Lopez Obrador and The Economist journal opinion
I read an opinion of the author Bello, without a full name or bio information. Is he/she a a journalist or what?, I do not know, but the Title of the paper states:
"Mexico´s presidential front-runner misundertands his role model"
Starting with a very provocative title like this, we do not know who is writing: a historian, economist, bussiness or finance jornalist, we do not know.
We follow the reading and see the subtitle: "Lázaro Cárdenas was a proud institution-builder; not a populist". Here we have a clue that the person who writes, obviously is a Spanish-spoker since adds accent to the vowels of the name in the right Spanish, as we use to do. Clearly and without explanation what is the meaning of the term "populist" starts comparing General Cardenas with the current candidate to the presidency of Mexico, Lopez Obrador "atacking" with the term "populist". I then recall when in the past, Obama mentioned that term precisely here in Mexico (I guess) and by then, the mass media were claping the aseveration that Obama said reckoning himself as "populist" defined as follows: "has to do with protecting the little guy against powerful coporate interests, guaranteeing educational opportunity regardless of wealth, and insuring a fair shake for workers". I do not know if Obama really offered that to their citizens, but that was the definition that is recognized by many, journals and people loved.
I guess the writter of this "article" was not very well informed when he/she said: "in the mid-2000s Mexico elected two conservative presidents". Well we, many of us voted by Fox, believieng by first time that the right wing, the party of Accion Nacional, was the right choice, but later we saw that really was not a change, then, after a year or so, we realized that nothing was changing, and Fox was showing himself as what really was, a chauvinist and ignorant man with a lack of experience in politics, a tall man with boots and no intelligence to be manipulated for his spoke woman, and later, his wife. Six years later Calderon, of the same political party was imposed since Mexicans did not vote for him, was the "federal electoral institute" (IFE) which supported the cheating of a software program designed by the comapny of brother of Margarita Zavala (wife of Calderon), Hildebrando Zavala (whom the tax administration condonated him with 521 millions of MXP). Now she, the wife is trying to be registered as candidate, but with no success since she has not reached the number signatures necessary to be resgistered as candidate (this woman with a lack of intelligence has do not even the ability to prepare a speech, but even worts, no the prevision to ask for one.
Coming back to the article, Bellos said that Lopez Obrador is a "left-wing populist". Lopez Obrador recognizes himself ss a social liberal, and even people of the left wing do not accept their liberal perspective because they say is no t of the left wing, but maybe is more like central left. Obrador since his early years have worked with the people, indigenous and rights of the majorities, as he did it with the people of Tabasco, the chontales, a group affected by the oil company of Mexico, PEMEX. If populist mean give the social well being for the senior citizens who are the most weak economically and socially, that means, yes. But also he was recognized as the Best Major in the world as the Manager of Mexico City, one of the biggest in the world during his time as Major in Mexico City gestion.
Once again when the wirtter say: "Benito Juarez, Francisco Madero and Lazar Cardenas - as his heroes", the writter do it from a naïve perspective "heroes". Lopez Obrador has no heroes, he admires these men since their humanity not from a childish perspective.
The following paragraph, I guess, the core of the idea of the writer is:
"Tata (“Papa”) Lázaro is remembered above all for two achievements. In 1938 he seized British- and American-owned oilfields, and nationalised the industry. He also enacted large-scale land reform, breaking up big estates into ejidos, or peasant collectives. These policies have proved durable. The state still controls almost all of Mexico’s oil, and ejidos remain throughout the countryside."
States the nationalization of the oil and the seting of the land worked by their people and say that the state controls almost all the oil, something that will dissapperar with the current reform that will benefit the external investment. Maybe for the people who asked for this article is enclosed the idea of a forcoming dangerous agenda that worries industries and investors. Is true that the current "energetic reform" does not support the national industry but Lopez Obrador has a better plan to make investment in the oil industry and will not be closed as when comoared with other countries. Is expected that Lopez Obrador considerate the importance of the resources for the Mexican State as a nation, but also is epected that will promote a better economy not only supported by oil, even by other more clean resources but best administrated by the state, in case he arrives to the presidency, and probably this is the fear that comes to the current people in the government, accostumed to do tricks and cheat with companies, instead to make good arrangements or bussiness. They, the PRI and PAN have the fear that Lopez Obrador arrives to the presidency and will do everything to avoid he rise the presidency, despite this benefits US against migration becaus is expected a better and more solid and austere economy and a better impulse together oil countries.
Comig back to the paragraph. Lazaro Cardenas was responsible to nationalize the oil industry, after this, Peña Nieto starting with the other usurpator of the presidency, Carlos Salinas, started to desincorporate the oil national industry but with disadvantages for the country that do not benefits the investors nor the nation.
The writer do not deny what Obrador has in mind:
"Both issues sit near the top of Mr López Obrador’s agenda. He denounces recent reforms to open the energy industry to private firms as the work of traitors, and has called for a referendum on fully returning the oil sector to the state. In his book, “2018: The Way Out”, he lauds the price floors Cárdenas set for basic crops, which he hopes to reinstate in order to make Mexico self-sufficient in agriculture."
Here seems that the writter has achieved a little understanding of Obrador´s agenda, but later, he/she says:
"Yet Mr López Obrador seems to misunderstand how his idol left such a lasting legacy. Cárdenas had a keen sense of what his son, Cuauhtémoc, has called “the distinction between the popular and the populist”. Tata Lázaro sought to reduce social division, not augment it. He seldom incited hatred against rivals, and pardoned 10,000 people who had risen up against the state. Mr López Obrador, in contrast, is less fond of unifying gestures. As mayor, he mocked anti-kidnapping protesters as pirrurris (“rich kids”)."
Here is clear that the article was requested for someone who knows how to induce to the conflict and the idea promoted by the both parties in the power that have turned Mexico in one of the most violent country nowadays with more than 200 000 people dissapear or killed. When the author compares the figure of the son of Cardenas, Cuauhtemoc against Obrador, clearly shows that has a bias or a skewed view of WHAT´S HAPPENING IN MEXICO. The son of Cardenas was actually voted by Mexican citizens, but in a election stealed by the party of "institutional revolution", PRI, Salinas "won" and Cuauhtemoc accepted as a prize of "consolation" that his son, Cardenas Batel where selected as Governor of Michoacan, a very well known as the state where the "war against the drugs started". Nothing comes as a casualty.
Here in Mexico Peña Nieto has among their "costumers-partners" for the Oil Industry the British Petroleum, but what is well know is that relatives very close to former "president" Salinas have their bussiness in the Oil companies who are participating in the privatization of the National Oil industry, an startegy of sovereignty for Mexico.
I bet the person who is behind the article in The Economist is a person who work for Salinas de Gortari, the Mexican government of Mexico, or a real ignorant of WHAT´S HAPPENING IN MEXICO.
"Mexico´s presidential front-runner misundertands his role model"
Starting with a very provocative title like this, we do not know who is writing: a historian, economist, bussiness or finance jornalist, we do not know.
We follow the reading and see the subtitle: "Lázaro Cárdenas was a proud institution-builder; not a populist". Here we have a clue that the person who writes, obviously is a Spanish-spoker since adds accent to the vowels of the name in the right Spanish, as we use to do. Clearly and without explanation what is the meaning of the term "populist" starts comparing General Cardenas with the current candidate to the presidency of Mexico, Lopez Obrador "atacking" with the term "populist". I then recall when in the past, Obama mentioned that term precisely here in Mexico (I guess) and by then, the mass media were claping the aseveration that Obama said reckoning himself as "populist" defined as follows: "has to do with protecting the little guy against powerful coporate interests, guaranteeing educational opportunity regardless of wealth, and insuring a fair shake for workers". I do not know if Obama really offered that to their citizens, but that was the definition that is recognized by many, journals and people loved.
I guess the writter of this "article" was not very well informed when he/she said: "in the mid-2000s Mexico elected two conservative presidents". Well we, many of us voted by Fox, believieng by first time that the right wing, the party of Accion Nacional, was the right choice, but later we saw that really was not a change, then, after a year or so, we realized that nothing was changing, and Fox was showing himself as what really was, a chauvinist and ignorant man with a lack of experience in politics, a tall man with boots and no intelligence to be manipulated for his spoke woman, and later, his wife. Six years later Calderon, of the same political party was imposed since Mexicans did not vote for him, was the "federal electoral institute" (IFE) which supported the cheating of a software program designed by the comapny of brother of Margarita Zavala (wife of Calderon), Hildebrando Zavala (whom the tax administration condonated him with 521 millions of MXP). Now she, the wife is trying to be registered as candidate, but with no success since she has not reached the number signatures necessary to be resgistered as candidate (this woman with a lack of intelligence has do not even the ability to prepare a speech, but even worts, no the prevision to ask for one.
Coming back to the article, Bellos said that Lopez Obrador is a "left-wing populist". Lopez Obrador recognizes himself ss a social liberal, and even people of the left wing do not accept their liberal perspective because they say is no t of the left wing, but maybe is more like central left. Obrador since his early years have worked with the people, indigenous and rights of the majorities, as he did it with the people of Tabasco, the chontales, a group affected by the oil company of Mexico, PEMEX. If populist mean give the social well being for the senior citizens who are the most weak economically and socially, that means, yes. But also he was recognized as the Best Major in the world as the Manager of Mexico City, one of the biggest in the world during his time as Major in Mexico City gestion.
Once again when the wirtter say: "Benito Juarez, Francisco Madero and Lazar Cardenas - as his heroes", the writter do it from a naïve perspective "heroes". Lopez Obrador has no heroes, he admires these men since their humanity not from a childish perspective.
The following paragraph, I guess, the core of the idea of the writer is:
"Tata (“Papa”) Lázaro is remembered above all for two achievements. In 1938 he seized British- and American-owned oilfields, and nationalised the industry. He also enacted large-scale land reform, breaking up big estates into ejidos, or peasant collectives. These policies have proved durable. The state still controls almost all of Mexico’s oil, and ejidos remain throughout the countryside."
States the nationalization of the oil and the seting of the land worked by their people and say that the state controls almost all the oil, something that will dissapperar with the current reform that will benefit the external investment. Maybe for the people who asked for this article is enclosed the idea of a forcoming dangerous agenda that worries industries and investors. Is true that the current "energetic reform" does not support the national industry but Lopez Obrador has a better plan to make investment in the oil industry and will not be closed as when comoared with other countries. Is expected that Lopez Obrador considerate the importance of the resources for the Mexican State as a nation, but also is epected that will promote a better economy not only supported by oil, even by other more clean resources but best administrated by the state, in case he arrives to the presidency, and probably this is the fear that comes to the current people in the government, accostumed to do tricks and cheat with companies, instead to make good arrangements or bussiness. They, the PRI and PAN have the fear that Lopez Obrador arrives to the presidency and will do everything to avoid he rise the presidency, despite this benefits US against migration becaus is expected a better and more solid and austere economy and a better impulse together oil countries.
Comig back to the paragraph. Lazaro Cardenas was responsible to nationalize the oil industry, after this, Peña Nieto starting with the other usurpator of the presidency, Carlos Salinas, started to desincorporate the oil national industry but with disadvantages for the country that do not benefits the investors nor the nation.
The writer do not deny what Obrador has in mind:
"Both issues sit near the top of Mr López Obrador’s agenda. He denounces recent reforms to open the energy industry to private firms as the work of traitors, and has called for a referendum on fully returning the oil sector to the state. In his book, “2018: The Way Out”, he lauds the price floors Cárdenas set for basic crops, which he hopes to reinstate in order to make Mexico self-sufficient in agriculture."
Here seems that the writter has achieved a little understanding of Obrador´s agenda, but later, he/she says:
"Yet Mr López Obrador seems to misunderstand how his idol left such a lasting legacy. Cárdenas had a keen sense of what his son, Cuauhtémoc, has called “the distinction between the popular and the populist”. Tata Lázaro sought to reduce social division, not augment it. He seldom incited hatred against rivals, and pardoned 10,000 people who had risen up against the state. Mr López Obrador, in contrast, is less fond of unifying gestures. As mayor, he mocked anti-kidnapping protesters as pirrurris (“rich kids”)."
Here is clear that the article was requested for someone who knows how to induce to the conflict and the idea promoted by the both parties in the power that have turned Mexico in one of the most violent country nowadays with more than 200 000 people dissapear or killed. When the author compares the figure of the son of Cardenas, Cuauhtemoc against Obrador, clearly shows that has a bias or a skewed view of WHAT´S HAPPENING IN MEXICO. The son of Cardenas was actually voted by Mexican citizens, but in a election stealed by the party of "institutional revolution", PRI, Salinas "won" and Cuauhtemoc accepted as a prize of "consolation" that his son, Cardenas Batel where selected as Governor of Michoacan, a very well known as the state where the "war against the drugs started". Nothing comes as a casualty.
Here in Mexico Peña Nieto has among their "costumers-partners" for the Oil Industry the British Petroleum, but what is well know is that relatives very close to former "president" Salinas have their bussiness in the Oil companies who are participating in the privatization of the National Oil industry, an startegy of sovereignty for Mexico.
I bet the person who is behind the article in The Economist is a person who work for Salinas de Gortari, the Mexican government of Mexico, or a real ignorant of WHAT´S HAPPENING IN MEXICO.
Comments