| | |  Editorials | Opinions | May 2009 
A New Libertarian Approach to Mexico
 Matthew Jacob Holliday - American Chronicle
go to original
 |  | Never was there a clearer visual analogy between what Mexico is today and what it could be tomorrow. |  | | |
Along one of the sun-scorched roads of the mountain city of Guanajuato, Mexico rests the local headquarters of ISSSTE (Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de Trabajadores del Estado)- Mexico's social security agency (and by some measures the largest social services agency in Latin America).The building itself is a salute to the atrociously banal "functional" architecture that permeates bureaucracies everywhere. It is an eyesore in a town that calls itself "the most beautiful city in the Americas"- a city that is otherwise filled with the bright colors of mesmerizing churches, statues, and modern works of art. Never was there a clearer visual analogy between what Mexico is today and what it could be tomorrow. And with an escalating drug war and deepening depression, combined with the perpetual border crisis, never was the question of what Mexico can (and must) become more important to both its people and their "gringo" neighbors to the north.
ISSSTE, like the other lumbering bureaucracies of the near-failed Mexican state, is plagued by inefficiency and corruption. Resources and benefits are often skewed toward larger municipalities with more powerful labor unions. Of course. free-marketeers anticipate such inefficiency and corruption. This is why so many American libertarians, conservatives, and centrists have so enthusiastically endorsed the Latin American "neoliberalismo" movement. Neoliberalism- the breaking down of trade barriers and unfair regulation- is in principle correct. But genuine supporters of capitalism should be especially wary of how this term has been hijacked and co-opted by historically tyrannical forces in Latin America in order that they might simply redirect unfair trade practices to benefit a select few instead of eliminating those unfair trade practices altogether.
As a libertarian Republican, I am all too familiar with the tactics that "captialists-in-name-only" utilize to gain the support of true free-marketeers in order to further a decidedly anti-market agenda. Capitalists of all stripes have most notably (and tragically) been abused in such a manner by George W. Bush. I hardly need to elaborate on the Bush presidency, but I must point out that pro-capitalist Americans are far less familiar with the different cultural cues that supposedly 'neoliberal' political organizations in Mexico use to exploit free market proponents in the United States. It is critical that this misperception be addressed because when American libertarians associate themselves with the actions of many neoliberal regimes in Latin America, they hinder the spread of the free market ideology to the very countries that need it most.
Outside of the immigration issue, American free marketeers have largely been supportive of Mexico's PAN (Partido de Accion Nacional) regime, and all but the most hardened leftists breathed a sigh of relief when the party was narrowly reelected in 2006 over socialist candidate Manuel Lopez Obrador. PAN is currently the most powerful of Mexico's three major political parties and is usually seen by both Mexicans and U.S. politicians as the most "pro-American". But how much better are PAN and other purportedly neoliberal parties than those leftist movements that are more widely reviled by libertarians and conservatives, such as Chavez's "Bolivarian Socialism" or Cuban communism? Is it not possible that in the long run these neoliberal parties' dangerous violations,masquerading as true capitalism, will do more damage to free markets by souring Latin America's taste for pro-capitalist policies?
Even a cursory review of PAN's abuses will prove the aforementioned question to be more than hyperbole. It's not just the party's unwillingness to make a move against inefficient bureaucracies like ISSSTE that makes it so deplorable.The party has been complicit in robbing the people through the FOBAPROA fund. It has used the government to illegally award contracts through PEMEX, the state petroleum agency. The party has also allegedly cooperated with a drug trafficker to launder funds in the 2006 presidential election. Are these libertarian principles? Is this what we, as believers in the free market, want to associate our philosophy with? Since Americans' treatment of Mexico deeply influences all of Latin America's perception, the question of how we should treat the leading party in la republica is not a trivial one.
Some may respond that the solution will be to support the party (and repeat its neoliberal mantra) when it is right and shun the party when it is wrong. This is often the libertarian approach to the Republican and Democratic parties. But American political parties are highly decentralized compared to their counterparts in Latin America. If a swath of the American population supported the Republican's position on cutting back spending, it would not necessarily empower an exclusive cabal to do whatever they want to do on any issue. An upsurge in support for a given position may lead to passage of a bill by a bipartisan majority in congress. Members of either party can capitalize on nearly any issue they please within their own jurisdiction. Ideological purity is only loosely enforced through primary elections. That is to say, absolute political capitalization of an issue by an American political party is nearly impossible, giving citizens much more flexibility in advocating a position that coincides with a certain party's platform.
The same cannot be said in most of Latin America, and certainly not Mexico. PAN is neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is PAN. Unfortunately, if we are to dissociate true capitalism from PAN's abuses, we must divorce ourselves entirely from the term "neoliberalism". Critics might claim that I am exaggerating the importance of the rhetoric and intellectual traditions of American libertarians and conservatives to Latin American politicians. But Mexican president Felipe Calderon was educated in the United States, as have been past Mexican presidents. It is not uncommon for right-leaning Latin American leaders to spend time studying in the U.S. It is safe to assume that many more will come here for their education in the future. If the distinction between true capitalism and the policies of parties like PAN is to be made, then it is imperative that we address the difference frequently, consistently, and sensitively.
Of course, it is hard enough to expose such differences between true capitalism and the politics of certain quarters of the Republican Party right here in the U.S.A.. But the task is rendered several times more difficult in Latin America. This is partly because of the disparate origins of the two regions' conservative movements. American conservatism had a classical liberal genesis. Though the American conservative movement has allied itself with religious conservatives, even they must justify their interventionist positions through the libertarian-written constitution. More often than not, they opt for some sort of limited social intervention/economic non-intervention dichotomy that is not entirely corrosive to libertarian ideals.
PAN's conservatism had an almost exclusively religious beginning. The party was born of an armed Catholic uprising, the Cristero War, that makes Pat Robertson's bellicose rhetoric look like games para niños. It would be more accurate, therefore, to describe PAN not as a conservative party but rather as a catholic one. It is a caricature of European Christian Democracy.
Back in the mountain town of Guanajuato the shadow of the ugly ISSSTE building looms larger than ever. The people suffer while the PAN-dominated city government tries to impose a strict social code on the population. In one case it even tried to ban public kissing. PAN is losing ground and it's dragging free market ideals down with it. The authoritarian, anti-market Partido de la Revolucion Institucional or PRI, benefiting from PAN's foundering anti-drug crusade, threatens to return Mexico to the "benevolent" statism that marked the seven decades after the Revolution when it dominated political life. Worse yet, PRI's ranks have swollen most remarkably amongst young people; the party's student wing far outnumbers those if its PAN counterparts in the city. According to a widely circulated PRI pamphlet, the State of Guanajuato is PAN's model for the nation; its electoral majorities have traditionally been large there. If this is PAN's political model, then the neoliberal movement in one of the most conservative nations in the region is sinking fast. And since PAN is in turn tied to American capitalist philosophy, it will ruin the chance for free markets in Mexico for a generation or more. American libertarians, conservatives, and capitalists of all persuasions must actively criticize these neoliberal regimes as fervently as we do the socialist ones of Venezuela and Cuba. If we do not, the future Latin America will look as bleak as a grotesque public office building in the most beautiful city on the continent.
Matthew Holliday is a college student in and a former candidate for public office in Michigan. |
|
| |
Vallarta Weddings
Tell a Friend
Site Map
Print this Page
Email Us