. Much of our modern political rhetoric seems to blindly exalt democracy (or "self-determination", a formulation in vogue among the Left which means essentially the same thing) above all else. Well, if "self-determination" means that 51% of Pakistanis are ready, willing, and able to vote Taliban Version II into power (I'm not necessarily saying they would, it's just an example), I'll take Musharaff any day.

To summarize, I stand by my disagreement with Jane's generality that "having a legitimate democratic process is far more important than having someone whose policies I agree with in office". If the policies of a favored candidate are sufficiently odious, and there are no constitutional or other restrictions against him implementing them, then we are looking at a place that isn't ready for democracy as far as I'm concerned. (I'm not talking about Mexico, just generally)

* * *

Since all I know about the Obrador situation is what I’ve been reading here, I can’t really argue that it is or isn’t “egregious” or “beyond the pale” as far as political maneuvering goes. However, I can think of very little precedent in the good ol’ US for a political party or candidate refraining from the attempt to exploit every available technicality for political advantage during an election. Well, I guess John Ashcroft not fighting the appointment of Mel Carnahan’s widow would be one rare case that qualifies. Call me a cynic, but I doubt very many people who gave impassioned arguments for either side in the 2000 Florida recount fiasco held such strong principles about hanging chads (etc.) that they would not be arguing the exact opposite if it was to their candidate’s advantage.

The argument that because we want the Syrian army to leave Lebanon we should somehow also interfere in the ongoing Mexican election drama is stunningly specious. The Syrians use their secret police as well as armed gangs to kill people that don't toe the Ba'ath party line. Attempting to equate a quasi-Fascist dictatorship that routinely murders political opponents (sometimes with 200+ pounds of explosive in a car bomb...) with manipulation of the election code by various parties in Mexico City is so over the top it is deserving only of ridicule.

I don't see any persuasive argument for interfering in the Mexican electoral fracas. Suppose that the President of Mexico had decided in late November of 2000 to offer his advice to the United States on how to run an election, what would the response have been?

However flawed the current electoral status of Mexico, it is an improvement over the one-party nation that it was as recently as 15 or so years ago, when voters in some cities such as Ciudad Juarez arrived at polling places that had just opened only to find so many ballots crammed into boxes that it was not possible to add another one...

The Institutional Revolutionary Party had defacto total control for over 50 years, and it was hard for them to give that up; that it was accomplished without violence is a very good sign, given the way the last major change was enacted (1910 - 1923 or so). Again I say, what is the rationale for interfering in their electoral affairs? I'm more interested in some government down there that will convince the oligarchy to give up more economic power, and a government that will cease encouraging emigration to "El Norte".

How evil, they won't let him have inmunity after he broke a law. I really think they should let him compete, because obviously a populist president that ignores the laws is what Mexico needs, just like Venezuela. I mean, it doesn't matters that two of his closest collaborators were catched accepting bribes in one video, or that he obeys the laws he likes and ignores the ones he doesn't, it must be a "compló" as he calls it, involving the DEA, the CIA, the aliens, the PAN, the PRI, the Congress, the Supreme Court. I mean, obviously he is 'the light of hope for the poor' (he called himself that) how could he do anything wrong? Anyway, you lose your right to be elected President if you're found guilty, if he's innocent he'll have to prove it without his inmunity, like every normal citizen would have to do.

"...and how many will be one-man-one-vote-one-time leftists of the Chavez-Castro-Allende cut..."

Exactly.

This Obrador guy seems to be of the "of the Chavez-Castro-Allende cut", and I'm afraid he won't be very libertarian, or even pro-democracy if and when he seizes power. A rabble raising demagogue. Seems his law breaking was intentional, as a publicity stunt.

So it seems to me that scrupulous respect for Mexican law and sovereignity (i.e. doing nothing) is in order. Besides, I don't think that the Conservatives or the US gov. CAN do anything.

I'm puzzled by Jane's opinion.

Daily I'm amazed by how the events of my day-to-day existence inform how I think about world affairs; everything seems to come down to some parenting dilemma or other, which has got to tick somebody off every time I bring it up.

I tend to see us as the "parents" among democratic forms of government - more successful and more stable for longer than any other, including our own mom, depending on where you count from. We have the hard-won practical wisdom of experience. When we seek to "help" other countries learn newly to function as democracies (e.g., Afghanistan and Iraq), it seems to me that we have to treat them like teenagers (full disclosure - my kids aren't this old yet so I'm talking out of the wrong orifice if you know what I mean): provide guidance, provide rules, give them the car keys, then stay up biting our nails until they get home. When, on the other hand, we're faced with a more "mature" democracy's (such as Mexico's) making what we might see as an error, even a serious one, I see those countries as being more like college students or even young adults: parents are wise to let them mess up and try to fix their lives themselves, not stepping in unless asked. We can offer suggestions, in a manner respectful of their autonomy, but it's their life to screw up.

Then of course there are our "peers" in the democratic world, whose governments are as stable and reasonably close to as successful as ours in the orderly transfer of power after free and fair elections, just not quite as old: those we're constrained even from advising in very direct terms unless asked.

I really hate how patronizing this POV sounds. But it does seem to me to hold pretty well, in those circumstances in which we even consider interference in another country's governance, however minor and benign our interference might be.

Thanks for the reply on my site.

"I disagree. Democracy is an institution that is built step by step. If Mexico gets a bad leftish president, but establishes the norm that the government should not manipulate the electoral process to keep rivals from challenging it, I will consider the bargain well worth it. A bad lefty president lasts six years, with no second term. A government that is allowed to manipulate the electoral process, on the other hand, lasts forever . . ."

I think I agree with you more than you took away from my post, which speaks to my poor phrasing of my position.

The part where I disagree with you is that bad lefty Presidents do not tend to last six years with no second term. Bad lefty Presidents do what Hugo Chavez has done, and what Robert Mugabe has done, which is to basically change the system to firmly entrench themselves.

In other words, my guess is that an Orbador government would manipulate the electoral process, on the other hand, so that it could last forever . . .

Without question, if Orbador were to win and not ‘reform’ the system so as to ensconce himself, then that would not be that tragic and would clearly be better than tolerating a corruption of the Democratic process to keep him out. History tells me, however, that Orbador would not behave in that manner, and would take several steps backwards to undermine the Democratic process– which is why I see him being elected as a significant step backwards.

Let him run, and beat him. That's the ticket.

Gerry wrote:
In other words, my guess is that an Orbador government would manipulate the electoral process, on the other hand, so that it could last forever . . .

That has been tried before in Mexican history; Diaz was re-elected over and over again, before being overthrown by force. Every country has its historical "hot buttons", and one of Mexico's is anyone attempting to serve more than one term as President, ever. IIRC the last President of Mexico who tried to regain the office was Obregon, and look what happened to him...

Here are the facts: Lopez Obrador seized private property -- without even claiming eminent domain -- to build an access road to a private hospital. The owner of the land appealed to a judge, who in turn issued a restraining order to allow the legal matter to run its course in court. Lopez Obrador ignored the order and built the road anyway. He did this in a very deliberate manner as if to emphasize his well-known contempt for laws he doesn't agree with. Still, he could have used several legal recourses to avoid being declared in contempt of court, but he chose to ignore those remedies because when you are the "chosen one" you don't need to concern yourself with such mundane things as the rule of law.
Lopez Obrador actually dared congress to strip him of his immunity from prosecution, because he wants to become a martyr of the left to enhance his popularity and also his chances of becoming president. Congressmen of the PRI and PAN parties were dumb enough to oblige him.
Here is for those condescending souls that are always complaining about the lack of both due process and the rule of law in Latin America: we are damned if we do, and equally damned if we don't. Another thing: you think Chavez is bad? Wait until you have an improved version right south of your own border.

Mark Kleiman wants to know what the American right is going to say about the current contretemps in Mexico, [...]

Well, considering that the American right has historically said very little about Mexico, it seems odd to expect them to start talking about it now. Sleaze, corruption, and underhandedness in Mexico are nothing new, and it's generally ignored.

...but if the American left is offering to drop the reactionary BS we've been listening to for the last two years, and support the US doing to Mexico what we did to Iraq, well, I'll meet them at the border.

That guy Obrador broke the law by making a street to the American-British Cowdray (ABC) one of the plushest and most expensive hospitals in Mexico. He got a big bundle of money from the owners of the ABC and he had to comply, even running against the law, a big mistake in a time when all politicians are under heavy scrutiny by the Mexican people. On the other hand most Americans don't have a any idea of what Mexico is really like. We are a lot more advanced in all senses that what many of you believe. Idiotic people thinking of Ghana or Zimbabwe when they speak about Mexico. Mexico is a big country with a super strong culture, light years ahead of your knowledge or understanding of it. Sheer ignorance, product of total lack of interest. The only interest is to try to bring down a superb country like mine. And to finish, if some moron thinks you are going to invade Mexico ROFL! You don't even fancy what would be in store for you if you ever tried. Better cool down, read a little, get more information,and THEN speak out and produce a serious opinion. Obrador is a lefty punk, he acted like the typical agitator in the late 90's...and now he wants to appear so respectable. Hah! He's a little Fidel disguised as a democratic saviour of the country. I don't say what I think of him, being this a familiar blog. Congratulations to the hostess and God bless us all.

Miguel, I'm certainly not trying to compare Mexico to Ghana or Zimbabwe. On all metrics, from quality of government, to economic success, Mexico is clearly light years ahead of African basket cases; it's a middle-income nation.

Nonetheless, I don't think anyone can deny that the PRI's 75 year history of running a one-party state has been bad for Mexico, economically and otherwise. When PAN broke the stranglehold, that was a great day. But if it turns out that all PAN wanted was a piece of the action, rather than a robust democratic process, that will be a huge step backwards.

Mexico is a big country with a super strong culture, light years ahead of your knowledge or understanding of it. Sheer ignorance, product of total lack of interest. The only interest is to try to bring down a superb country like mine.

Hey, Miguel, what I know about Mexico I learned from the Mexicans who came north. There are a lot of them, and what the ones I talked to said about the place wasn't nice. Corruption, no jobs, crooked cops, rigged elections, a crap economy.... it didn't make me want to live there.

Want to improve my opinion of the place? Do something about it. I have no interest at all in bringing the place down- it would be as stupid as setting fire to the apartment next to the one I live in. But if I were to try to do anything to improve things, I'm a meddling gringo sticking his nose where it's not wanted.

What can we do?

"...many will be one-man-one-vote-one-time leftists of the Chavez-Castro-Allende cut..."

I am not aware of any evidence that Allende fits your description. As distasteful as Chavez is, he's actually been through more than one free-and-fair election, and we don't know yet whether he's going to "cancel" further ones. And what's the comparison here, anyway, Pinochet and the no-votes-for-twenty-years-while-I-torture-and-kill-political-opponents style of right-wing authoritarianism?

*Even* if you have some evidence to back up the pattern you propose, you need to show that Obrador is cut from the same cloth. Otherwise, this is the worst kind of guilt by association: he might be one of those other lefty types, so he shouldn't be allowed to run for office? Whatever.

Jane: this is a terrible comparison. The issue with Nader was that his signatures were *forged.* The issue with Obrador, as you point out, is a deliberate change in the law designed with only one purpose: to exclude him from running for government. If you have to stick in some random smack at liberals for having double standards, find one in which there's actually some equivalency between the substance, ok?

I live in Monterrey, a 3.7 million people city in the north, just a 2 hour drive from Laredo.

To begin understanding the political climate you must first know that there really are 3 Mexicos: North, Central, and South; and 3 major political forces: PAN (right conservative), PRI (conservative, center, left, basically whatever needs to be done to win), and finally the PRD the refuge of left ideologists that fled the PRI and created their own party.

The Northern part is industrialized, well educated, and a right leaning area. Imagine a Republican North East USA (if you can!). Plenty of MBA's, financial and industrial sectors, etc. It would be highly unlikely to find mexican illegal immigrants from these states due to good standards of living. Mostly PAN preferences.

The Central part of Mexico highly influenced by Mexico City, it is a densely inhabited area with high rates of incoming migration due to the highly subsidized cost of living in services and taxes, the government does not want a mob composed of almost 20 million angry citizens complaining about an increase to their $0.10 US subway fare or free Colleges, schools, etc. They have grown accustomed to a highly bureacratic economy that hands out goods or services to them. They have benefited the most from 75 years of PRI mandate and have become complacent of the leftist PRD rule which now hands free school list items, meals, or money for elderly folks; but not from the government, but instead as a gift from "Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador" himself. Clearly a promotion of his image with money from the city.

Now, the South; this is the place where most of your banana republic expectations come to life. Ruled by both PRI and PRD, it is integrated by "feudal clans" which fight for political power. Mostly poor, agrarian, uneducated and no expectations out of life. This is where traditionally the PRI has ruled and where corruption, coercion and influence have garnered them enough votes to win federal elections.

Now, with this brief glimpse you can understand why the central part of Mexico is enraged: their free lifestyle was increased by the Mayor of Mexico City, clearly with the objective of gaining popularity to later run for presidential office. While in the North we are all for removing his immunity and starting a due process, if he is guilty, let him hang, so be it.

It all appears to be selective Justice? Yes, no doubt about it, but justice nonetheless.

A most excellent summary by Horacio. Few people in the United States and apparently none in Canada or Europe truly have any idea of the huge difference between northern States of Mexico such as Sonora, Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, etc. and the the southern areas such as Chiapas. It is no exaggeration to say that the haciendado system, with its near-feudal control of the landscape, survives to this day in the southern part of Mexico. I talked once with a college student from a rural part of Mexico, back in 1999. His entire family had moved to a city in the north of Mexico, looking for work. The village they left was more than ready for Y2K, he said: their water comes from a well, their toilet is a privy, their lighting came from kerosene lanterns, there were no computers for miles in any direction...yes, working in a maquiladora was hard, but it allowed such things as a home with electricity, regular visits to a doctor and a dentist, things most people on this website take for granted...

Our leftist friends make much of the gap between rich and poor in the United States. If they honestly went and looked at parts of Mexico, they would be stunned. There are some families so wealthy that it bogggles the mind; anyone for a glass garage door so that the Mercedes and BMW's inside can be viewed by visitors to the house without opening said door, just to pick one example?

And what of the poor? Talk to some of the US Border Patrol agents as I have, about the people they intercept carrying all their belongings in a plastic shopping bag, who not only don't speak English, but cannot read Spanish and don't speak it very well either. Poor people from rural areas that remind one of the worst of Appalachia circa 1930...

In some ways, the political conflict in Mexico is an old one; middle class against aristocrats, with some poor taking the noblesse oblige and siding with the aristocracy, and other poor hoping to become middle class & opposing the aristocracy. Libertarianism isn't a force on that kind of landscape...

Again, it is a tremendous relief to see someone from industrial Mexico explaining part of the reality on the ground to this audience. Well done!

Ellipsis, horatio,

Thanks for the informative comments. I've learned something.

Antiwar.com is way ahead of the curve on this, as usual:

Thanks for the chuckle, Justin.

I just want to get this clear, the law wasn't changed to affect Lopez Obrador, He was the one that decided to ignore the laws even after he received 4 warnings in 11 months. So it's not like it was a frame-up or a mistake, not to mention his governement has a whole bureau to deal with that kind of problems, maybe he should had invested more in that instead of using Governement funds to defend himself. And if he's compared to Chavez is because he shares the same messianic and populist tendencies.

Anyway, if he is found innocent he'll be able to run for President, otherwise he'll have to pay a fine and forget about being 'the light of hope for the poor against the huge conspiracy of darkness'.

I still cannot believe that some people think that enforcing a Constitution is changing the laws, specially since that constitution has been there for 88 years two months and seven days.

It all appears to be selective Justice? Yes, no doubt about it, but justice nonetheless.

Selective justice is not justice at all. Inherent in the concept of justice is no favoritism shown toward anyone and conversely, no singling out of anyone either.

Selective justice is not justice at all. Inherent in the concept of justice is no favoritism shown toward anyone and conversely, no singling out of anyone either.

In a utopia, definitely. Of course, "u·topia" is a compound word, a "place" followed by a negating prefix: literally, a nowhere.

Which is why justice never looks like your ideal description in the real world, although some enforcments thereof come closer than others.

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador won't be the first politician to be prosecuted in Mexico, so I don't know why would anyone complain about Selective Justice in his case, if is proven that he's innocent he'll be able to compete and if he doesn't he'll just do his rabble rousing as he always does.

But you've to understand that the PAN and the PRI didn't do anything evil or illegal, they just follow the laws, something that Obrador should've done and he didn't. He knew about the consequences his actions would carry and he decided to go along with them thus now he should submit himself to the judge and do as much as he can to solve his case as soon as possible, but he won't, because Mexicans love martyrs and victims.

I read Kleiman's entire screed as basically a propanda piece for a Leftist politicians in Mexico and South America, and less as a complaint about the-party-in-power-in-Mexico acting underhandedly.

I disagree with Ellipses and Horatio.

I've worked in Mexico City, and still have many friends who work for investment banks there.

They argue that Obrador is attentive to their needs, and has done more for that city than any other mayor in recent history. They cite the massive renovation of El Centro, or the historical center, as an example. Obrador has forged a very successful private/public partnership to renew an area that had been dilapidated for so many years.

The numbers speak for themselves. Obrador is successful, and has the backing of the Mexican people. 80% of Mexicans opposed the impeachment. According to a recent poll, Obrador has a 30% lead over his closest opponent. Obrador is especially popular among young urban professionals.

What should be in the interest of the United States?

A stronger Mexico, which the PRI/PAN have failed to deliver. During the past 23 years, real GDP per capita has increased 0%.

I can't imagine anyone doing any worse than that.

Joseph wrote:
I disagree with Ellipses and Horatio.
I've worked in Mexico City, and still have many friends who work for investment banks there.

Is that sample representative of the nation of Mexico, where roughly 40% of the population lives below the official poverty line?

They argue that Obrador is attentive to their needs, and has done more for that city than any other mayor in recent history. They cite the massive renovation of El Centro, or the historical center, as an example. Obrador has forged a very successful private/public partnership to renew an area that had been dilapidated for so many years.

Interesting and perhaps worthy in a cultural context. It is a showcase project that is important, but that also does not deal with other pressing issues of the City of Mexico such as air quality, water supplies & other non-flashy problems.

The numbers speak for themselves. Obrador is successful, and has the backing of the Mexican people. 80% of Mexicans opposed the impeachment. According to a recent poll, Obrador has a 30% lead over his closest opponent. Obrador is especially popular among young urban professionals.

That is interesting as well.

What should be in the interest of the United States?

A stronger Mexico, which the PRI/PAN have failed to deliver. During the past 23 years, real GDP per capita has increased 0%.

One of my points over and over has been the bad effects of the fact that 30 to 40 families control a great deal of the wealth in Mexico. How one can disagree with that, and then make this observation (which is likely true) is baffling.

I can't imagine anyone doing any worse than that.

Based on a somewhat cursory knowledge of Mexican and Latin American history, I find it easly to imagine achieving a negative growth rate, although typically it is concealed with a rocketing inflation rate. Argentina has provided this example more than once.

I think it was more like 76% in Mexico city and 50% in the whole Mexico, anyway, the legal system in Mexico is not based on polls or popularity.

I don't think Lopez Obrador will be able to deliver a stronger Mexico, since he already has sunk Mexico city deeply in debt. Building public works is a good way to make yourself popular, even if you don't have the budget for that.

I don't think Lopez Obrador should be exempt of obeying the laws just because he's popular.

If he's achieved his popularity by stealing from a few people to give to the many, then shame on those who would vote for him. And if he's barred from running, maybe the legal system is finally starting to work.

Comments are Closed.