Mexico 2012

[ag]

She is the head of one of the most powerful and dangerous organizations in Mexico - and I am including the cartels. Teachers unions (both the one she heads and, unfortunately, the opposition) are, probably, the greatest obstacle to Mexico's development and she has headed the main one for a long time now. She is smart, powerful and evil. If she were merely corrupt (which she, of course, is), I wouldn't have minded her that much.

Talking about her "flip-flopping" is, actually, misleading. It's the parties that are flipping and flopping around her )  The best reason to support Vazquez Mota is that she and La Maestra hate each other (Gordillo, essentially, pushed Vazquez Mota out of her job as the Education Secretary early in Calderon's administration). Though, one should add, Lopez Obrador isn't a fan either - which is, likewise, probably the best reason to like him.

[ag]

If Milenio's poll is to be believed, pre-debate status-quo seems to be restoring. Though, probably, just random variation.

Pena Nieto (PRI/PVEM) 48%
Vazquez Mota (PAN) 26%
Lopez Obrador (PRD/PT/MC) 22%
Quadri (PANAL) 5%

Meantime, pretty big anti-Pena manifestations in Mexico City seem to be catching fire. It just shows how different the City and the country are.

[ag]

To begin with, it's ONE UNION (SNTE).

Basically, they have established and enforced a system, under which teachers did not have to even be able to read or write in order for them to "do" their job (the government is attempting to change this right now, but is facing enormous resistance). The jobs are frequently (or, at least, have been, until now: again, the government is feebly trying to end this) inheritable, literally, from parent to child. Union officials, their goons and others on good terms with them are frequently able to collect full-time salaries in multiple schools simultaneously, without every teaching a class in any of them. Union regulations encourage large class size and make any sort of non-standard activity impossible (no magnet programs, no advanced anything). Essentially, the national teachers Union works as a gigantic patronage network, that is controlling most aspects of the educational system. Mexico spends a large share of its budget on education - most of it goes to teachers' (and "teachers'") salaries, and nearly all of it is fully controlled by the Union. Any attempt of even most menial reform is met with strikes (sometimes very prolonged) or even riots.

Rank-and-file teachers aren't getting too much out of it, but the Union is enormously rich and powerful (the rumor has it, La Maestra pays the largest monthly personal credit card bills in Mexico ) ). The Union effectively controls the vote of its members and their families (teachers are extremely dependent on the Union, so few disobey) - hence the guaranteed above-threshold vote for PANAL in recent years, irrespective of whom they nominate. There is also a splinter union (CNTE), which hates La Maestra, because she has, actually, agreed to some minor attempts of quality control by the government: these people believe that somehow violates their god-given rights.

The result of it is that the educational system has deteriorated to the point, when it can't even perform the role of the social lift. Public schools employ semi-literate teachers to produce large numbers of semi-literate graduates, who are not capable of real university-level studies. As almost all public education expenditures (no matter how large) are captured by the Union, quality of physical facilities in many cases has deteriorated even further.  The middle class has almost completely abandoned the public system - anybody, who has even most meagre resources available, sends their children to private schools.  Since, however, the Union has also fairly substantial control over the teachers' training and certification, the quality of teachers in private schools, even those not unionized, is not much better.

[ag]

Milenio report is generally stable. Now Lopez Obrador is back in the second and Quadri down.

Pena Nieto (PRI/PVEM) 45%
Lopez Obrador (PRD/PT/MC) 26%
Vazquez Mota (PAN) 25%
Quadri (PANAL) 4%

Anti-Pena demonstrations continue. Their participants blame the media for exaggerating Pena's lead. In particular, many people on the street claim Milenio (and some others) fake the polls to make Pena seem inevitable. There is, however, no direct evidence that I've seen, so I will continue reporting this one.

Part of the problem is, Mexico City is very different from the rest of the country - it normally is. I am still to hear anybody not formally employed by a PRI or PVEM campaign here to say anything nice about the guy - or to claim s/he'd vote for him. But, of course, this means nothing - except reinforcing the local public opinion that they are beeing lied to.

[ag]

It's essentially no change - that's how these things've been going all the time, in all polls (the difference  w/ the Milenio results I report here is due to the fact that those normalize the total to 100%, excluding the undecided, and this one doesn't). It's that sam 2:1:1 split, with a clear advantage of Pena Nieto, and Lopez Obrador and Vazquez Mota roughly at par. Yes, Pena Nieto may be very slightly down - he no longer gets more votes than the other two together - but he is still the overwhelming favorite.

[ag]

Milenio today

Pena Nieto (PRI/PVEM) 44%
Lopez Obrador (PRD/PT/MC) 27%
Vazquez Mota (PAN) 26%
Quadri (PANAL) 4%

[ag]

I tend to support AMLO.  But...at best, he'll get second.  Nieto has an unfortunately wide lead.

Well, he will, likely, get second - though quite far, in vote-share terms from his second-place finish in 2006, unless Vazquez Mota collapses.

[ag]

Today's Reforma poll is earth shattering (in brackets, change from April)

Pena Nieto (PRI/PVEM) 38% (-4)
Lopez Obrador (PRD/PT/MC) 34% (+7)
Vazquez Mota (PAN) 23% (-6)
Quadri (PANAL) 5% (+3)

This compares w/ the stable Milenio (though there Pena Nieto also hits his bottom reading ever, I think, but it is a very slow change):

Pena Nieto (PRI/PVEM) 43%
Lopez Obrador (PRD/PT/MC) 27%
Vazquez Mota (PAN) 26%
Quadri (PANAL) 4%

There is some evidence to suggest that Reforma might be right (aside from, generally, being a more reliable source). In particular, Vazquez Mota is rapidly shifting her attack to Lopez Obrador.

[ag]

Naturally - there will be coattails. More importanty, if Pena Nieto victory is underwhelming, PRI won't get an outright majority in Congress (nobody has had an outright majority in both chambers since 1997, though right now PRI has an effective majority in the Chaber of Deputies, at least when you include the PVEM). PRD itself is a fairly loose collection of "tribes", so figuring out who exactly would benefit from a good PRD performance is hard until we know who is, actually, elected.

 

[ag]

It's official. I'm supporting AMLO. Not that it matters, but I thought someone had to know it.

Well, just to make it equally clear I truly hate Pena Nieto, but if I see one more poll like this, and I vote for him. And, unlike you, I am a Mexican citizen )

Lopez Obrador is a classical Latin American national socialist type. In Europe, Mussolini has taken that part of the political spectrum to the right: the closest ideological cousin of Lopez Obrador in recent Europe would, probably, be somebody like Berlusconi.  Lopez Obrador represents the old "classical" PRI - the Lopez Portillo kind. And, like Lopez Portillo he has a megalomaniac idea of his own self, which makes him especially bad (ideologically, Cuauhtemoc Cardenas might not be that different, but he is a much nicer person, not given to delusions of personal grandeur). 

[ag]

Where would PRI voters in a PAN vs PRD second round?
Where would PAN voters go in a PRI vs. PRD run-off?
Where would PRD voters go in a PRI vs PAN runoff?

Not too many actual polls for the presidential race (no run-offs here - no reason to poll). However there is some evidence from congressional races. Historically, except in 2006, there is evidence of PANistas supporting PRD and vice versae, when their preferred candidates don't have a chance. PRIistas, I believe (though with less evidence), would go PAN in the North and PRD in the South.

Lopez Obrador's personality makes it strange. In 2006 the usual PAN-PRD strategic alliance in congressional races broke down badly (people stuck to their candidates even when they had no chance). Right now there is an obvious migration of part of the PAN electorate to Lopez Obrador - but that's, in part, because up till now those who would rather take Pena Nieto as the lesser evil didn't have the reason to vote strategically. If Lopez Obrador becomes a real contender, I bet there will be a sizeable faction that would hold their breath and vote Pena Nieto.

[ag]

So, I guess, at the moment this is my likely vote (may still change).

1. President - Vazquez Mota of PAN  (if the Reforma poll turns out to be an outlier) or Pena Nieto of PRI (if it is confirmed by others).
2. Mexico City mayor - Mancera (PRD/MC/PT)
3. Congress (both House and Senate), city council, district mayor - all PAN.

So, it's not unlikely that I vote for all three major parties )

[ag]

So Vazquez Mota is the only decent (or half decent) candidate?

Sort of. She is, of course, quite far to the right religiously - anti-abortion, for instance (though few people here decide whom to vote for on that basis). But she is personally decent, reasonably smart (though, within limits), not personally corrupt - and she truly hates La Maestra, which would make it at least likely that she'd try to reform the dismal educational system. She has no chance at this point, though.

And, to think of it, that we could have had Ebrard for PRD and Paredes for PRI - we'd have 3 decent candidates, with one of them guaranteed to win.

[ag]

why should pop-psychoanalytic broad brushstrokes such as the above matter?  with?"

Because he is fundamentally hostile to democracy and Mexico hasn't been a stable  democracy for long, so undermining that achievement won't be hard. In his view ANYTHING whatsoever that happens that he doesn't like is a "plot" to prevent him executing his vision of the world (in which vision, of course, he is the indispensible leader).  He is incapable of understanding that people might criticize him for any reason other than treason or some nefarious conspiracy.  And, no, he is not like the other politicians in this dimensions - he is almost comically incapable of expressing even token remorse or accepting a token blame for anything. He can't even for a second imagine that an opponent might be out there for legitimate reasons - anybody, who ever goes against him, is the vilest, murderous scum (or, at best, is in the pay of the vilest, murderous scum). If facts go against him - well, then reality must be participating in a plot to bring him down, but he won't let reality do this without punishment.

And this is not "pop-psychoanalisis", but mere observation of his reactions during the last 12 years in public politics.

[ag]

Disrespect for democracy and the rule of law, preference for corporativist monopoly state (as long as the monopolies are domestic and either subservient to the government or directly controled by it), strident nationalism, severe intolerance to criticism, reliance on personal charisma, creation of private "alternative" institutions working for the leader and loyal, primarily or exclusively, to him. Is that enough? Or should I continue?

[ag]

All three are not the same, of course, but they share a lot - I tried to identify the things they have in common. I am not accusing anyone of anything: naturally, neither Berlusconi, nor Lopez Obrador have established a dictatorship or illegally occupied Ethiopia )

But it is crucially important for understanding Mexican and, more generally, Latin American politics to understand that (with some notable exceptions, of course) the Latin American left and the European far right share both ideological roots and contemporary sensibilities. It is not merely a curiosity that many Latin Americans (not only the left, of course) retained fairly ambivalent attitudes towards the fascist and even the Nazi "experiments" until fairly late: Latin America has never experienced the WWII horrors, so it never got the "liberal innoculation" Europe got, never developed immunity to the siren song of national-socialism.

Lopez Obrador is not, of course, unique here - he merely follows the old PRI "Revolutionary" tradition. His personality, though, makes him much more dangerous - especially if we recall how young and immature Mexican democracy is.

[ag]

I may have seen some polling, though I am not certain - not for a run-off, of course, but about your "second preference". Actually, this is not the same thing One votes very differently, depending on whether the election is close or not. For instance, if the last pre-election poll were to show Pena Nieto far ahead of everyone, my second choice would have been Lopez Obrador - I'd hate a big Pena majority. On the other hand, if I thought Lopez Obrador could win, I would definitely claim my second preference to be Pena Nieto - I'd hate a Lopez Obrador victory, whatever the margin. As the run-off and first-round dynamics aren't the same, I could very well imagine voting for Lopez Obrador in the first round only to switch to Pena Nieto in the second ) In any case, my preference in one-round election would be different from that in a two-round poll.

[ag]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.