Why Lopez Obrador is Right for Mexico… and America

UPDATE: Greg Pallast points out that the Bush Administration may not be content with the outcome of democracy in Mexico. The Administration might be inclined to ensure the ‘right’ result. And ZMag has an interesting article on the potential for violence and direct action in this Sunday’s election. The economic case is made by the Center for Economic Policy and Research that leftward movement in Mexican politics would be a positive development.

The framing of this Sunday’s Mexican election for President in the American media is as follows:

Calderon (PAN): Technocrat, pro-business, pro-NAFTA, internationalist, successor to current policies of Fox.

Obrador (PRD): Radical leftist populist, pro-poor, anti-NAFTA, insular, extension of the Anti-American Hugo Chavez brand of Latin American politics.

Madrazo (PRI): Sinking ship. Get off now.

Even some experts on Mexican affairs like UofA’s John Garcia make Obrador seem like a dangerous and destabilizing experiment. “Latin America has recently been electing leaders who more likely to challenge U.S. policies and look for a more independent path. Mexico could be the next to go in that direction [i.e. elect Obrador] If that were to happen, it would just be another part of the world that we’d have to pay attention to.”

God forbid we should have to pay attention to the world. I don’t think Garcia is really saying that we shouldn’t need to pay attention to our relationship with Mexico, or that paying attention to Mexico is bad thing, though it rather sounds like it. In fact, paying more attention to Mexico, our second largest trade partner sharing 2000 miles of land border with us and having a population of nationals of 12-15 million and growing inside the U.S.A, is a decidedly good idea. In fact, seriously re-evaluating our relationship with Mexico is imperative to resolving the immigration issue. The don of Mexican political journalists, Carlos Monsivais, offers a much different perspective on the possibility of an Obrador win than Garcia’s, which I strongly recommend a look at.

In fact, an Obrador Presidency would be the best thing for Mexico, and the best thing for the United States. An Obrador Presidency could significantly stem the tide of immigration, force a needed course correction on NAFTA in DC and the DF that brings more fairness to free trade. Obrador’s prescription could be bitter medicine on both sides of the border, especially if the Bush Administration reacts to Obrador’s refusal to lower tarriff barriers on American white corn, beans, and milk powder with heavy trade sanctions. But the inherent tensions between the systematic destruction of the rural economy of Mexico, the lack of job creation in the highly extractive Mexican export sector, and the ever increasing criminalization of economic immigration to the U.S. cannot be sustained indefinitely. And the Bush Administration favors Calderon: isn’t that alone reason enough to suspect that Calderon wouldn’t be the best thing either for Mexico, or for most Americans?

When one really looks at Obrador’s biography and his stated economic policies, he really looks more like Sen. John Edwards of South Carolina, whose concern for poverty and ameliorating the ills of the ‘Two Americas’ are his enduring themes, than like Hugo Chavez. In fact, if you squint just right, Obrador’s plans for low income pensions, agricultural supports, and increasing the purchasing power of the Mexican poor, look a lot like America’s own New Deal under Roosevelt.

The worst possible way the conflicts within Mexican society could be resolved is with millions of desperate dispossessed farmers taking up arms against their own government all over the country, as they did in Chiapas, or voting with their feet by coming to America in search of economic security. That sort of political instability on our southern border is absolutely inconsistent with our national interest. If American agribusiness suffers the loss of Mexico as a new export market, it is a small price to pay for the greater national interest. What is good for ADM is not necessarily what is good for America.

Obrador is often portrayed as a leftist radical on par with Venuzuela’s President Hugo Chavez, bent on helping the poor at any cost. It might be true, however, it should not be seen as a criticism, but as a compliment. Addressing the effects of globalization on income disparity and economic security in developing countries, the plight of the vast numbers of Latin American poor, and the flood of Mexican immigration to the U.S. (which is almost as explosive an issue in Mexico due to the 20 billion in remittances immigrants send home) are political projects that are past due to be addressed. Rather than demonizing or worrying about Obrador, Progressives should embrace him as one of us, and even the American right wing should embrace him. Reform within Mexico to keep potential immigrants at home will be much more effective at daming the raging river of illegal immigrants than any chain link fence could possibly be.