Posts
All this is reminiscent of Berthold Brecht's possibly apocrophal remark after the German Communist Party declared after worker riots that "the German people were not worthy of People's Democracy," or some such drivel. Brecht supposedly replied, "then elect a new people."
Sailer goes through the Federalist Papers which were a design for ruling/engaging the famously intractably independent American spirit which had been engendered largely in the Northern colonies by low-church Protestant heterodoxy. However, a more important factor was how to restrain the monied elites [southern plantation owners?] from establishing a ruling class a la Europe and keeping the poor whites in thrall. Sailer quotes from a paper by a brilliant Mexican advisor to President Vicente Fox named Fredo Arias-King concerning this problem:
Their "Natural Progress" Of a handful of motivations, one of the main ones (even if unconscious) of many of these legislators can be found in what the U.S. Founding Fathers called "usurpation." Madison, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and others devised a system and embedded the Constitution with mechanisms to thwart the "natural" tendency of the political class to usurp power—to become a permanent elite lording over pauperized subjects, as was the norm in Europe at the time. However, the Founding Fathers seem to have based the logic of their entire model on the independent character of the American folk. After reviewing the different mechanisms and how they would work in theory, they wrote in the Federalist Papers that in the end, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America …"4 With all his emphasis on reason and civic virtue as the basis of a functioning and decentralized democratic polity, Jefferson speculated whether Latin American societies could be governed thus.
Arias-King wrote this paper for Fox in order to elicit support from American politicos of both parties to continue allowing massive illegal immigration from Mexico. The Mexican delegation to DC got unprecedented access to 90 elected Reps of Congress who shared very frankly their reasons for wanting Mexican immigrants, legal or not, on US soil with an eye to eventual assimilation:
While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.
Gosh, the Democrats want big government with a dependent population subsidized by gigantic cradle-to-grave hand-outs raised by taxation---no doubt---and converting the Democrat elites into a permanent governing class! Who wouldda thunkit? But wait, there's more:
Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.
Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.
Now there's a recipe for Brechtian irony! Let's dilute the "the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America" into a girlie-man feminized spirit of acquiescence to a multicultural, transnational, welcoming sort of place like Canada. [Where 23 'normal average Canadians,' according to the National Police, planned to blow up landmarks and the National Police HQ in Toronto a couple of months ago]. Arias-King continues to blow the whistle on his "American politicians" during his scouting expedition to Washington:
While I can recall many accolades for the Mexican immigrants and for Mexican-Americans (one white congressman even gave me a "high five" when recalling that Californian Hispanics were headed for majority status), I remember few instances when a legislator spoke well of his or her white constituents. One even called them "rednecks," and apologized to us on their behalf for their incorrect attitude on immigration. Most of them seemed to advocate changing the ethnic composition of the United States as an end in itself. Jefferson and Madison would have perhaps understood why this is so---enthusiasm for mass immigration seems to be correlated with examples of undermining the "just and constitutional laws" they devised.
Yep, those Anglos seem to have a problem with the pesky Founding Fathers and the bothersome checks and balances built into the system. I wonder just why they do, and so does Arias-King:
What could be motivating U.S. legislators to do the opposite, that is, to see their constituents---already politically mature and proven as responsible and civic-minded---as an obstacle needing replacement? In other words, why would they want to replace a nation that works remarkably well....with another that has trouble forming stable, normal countries? Mexicans are kind and hardworking, with a legendary hospitality, and unlike some European nations, harbor little popular ambitions to impose models or ideologies on others. However, Mexicans are seemingly unable to produce anything but corrupt and tyrannical rulers, oftentimes even accepting them as the norm, unaffected by allegations of graft or abuse. Mexico, and Latin American societies in general, seem to suffer from what an observer called "moral relativism," accepting the "natural progress" of the political class rather than challenging it, and also appearing more susceptible to "miracle solutions" and demagogic political appeals. Mexican intellectuals speak of the corrosive effects of Mexican culture on the institutions needed to make democracy work, and surveys reveal that most of the population accepts and expects corruption from the political class.
Hmmm.... Looks like the Duke Cunningham gene is proliferating widely [85 out of ninety] among those American politicians who pine for an electorate that doesn't pry into personal arrangements too deeply, or criticize a hard-working servant of the people to the point that his/her re-election might be jeopardized. Arias-King generalizes about his own kith and kin:
A sociological study conducted throughout the region found that Latin Americans are indeed highly susceptible to clientelismo, or partaking in patron-client relations, and that Mexico was high even by regional standards. In a Latin environment, there are fewer costs to behaving "like a knave," which explains the relative failure of most Spanish-speaking countries in the Hemisphere: Pauperized populations with rich and entrenched knaves. Montesquieu’s separation-of-powers model breaks down in Latin America (though essentially all constitutions are based on it) since elites do not take their responsibilities seriously and easily reach extra-legal "understandings" with their colleagues across the branches of government, oftentimes willingly making the judicial and legislative powers subservient to a generous executive, and giving the population little recourse and little choice but to challenge the system in its entirety
I guess that's why defeated candidate Luis Obrador has pitched a tent in the Zocalo and blocked Paseo de Reforma, just another attempt to "challenge the system in its entirety." The new Presidente-elect Calderon, like Arias-King, has a Harvard degree and Obrador promises to go back to the caudillo--jefe--cabecilla--adalid--guia--cacique mode of governance, all while piously preaching reform. Arias-King actually would prefer a form of "tough love" coming from north of the border:
During the 18 months when I aided Fox’s foreign relations, in those meetings with what became the new Mexican elite I do not recall so many discussions about "what can we do to make tough decisions to reform Mexico," but rather more "how can we get more concessions from the United States." Indeed, Fox largely continued governing the country as his predecessors did, even appointing as head of the federal police agency an Echeverr?a loyalist who was allegedly involved in a deadly extortion attempt against a museum owner in 1972. According to several leading world rankings on corruption, quality of government, development, and competitiveness, Mexico actually worsened during Fox’s presidency.14 Lacking internal or external pressure, the Mexican elites have taken the path of least resistance, which is not the best outcome for the country. Paradoxically, as happens in co-dependent relations, a firm but polite defense of American interests by Washington would force the Mexican elites to act and in the end (surely after a brief period of acrimonious recriminations) would be beneficial for Mexico, much as the European Union’s tough accession laws force elites in lesser-developed aspiring members (Spain in the 1980s and Central European countries in the 1990s) to adopt painful and otherwise politically unfeasible reforms that affect special interests but that benefit average citizens. After all, the gap between elite and popular aspirations in these countries is wider than in the United States, and on a broader range of issues.
The political classes in the United States, Democrat and Republican, are really enablers of their counterparts south of the border. As the American Congressmen and prominent families attempt to gerrymander and redistrict themselves into a sort of permanent feudal nobility, the sort of arrangement the Founding Fathers wrote up the Constitution to prevent, they form alliances with the powers-that-be south of the border. And of course, the family that has done the best at this migrated from chilly, censorious New England and arrived at the poster-town for carpetbaggers from colder climes, Midland, TX.
...This co-dependence is perhaps nowhere more evident than the personal relations of the political classes of Mexico and the United States. When speaking to these congressmen, we noticed an affinity toward the corrupt party we were attempting to overthrow in Mexico. Several had visited Mexico and apparently enjoyed lavish treatment from their hosts, even mentioning how some of the things they enjoyed in Mexico would not be possible at home.
Even though the Mexican political class is notoriously corrupt, they can often count on stronger support in Washington than can several more worthy world leaders who are genuinely attempting to reform and improve their countries. The history of the Bush family is symptomatic.
I personally haven't done any due diligence on the Bush escapades in the oil business, although Jim Tanner, who knew GHWB during the Midland days and longtime oil writer for the Wall Street Journal, used to fill me in on some juicy tidbits during our travels while I worked at The Oil Daily. GHWB's business partnership with Serrano was part of oil industry lore during the Zapata cross-border venture. Another friend, Mike Ameen of Mobil, used to tell me about the Harken venture in Bahrain that he was involved in with GWB. As Arias-King [or is it Steve S?] notes below, no one has found Bush fingerprints even in a spectacular bust like BCCI scandal. Near-misses, but no smoking gun. Arias-King continues:
While snubbing pro-American reformers in the newly liberated Eastern Europe, George H.W. Bush did go out of his way to accommodate Mexico and its leader Carlos Salinas. Then-vice president and presidential candidate Bush openly endorsed Salinas after the latter’s fraudulent election in 1988, a favor that Salinas returned four years later when he met only with Bush and snubbed his Democratic rival, Bill Clinton.
In April 2000, candidate George W. Bush followed in his father’s footsteps when he tacitly but unambiguously endorsed the candidate of Salinas’s ruling party against a then little-known opposition figure named Vicente Fox, perhaps believing that the official-party candidate, the former secret-police chief Francisco Labastida, would engage in a quid pro quo as president. Labastida himself could not receive the honor in person on April 7, 2000, since he had been fingered by the U.S. press as a possible target of the Drug Enforcement Administration because of his record as governor. Instead, he sent his wife to meet with Bush. Florida governor Jeb Bush knew for many years and apparently also received lavish treatment from Salinas’s brother Ra?l, before Ra?l was arrested on corruption and murder charges and spent the next decade in a Mexican high-security prison. Bush Sr. had a long friendship and business relations with Jorge D?az Serrano, then director of the Mexican oil monopoly pemex, before he was also arrested in a power struggle and accused of embezzling over $50 million. The long-time politicos of the Hank Rhon family, who were suspected of laundering drug money and who continue to win elections in Mexico, were also reported to have contributed money to the gubernatorial campaigns of George W. Bush from a Texas bank they own.15 To their credit, no overtly illegal practice has been proven against the Bush family in their dealings with Mexico, but the appearance of admiration toward its ruling classes cannot be easily discounted. [See my 2001 UPI article on the Bush family's ties to the Mexican ruling class.]
Steve's article on a small California bilingual mag concerning cross-border scandals interested me because during my Amoco career, I spent a little time in Mexico doing the sort of political risk assessment analyses that "entry strategy" [Amoco was looking to open fleet natural gas stations in Mexico in Monterrey and Mexico City] entails, and the name Carlos Hank Gonzales kept popping up among my Mexican contacts. It seems that Hank was the sort of pol that would intermediate any deal whether his services were needed or not! As the Sailer article quotes this lifelong civil servant who has amassed billions of dollars during his "political" career: "A politician who is poor is a poor politician." Arias-King seems to believe that the Hank track record is one that American politicians secretly want to emulate:
Though similar stories involving lesser politicians do not make headlines, several lawmakers we met also had a special, giddy mystique of Mexico as a place where moneyed leaders coexist with tame, grateful citizens. It would seem that the American political class has a special affinity for their colleagues south of the border. The appeal of their lavishness and impunity seems to strike a positive chord in the American politicians, who perhaps resent being held accountable by their citizens, who cannot become wealthy from politics, and who may be removed from power "unfairly" and without warning.
Yep, like "poor" Duke Cunningham, who was simply picking up strong vibes from his counterparts fifty miles south of San Diego. [Of course, we all forget that Tijuana was the place where Mexican heir-presumptive Pres candidate Colosio was shot to death in the '90s.]
No comments :
Post a Comment