Zepeda Patterson on AMLO

Jorge Zepeda Patterson heaps mild disapproval on both sides of the AMLO polarization: those who think his word is divine, and those who are convinced he is the anti-Christ. He makes the point that people who object to his tactics should not ignore everything the man has to say.

Zepeda Patterson is right that a person's opinion of AMLO's ideas is generally dictated by his opinion of the man himself, but no one is more to blame for that than AMLO. His ideas --whatever you think of them-- are not the most salient part of his persona, and that's by design. El Peje isn't so naive to think that his showy stunts like taking over the Congress bring more attention to his program; they bring more attention to him.

The column also ignores the fact that while 95 percent of the complaints about AMLO are related to his tactics rather than his ideas, that doesn't mean his ideas are ignored entirely. It's not inconsistent to be generally worried about inequality and poverty in Mexico but to be more immediately apoplectic about AMLO's latest assault on democracy. It's not a callous disregard for Mexico's poor to think that AMLO, by time and again ignoring the rules of democracy and flouting the law, should be relegated to Mexico's political sidelines. He says (rightly), "A movement is required that represents the other Mexicans. If López Obrador didn't exist, we'd have to invent him." I agree, but should Mexico settle for a version that doesn't abide by the governing system when it doesn't suit him?