Mexico 2012

[Ghyl Tarvoke]

Ag, can you tell us why Nieto is so unpopular in Mexico City? What makes D.F. so different from the rest of the country in this regard? (apart from the obvious differences between the domineering capital and countryside you get in any country).

[I Am Damo Suzuki]

The "left" I am talking about is, of course, the "illiberal non-Communist left", in the Calles/Obregon-Peron-Kirchner-Chavez tradition. Then, of course,there is APRA - they didn't call themselves FAJistas before WWII for nothing )   Bolivian Morales is a rather special case: but then, Bolivia has never emerged from feudalism, so it is bound to be special.

The Pro-Soviet or pro-China, properly Communist groups, of course, are a special case, but they haven't had that much of a governance experience - baring Cuba, of course (though whether Castro brothers are that far removed from the fascist tradition is worth thinking about).

I did mention notable liberal exceptions. Naturally, the bulk of the Chilean left has been very different, for instance (even pre-Pinochet). So is, post-Vargas, the left in Brasil, I guess. There are other exceptions as well, of course. But the more typical Latin American left is, undeniably, fascist. Whether it does send out the red or yellow or whatever shirts depends on historical circumstances, and not on the ideological aversion to such mode of action.

If you make an aggregation of "liberal" or "acceptabe" (by westerner standards) leftist parties in Latin America (PT, Brazil; PS, Argentina and Chile; some "social democracy" in countries like Costa Rica...) maybe you´ll find that this type is not so uncommon.

Sounds uncompromising your assesment: "the more typical left is fascist". Really, you can say what you want about Evo Morales or leaders like him but never "fascist" (and , oh Dear, he´s "aborigin"). Partially agree with "special cases" like APRA and some people like the Peruvian President´s father but, again, it sounds too steadfast. And like I said before, Perón was not a leftist.  Communists types like Castro or Maoists like Sendero Luminoso must be classified in another section.

[ag]

PS is an all but irrelevant minor party in Argentina - you could have mentioned the now defunct PSD in Mexico, for that matter. Who cares what they are, really. Costa Ricans (Arias types, the PLN) are now perceived in local politics as "right-wingers" - and, anyway, Costa Rica is smaller than many of the Mexican states, hardly could be called a major country.

Whatever Peron was, he wasn't "rigthwing" either, at least within the local political scene. Of course, "peronism" is an omnivorous ideology. But Kirchners are peronists - and you can hardly call the current argentinian government "rightist". Peronism, like PRIism and APRism are the archetypal "Latin left" movements - you'd be hard-pressed to argue that these were not the most influencial such movements in the continents' history.

Brasil and Chile (and, ok, Costa Rica) provide the notable exceptions, which I've mentioned from the outset. But Brasil is a world of its own, with an extremely strange politics, and it is not even Spanish-speaking. So, other than Chile and Costa Rica, where else have you had "liberal leftists" in government of a Spanish American country for any considerable length of time?

Of course, all this merely serves to highlight the inadequacy of the usual "left-right" terminology. What's left in one country, is right in the other and these things even change across time in the same country (see Costa Rica).  My point is precisely that: what is normally considered "left" in Latin America would be considered "right" in contemporary Europe.

[ag]

Ag, can you tell us why Nieto is so unpopular in Mexico City? What makes D.F. so different from the rest of the country in this regard? (apart from the obvious differences between the domineering capital and countryside you get in any country).

PRI hasn't been popular in the City forever - even before democracy it sometimes failed to get a majority within the city. It helped, of course, that until 1997 Mexico City had no home rule and no elected local government - it didn't matter that the presidential candidate would get, say, a mere 45% of the vote locally

When democracy came, Mexico City quickly got a fairly stable PRD/PAN two-party system, with PRI relegated to being a distant third party. The local PRI machine has been inherited by the PRD (Lopez Obrador has been crucial in reconstructing it). So, the machine electorate is now w/ PRD and the City has a larger than normal educated electorate that has been rejecting both the machine politics and the old regime forever. The usual PRI campaign tactics don't work here: what they know best has been taken from them by the PRD, and when they try doing the same thing on the university campuses, all they get is a mass protest and an embarassment.

To sum up, Pena Nieto isn't doing that badly for a PRIista, at least by the standards of the City - he is going to do a lot better than Madrazo did in 2006 (I haven't checked right now, but I have a vague recollection that he's been held to single digits back then).

[ag]

So is your first preference some "irrelevant" third fourth party, and if so who?

Oh, no, not Quadri, god forbid, no (this is the fourth candidate - and there are only four). He is, obviously, the smartest guy in the batch, and he is a proper economic right-winger (by Mexican standards), so, ideologically, I like a lot of what he says. But he is La Maestra's boy - and I wouldn't give my vote to La Maestra for sure. Of the existing four candidates my first preference is, undoubtedly, Vazquez Mota. But she is rapidly collapsing, I am afraid.

[Peter the Lefty]

Most recent poll:
Nieto: 38%
Obrador: 34%
Mota: 23%
Quadri: 4%
I feel really sorry for the Mexican people if these are their choices.  Obrador is an asshole, but I guess he's better than Nieto.  It's still depressing, though. 

[RogueBeaver]

Better an asshole than a dumb tool of organized crime.

[ag]

Most recent poll:
Nieto: 38%
Obrador: 34%
Mota: 23%
Quadri: 4%
I feel really sorry for the Mexican people if these are their choices.  Obrador is an asshole, but I guess he's better than Nieto.  It's still depressing, though.  

That poll has been reported above. And it is only the most recent one from Reforma, not in general. And Lopez Obrador is worse Than EPN. Mercifully, so far it is the only one to show smthg like this.

[Simfan34]

What are the chances that Vazquez Mota might make it to the run-off?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

What are the chances that Vazquez Mota might make it to the run-off?

0%, I'm *very* certain.

[batmacumba]

PS is an all but irrelevant minor party in Argentina - you could have mentioned the now defunct PSD in Mexico, for that matter. Who cares what they are, really. Costa Ricans (Arias types, the PLN) are now perceived in local politics as "right-wingers" - and, anyway, Costa Rica is smaller than many of the Mexican states, hardly could be called a major country.

Whatever Peron was, he wasn't "rigthwing" either, at least within the local political scene. Of course, "peronism" is an omnivorous ideology. But Kirchners are peronists - and you can hardly call the current argentinian government "rightist". Peronism, like PRIism and APRism are the archetypal "Latin left" movements - you'd be hard-pressed to argue that these were not the most influencial such movements in the continents' history.

Brasil and Chile (and, ok, Costa Rica) provide the notable exceptions, which I've mentioned from the outset. But Brasil is a world of its own, with an extremely strange politics, and it is not even Spanish-speaking. So, other than Chile and Costa Rica, where else have you had "liberal leftists" in government of a Spanish American country for any considerable length of time?

Of course, all this merely serves to highlight the inadequacy of the usual "left-right" terminology. What's left in one country, is right in the other and these things even change across time in the same country (see Costa Rica).  My point is precisely that: what is normally considered "left" in Latin America would be considered "right" in contemporary Europe.

Southwards up.

South America.

Classifying Perón as left is quite controversial. Classifying Peronism is even more. As with Vargas, there were fascist and antifascist tendencies amongst the supporters. As there were leftist and rightist wings, not merely groups more on the left or more on the right.
Chile is already out, by your own analysis.
I'm failing to see any relation between leftists and fascism in Uruguay.
Vargas is miles away from being accepted as a leftist inside Brazil, even in his democratic tenure. He was more an aggregator of anticonservative and anticommunist positions. Re-founded PTB was always seen as a conservative party.
There never was a left in Paraguay outside intellectual circles.
Bolivia is also already out.
Well, in Peru your analysis works.
Unless I'm forgetting something really important, in Ecuador as in Uruguay.
I'm really not aware of any relation between Colombian liberals and fascism. But I'm open to information I may lack.
Venezuelan left has an old tradition of antifascism and the more traditional parties got out Chávez coalition early. I also wouldn't relate him with fascism so easily. Which are your points for this relation? I see him much more as having an unsolved relation with Leninism (some weird uncomplete-non-Marxist-Leninism than any fascist concept).
French Guyana is generally listed as Latin-america, but here is not the case (at any understanding).

So, only the one Southern-American country that (this is my very own and personal perception, don't ask me why) I perceive as being culturally like Central America qualifies for your generalization.


Central America.

Well I must confess, my knowledge here is quite fragmentary...

What would be the fascist left in Panama?
Costa Rica is out of the generalization, obviously.
Also, what about Nicaragua? El Salvador? Honduras? I only know their tradition of Marxist left, TBH.


So, for what I can see, It seems that you're extrapolating Mexican politics to the rest of the region. Perón, Vargas, Chávez, are (were) not the PRI.

[I Am Damo Suzuki]

Ag is right when he says that PS is a minor party in Argentina but in the last Presidential Hermes Binner ended second (a fairly distant second) leading a coalition in the same fashion of Frente Amplio (Uruguay). And yes, Costa Rica "social democrats" (like in Guatemala, Dominican Republic and others) are not too leftist in the classical sense. Kirchner goverment represents the presumed "left-wing" of Peronism but as you said in this genuine Argentianian political movement you can see all types of speech, ranging from "neocons" to "radical left". I don`t believe in the leftist convictions of the Kirchner couple, maybe you can find a genuine left in "Proyecto Sur" and an "European left" in the mentioned Binner coalition. I can´t hardly identify the PRI movement with a classical left, it depends on which PRIista president are you talking about. I see many differences between Lázaro Cárdenas and López Portillo.
 
He´s also right when he says that the usual terminology "left-right" doesn´t work in many Latin American countries. But I think that he´s absolutely missing the point when he tries to identify left with fascist totalitarism in Latin America. This continent is pretty complex and every country deserves his own analysis.

[batmacumba]

He´s also right when he says that the usual terminology "left-right" doesn´t work in many Latin American countries.

I don't agree with such kind of statement in any country that is at least semi-industrialized. Well... Maybe on Southeast Asia.

[quote author=yellow brick road link=topic=142171.msg3317028#msg3317028 date=But I think that he´s absolutely missing the point when he tries to identify left with fascist totalitarism in Latin America. This continent is pretty complex and every country deserves his own analysis.
[/quote]

I second this.


BTW, my impression of Mexican politics is that It reached the 1930's 20 years before and got out 70 years after. What about nowadays, does the PRI still have some identifiable wing based on any, at least lose, idea, or are them just a bunch of whores, like the average contemporary Latin-American politicians?

[I Am Damo Suzuki]

He´s also right when he says that the usual terminology "left-right" doesn´t work in many Latin American countries.

I don't agree with such kind of statement in any country that is at least semi-industrialized. Well... Maybe on Southeast Asia.

Probably. My sin here was generalization. Let´s talk about single countries.

BTW, my impression of Mexican politics is that It reached the 1930's 20 years before and got out 70 years after. What about nowadays, does the PRI still have some identifiable wing based on any, at least lose, idea, or are them just a bunch of whores, like the average contemporary Latin-American politicians?

The second (a bunch of w...) fits very well with PRI and Peronists (Kirchner or rightist wings). I don´t feel very happy with the average European politicians, so I will be moderate talking about Latin Americans. Anyway I agree with you.

[Speaker Dereich]

What are the chances that Vazquez Mota might make it to the run-off?

There is no runoff. 1st round is only round.

[ag]

What are the chances that Vazquez Mota might make it to the run-off?

Exactly 0 - same as all the rest. There is not run-off.

[ag]

Well, considering that, by you definition, Argentina has never had consequential left and that Colombian Liberals have always been a lot further from being "left" than either Peron(honestly, Uribe is not such an atypical their representative, if you thing about it), whom you don't want to acknowledge as members of the family, that, basically, tells us, that there has never been a proper (non-Communist) "left" in most of Spanish-speaking America ) BTW, Correa is well within Chavezian tradition (as far as one ca be in a country like Ecuador - and there've been a few others who'd fit the bill even better, if I reacall), APRA (and PRI, for that matter) has been a major influence on Bolivian politics (thin Paz Estenssoro) and Panamanian PRD is, most definitely you standard issue Lat Am "fascist" party:))  In fact, if I go by your definition Argentina, Paraguay and Colombia have never had "proper"  left at all, and all the rest (with, possible exceptions of three smallish countries: Chile, Uruguay and, may be, Costa Rica), have never had any non-Commie left that wouldn't fit my definition (Brazil I don't count - it's not really part of the community, not being Spanish speaking).

[batmacumba]

  (Brazil I don't count - it's not really part of the community, not being Spanish speaking).

[I Am Damo Suzuki]

In the name of God, why is not Brazil a part of the Latin American community? We were talking about Latin and not Spanish America. Brazil is politically and economically integrated in the continent and in fact is the real and almost the only superpower there. And they have a strong desire of being integrated; even the teaching of Spanish language in the school is compulsory.

[batmacumba]

In the name of God, why is not Brazil a part of the Latin American community? We were talking about Latin and not Spanish America. Brazil is politically and economically integrated in the continent and in fact is the real and almost the only superpower there. And they have a strong desire of being integrated; even the teaching of Spanish language in the school is compulsory.

Until Mercosul/r creation, It was very weird for us to be 'classified' together the hispanic countries. The average attitude towards hispanics wasn't too much different of that one can expect of Anglo-americans. We simply understood that we needed to integrate with our neighbours and build stronger cultural relations, in order to develop together. I really don't understand why some countries behave as they want to be the fancy neighbour inside a crappy neighbourhood.
Actually, It is a strong belief in our culture, that neighbours should support one each other. That's why I never understood an old-fashioned idiotic feud between Brazilians and Argentinians, which is, thankfully, fading throughout new generations.
Mexico, being the bigger economy on the north of the region, should keep on building stronger economic relations with Central America. It would be better for the country and for the region.

Is any of the candidates addressing this issue?

[ag]

Central America is not an issue in Mexico: they only remember of its existence when some central american migrants get massacred en route to the US. Other than treatment of migrants (and an occasional hot ambasador's private affair w/ a Mexican pol), nobody ever even remembers those countries exist (well, I don't know, it may be different in Chiapas, I am talking Mexico at large). There are all the requisite free-trade agreements and such, of course, and periodic summits, etc., but those countries are so small, in comparison, nobody, really, is fully aware, whether they are there, or not (well, of course, people tend to know they have soccer teams, as one has to play those to get the spot in the World Cup). Talking about Guatemala on the campaign trail (again, outside of Chiapas) is, probably, as essential, as talking about gaelic football or a mosquito infestation somewhere in Africa: nobody cares.

[Sibboleth]

I saw this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/07/enrique-pena-nieto-mexico-election

...and thought of this thread.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I saw this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/07/enrique-pena-nieto-mexico-election

...and thought of this thread.

Even American coverage of this election is superior.

[politicus]

Central America is not an issue in Mexico: they only remember of its existence when some central american migrants get massacred en route to the US. Other than treatment of migrants (and an occasional hot ambasador's private affair w/ a Mexican pol), nobody ever even remembers those countries exist (well, I don't know, it may be different in Chiapas, I am talking Mexico at large). There are all the requisite free-trade agreements and such, of course, and periodic summits, etc., but those countries are so small, in comparison, nobody, really, is fully aware, whether they are there, or not (well, of course, people tend to know they have soccer teams, as one has to play those to get the spot in the World Cup). Talking about Guatemala on the campaign trail (again, outside of Chiapas) is, probably, as essential, as talking about gaelic football or a mosquito infestation somewhere in Africa: nobody cares.

The countries are small individually, but the regions total population is about 1/3 of Mexicos, so it seems odd that you totally disregard them.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

I saw this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/07/enrique-pena-nieto-mexico-election

...and thought of this thread.

"The rightwing Institutional Revolutionary Party"

lol