 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Mexican Politics Then & Now: Where I Would Stand |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| Mexican politics has always been a dirty business. People say that about most all countries, but in Mexico it is particularly true. In the first place, controversial as this may sound, simply being independent does not seem to have worked out very well for Mexico. Considering that in the Spanish days Mexico (or Nuevo Espana) was famous for the level of education and known as the most advanced part of North America what has happened since definitely seems like an almost continuous downward spiral. Since becoming independent in 1821 Mexico has had more revolutions and civil wars than can be easily counted, had two emperors shot, so many government coups as to stagger the mind, lost more than a third of the territory they started out with, fallen from being the most advanced country in North America to an impoverished one living largely off scraps from the United States and they have had what averages out to more than one presidential administration per year since becoming a republic. Of the wars they have fought against foreign enemies on their own soil they basically lost them all, in spite of having a highly rated and very large military (I do not count the French being threatened out by the US as a Mexican victory). So, how exactly has independence been good for Mexico? |
|
|
|
|
Of course, I am being a little intentionally controversial. Given the disaster that was the early Bourbon reign in the Kingdom of Spain it is easy to see why Mexicans (the conservative ones -the good ones) were finally persuaded to join the independence movement under the soldier-turned-sovereign Agustin de Iturbide. Had I been in Mexico at the time I would have likely been among those hailing Emperador Agustin (or at least sorely tempted) and naturally know one could foresee what was going to happen. After independence I certainly would have been on the side of Iturbide, but after that it becomes more complicated as almost no one was able to keep up a principled stand on the issues and hold power at the same time. I like Anastasio Bustamante and yet I do not favor centralization of government power which most Mexican conservatives did (though they had their legitimate reasons for this). Likewise, as shocking as this may be coming from a proud and patriotic Texan, there are times when I would have had to be on the side of General Santa Anna -certainly not because he was a great guy or even a very reliable leader of any sort but because he was more than once the lesser of two evils. That is not to be a compliment to Santa Anna but evidence of the sad state of Mexican politics. It is also no conspiracy theory to point out the power held by the Freemasons -it was real and dangerous as many good Mexicans found out. |
|
|
I can easily and proudly say that in the era that followed I would have been on the side of the conservatives of Miguel Miramon and later Emperor Maximilian who was probably the single best ruler Mexico ever had if for no other reason than that he was not corrupt, had no selfish interests to serve and was brave enough to stand by his convictions even when it meant his own death. He was much more loyal to Mexico than the Mexicans were to him -as politically incorrect as that might be to say. As far as I am concerned Benito Juarez was an anti-Church tyrant, just as if not more beholden to a foreign power (the USA) than Maximilian was and who violated the terms of his own constitution in an effort to keep his grip on power. In the years that followed his victory things became even worse with there really being all but nothing good for Mexicans to choose from in the area of politics. Evidence as to how bad things were is the fact that President (dictator) Porfirio Diaz was something of an improvement over the other available options. |
 |
|
|
|
|
The revolution was a disaster from start to finish, often gruesome enough to make even a dictator like Huerta seem the safer choice and I would certainly have been whole-heartedly on the side of the Cristeros in fighting the tyrannical, communistic PRI regime which was absolutely pure evil. Their socialist policies have made Mexico a nation of dependants whose pride goes no further than shallow flag waving and tacky bumper-stickers. If Mexicans had real pride and real hope in their country they would not be fleeing from it by the millions to live off the wealth of the United States. I would have supported the National Synarchist Union as probably the best |
|
|
available choice to combat at least that aspect of the national decline though they no longer really exist as a political movement, being overtaken by the more mainstream National Action Party.
Of the major parties today I would have to vote for the PAN but I would hold my nose while doing so because there is much about them that is little better than the PRI they finally dethroned. I really like the look and feel of the organization Falange de Cristo Rey (or Milites Christi) but I don't know quite enough about them to be definite and they are not a regular political party with much chance of running for office (go to my links page to see their website). So, in short, there really are no good options. I would like see more out of the Sinarquistas and I would like a better feel for the Falange. Heck, I'd like to see Count Goetzen-Iturbide advocate a return to empire, but lacking all of that I would have to hold my nose, look away, and vote for the PAN. |
|
 |
|
|