Posted by: McQ on Monday, July 03, 2006 Reading through an article by James C. McKinley Jr. in the NY Times about the now completed Mexican Presidential election, several interesting things caught my eye. First, two of the candidates are in a dead heat. The PRI (Institutional Revolutionary Party) which ruled Mexico, exclusively for 70+ years until defeated by Vincente Fox's National Action Party in the 2000 presidential election, is out of it. The two candidates in the dead heat represent the right and left of the political spectrum. The PRI's candidate had tried to position himself as the centrist candidate. Apparently Mexican voters aren't in the mood for compromise in this particular election. The rejection of the centrist platform left voters essentially choosing between "stay the course" on the right or radical change on the left. It appears that voters who cast ballots for Felipe Calderón of the National Action Party (the current ruling party under Fox) either approved of the policies of the Fox administration or thought they needed more time to develop. Calderón's platform addressed jobs and the economy with a more free market approach: Mr. Calderón, 43, said he would create jobs through securing more private investment and by cutting taxes.The taxes Calerón is talking about cutting are corporate taxes. Calderón, is a conservative former energy minister and is backed by business leaders. On the other hand, those voting for Andrés Manuel López Obrador (former Mayor of Mexico City and an acknowledged leftist) are voting for radical change. Obrador has been mostly backed by the poor and has said said he would spend $20 billion on social programs and public works to jump-start the economy. So we have, essentially, a replay of various election scenarios which have played out within Central and South America within the last few years, with mixed results in terms of outcome. For instance leftist candidates have won Venezuela and Bolivia, but the right has held them off in other contests. As McKinley notes, in terms of its impact on the US: At stake in the contest is whether the country remains on a conservative track and stays a firm United States ally or joins a trend that has brought several leftists to power in Latin America in recent years, weakening Washington's influence.I'm coming to the conclusion, as I watch these various elections unfold that the real lesson of socialism still hasn't been learned. It appears many still buy into the lie that true socialism can and will work and that its past failure in various parts of the world isn't due to the bankruptcy of the ideology, but instead lays in its poor execution. Of course Venezuela, buoyed by increased oil wealth, is only helping to perpetuate that pernicious lie. On the other hand, the rule of right-wing oligarchs has caused the citizens of these various countries to cast about for various alternatives to the status quo and the siren song of social and economic equality is powerful to those suffering under the present regime. According to McKinley, this election was the first time "American style" campaigns were waged. This race was the first modern election in Mexico in which all three major candidates received equal coverage from the media and waged an American-style battle of advertisements on radio and television, from inspirational spots promising more jobs to clever mudslinging attacks.Sound familiar? Obrador was leading in the polls when he apparently crossed a rhetorical line which didn't sit well with many Mexican voters: But Mr. López Obrador stumbled in February when he attacked President Fox for using the bully pulpit of his office to campaign for Mr. Calderón. The leftist accused Mr. Fox of meddling in the election, compared him to a twittering tropical bird called a "chachalaca" and rudely told him to "shut up."He then compounded that mistake: Mr. López Obrador made a second mistake when he decided to skip the first presidential debate in early April. Mr. Calderon, a Harvard-trained economist, looked the part of a president, sounded well-informed and shot ahead in preference polls.And that brings us to the virtual dead-heat in which the exit polls apparently find the Mexican election. Obrador is claiming he's won, saying his margin is 500,000 votes and the election is "irreversible". Calderon is making similar claims citing polls and the votes in key districts. He's declared, "There is not the slightest doubt that we have won the election." Two interesting side notes. First, how the US was played in the run up to the election: All three major candidates refrained from bashing the United States or making naked appeals to nationalism, which used to be a mainstay in political campaigns here. Though Mr. Calderón and Mr. Madrazo said they would be tough on crime, none of the candidates said how they would address the gangland war among drug dealers that has claimed hundreds of lives over the last year.To me that points out that all three candidates recognize that whoever wins must deal with the US and doing so on a friendly basis will be much easier than the Hugo Chavez approach. Secondly, this: Some left-wing fringe groups boycotted the election. On Sunday morning, Subcommander Marcos, the masked leader of the 1994 Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, marched down Reforma Avenue, the spine of Mexico City, with a few thousand supporters, heaping scorn on all the political parties. Some danced in the street and waved Communist flags.I have no idea what that means in terms of impact or vote numbers but it brings to mind the impact of the Green Party in the 2000 election here in the US. If the vote is as close as it seems, it might be enough to throw the win to the ruling National Action Party candidate Felipe Calderón. So keep an eye to the south over the next few days as they try to determine who will be at Mexico's helm over the next few years. UPDATE: Michael Barone, who's opinion I respect highly, has also written on the election. He calls it one of the "most electrfying election nights ever". If you're interested in this at all, make sure you read his piece. One of his more interesting quotes: You can infer from Lopez Obrador's and Calderon's statements between 11:00 and midnight that Lopez Obrador thought he probably lost and Calderon though he probably won. But probably. Given the close count, neither could be sure. Lopez Obrador was craftier, laying a predicate for claiming that the election was stolen.No mention of Diebold (a joke ... that's a joke). UPDATE II: The vote from a Mexican web site tracking the elections shows the following: Calderón with 13,897,497 and 36.38% Obrador with 13,525,931 and 35.40% Calderón's party also leads in the Senate and House races as well. If I'm not mistaken, that's with 97.11% of the vote counted as of 10:53 GMT today. This is a site with very heavy traffic right now, as you can imagine, so be patient. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| TrackBacks | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Return to Main Blog Page | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Comments For This Post | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Previous Comments to this Post |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Add Your Comment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Vicious Capitalism |
Buy Dale's Book!
|
