Friday, February 11, 2011

Ortega Speaks

There is lots of interesting stuff of this Jesús Ortega interview first mentioned by Aguachile. This portion was especially striking:
Did you manage to put order in the different streams of opinion in the PRD?
No, but we laid down conditions and rules so to create streams of opinion.

Was the left blurred?
No, it's more that we are letting go of that orthodox vision, for some being blurred is no longer being what we were, but, shouldn't we cease to be what we were? I think we should. In the political wilderness but faithful to doctrines, dogmas if not principals? I ask.

But you are accused of violating certain principles.
What principles, whose of the old left, those of the old revolutionary nationalism, those of the old priísmo? Principals aren't forever. I mean to say that we didn't violate principles of democracy.

Did you put the PRD on the path to leftist modernization?
We contributed to that. The Mexican left is freer and democratic.

Was Obrador the shadow of your presidency?
Well, yes. It's a conservative vision.

He has a conservative vision?
Yes, in many aspects he has a conservative vision.

For example?
He has a conservative vision in the idea of democracy. When he says that Yeidckol [Polevnsky] will be the candidate, is that a democratic or a conservative vision? It seems conservative to me when someone decides who will be the candidate beyond the margins of the opinion of the population or the party. When he uses citizen referendums in some cases and in others he casts them aside, it's inconsistent.
I think his criticism of AMLO is right on, but at the same time the dichotomy of democratic vs. conservative is odd, and a bit worrying, in the sense that it presupposes that conservatives are not democrats.


Aguachile said...

With the risk of coming across as an devout Ortegaite: I think "conservative" here as much referred chiefly to a top-down type decision-making, such as the PRI dedazos of the past, and in that sense being backward-looking, rather than tagging conservatism as undemocratic, though this may certainly be subject to interpretation.

pc said...

Definitely true, and Ortega;s point is valid, but the word is also used to describe the right more generally. I don't think he meant to employ it to make it so that right=conservative=antidemocratic, but the fact that the word gets used in both contexts kind of furthers than idea that the right is by definition undemocratic.

I don't mean this so much a knock on Ortega, whom I like, so much as a just an unfortunate quirk of the language.