Explanations

Macario Schettino offered a few points in his explanation of the PAN's loss: First, the party's tent has three powerful groups who interests don't always align: economic and political liberals (in the Latin American rather than the US sense of the word), Catholic conservatives, and business groups, which previously supported the PRI but began to switch in the 1980s. Second, needing to a create a government that satisfied two of these groups and in search of legislative agreements, Calderón (a liberal) compromised on his convictions and undermined any attempt for his PAN to formulate a coherent vision for Mexico. That, in turn, made the PAN largely indistinguishable from the PRI, and more susceptible to a negative vote with circumstances aligned against it. (I'd also add that it had the unfortunate impact of allowing religious conservatives to think that Calderón's flaw was in giving them the cold shoulder, and that all of Mexico is eagerly awaiting for "Guanajuatization".)

That all makes sense, but I'm also not sure Calderón standing on principle would have made him more successful this past Sunday. If he'd been less accommodating and had pushed just one reform package through congress, Calderón would have been subject the charge of, The economy is sinking and your president can't do anything about it. Really, (and Schettino has made this point before, I believe) as long as there are three parties and none of them are aligned under a coherent majority-held agenda, the president is going to have his hands tied. It's a tricky pickle.

José Luis Calva laid into Calderón for his government's response to the crisis. In response to the claim that the crisis came from abroad, Calva points out that exports add up to only 13 percent of the GDP. Calva also says that the US has spent 5.6 percent of its GDP in its response to the crisis and will shrink about 2.7 percent this year, while Mexico has only invested 0.8 percent of its GDP in crisis response, and is expected to shrink by about 8 percent. I think this at least partially disingenuous. Dealing with his second point first, the US spent hundreds of billions to prop up banks, but in Mexico the banks are in good shape, so there was no need to spend that cash on a Mexican TARP. I've read nothing about why Mexico is contracting so much relative to the US, but I find it virtually impossible to believe that it can be laid entirely at the feet of the governmental response. Calva doesn't give us any explanation beyond the statistic itself, which is telling. Hey, look, unemployment in the US is almost twice as high as it is in Mexico; should we conclude that the US would have been better off with a stimulus closer in size to that of Mexico?

As far as his first point, 13 percent is actually a pretty big chunk of the economy. If 13 percent of your economy declines by half, you're looking at a huge recession. And that's before you get into the further impact on internal consumption of export industries, i.e. the Mexican trucks that deliver stuff to maquiladoras, the extra money that factory operators spend on shoes for their family, et cetera, et cetera. Additionally, to dumb the impact of a worldwide crisis down to exports alone, and to conclude that any further impact must have an internal cause, is willfully misleading. Mexico faces a fiscal disaster because the crisis undercut oil prices. Remittances are plummeting and rural Mexican towns dependent on them are in danger of collapsing because of the weak American job market. The economy has made life tough on Mexico and Calderón in ways that go well beyond exports.

Nothing Interesting to Say

As the post's title might indicate, I don't have anything interesting to say about the anti-kidnapping crusader from Chihuahua who was murdered earlier this week, other than the obvious: sad story from a place overflowing with them. But in the interest of keeping you updated, according to the PGR the murder was committed by a paramilitary group, while state officials say it was committed by the street gang La Linea, which is affiliated with Vicente Carrillo's organization. Richard's got another theory.

Update: Richard elaborates:

The killers probably were from this gang (though, as in Michoacan, the first suspects are usually just whomever the coppers picked up first) but my speculations on the LeBaron community were more that -- as very odd outsiders, and a very closed-in community -- they've probably made more than their share of enemies for any number of reasons.

Full Slate

We have lots of decent scraps on tap this weekend, starting with Vic Darchinyan versus Joseph Agbeko for a bantamweight title. I've never been enamored with Darchinyan as a fighter (though he's an all-time great as a trash-talker), and awkward bludgeoners always seem to have a hard time being effective when they move up in weight (think Ricardo Mayorga). I remain convinced that a smooth boxer with fast hands and pop will be more than Darchinyan, iced by just such a boxer in Nonito Donaire at 112, can handle at 118 pounds. However, I'm not sure Agbeko is that guy. I've only seen him once, but in that fight he went life or death against William González, who isn't in Darchinyan's league. I don't know, I'm flipping a coin. It's up... and it's tails! So which fighter is tails then? Screw it, I'm going with Agbeko by late knockout.

On the undercard, I like Antonio Demarco (a fighter to keep an eye on) by late knockout over Anges Adjaho, and Steve Cunningham over Wayne Brathwaite by knockout in a battle of former cruiserweight champs looking to get another crack at a belt.

The cruiserweight champ against whom they both want that crack is also in action: I like Tomasz Adamek by knockout over Bobby Gunn. In a featherweight title fight from Chiapas, I'll take Jorge Solís over Cristóbal Cruz by decision. In tonight's semi-main event (which should be the main event) on ESPN, I like Chris Henry by decision over Shaun George in a history-making battle of guys with first names for last names. And that's not the only trail-blazing matchup of surnames this weekend: in the first installement of N'Dou versus NDou, I'll take Lovemore over Phillip by decision.

Future of the PRD

Marcelo Ebrard, Leonel Godoy, and Amalia Carcía met with PRD legislators to carve out an agenda for the next legislative session. Ebrard emphasized that the discussion was not about removing anyone (read: Ortega) from power, but the article notes that no one from the New Left wing of the PRD participated.

Change of Tone

With PAN activists in a state of furor owing to the "humilliating defeat" on Sunday, Vicente Fox now says, "[Calderón] is my friend and we know each other and work together for the same purpose."

A couple days after Fox's infamous letter on the elections was sent to him, Jorge Fernández Menéndez wrote a column with more details on the missive yesterday:

Without a doubt, the economic figures for the government of Vicente Fox were better than those of Calderón's first three years, the question, nevertheless, is if in these conditions more could have been done and why thorough, structural reforms were constructed, that the country then required and requires with still more urgency today. The same could be said of security: was the present crisis caused by this government or was it inherited?

[Break]

We talked [in the column] about politics and not laudable achievements, from the prohibition on tobacco advertising to the creation of the Institute of Genome Medicine. Every president has had accomplishments of this sort, but they don't to be judged on them but rather due to the vision that they had, the changes they introduced and the perception of how they handed the country over to their successor. That's what Vicente Fox wants to debate and it clearly shows who his adversary is: Felipe Calderón. That's where the true fracture of the PAN lies.

Or taken another way, it's all about vanity: Fox thinks the short-changing of his legacy takes precedence over his ideological affinity with Calderón (to which he referred today). But if the fracture of the PAN really comes down to Fox's obsession with his legacy, shouldn't the differences between the different wings be easier to overcome?

A New Low?

Things are not good for Mexico's national team when it can only manage a 1-1 with Panama, and no one is even talking about the unacceptable result. The night's most memorable moment was when Javier Aguirre delivered a kick to the midsection of Panamanian Ricardo Phillips. After Phillips retaliated with a push, they were both ejected. It's hard to find any logic whatsoever in Vasco's move; it wasn't like it was out of anger, because this kick had little force; it wasn't a misguided way to fire up the team, which was in the midst of its best stretch of soccer of the game, only to have the wind sucked out during the ten minute discussion following the kick; he wasn't trying to stop the ball rolling by, which he missed by about five feet; it looked more than anything like he just momentarily forgot where he was, a la Steve Lyons dropping his pants (no video, sorry) after sliding into first.

The Ups and Downs of Mexican Businesses

Up: One Mexican business not suffering too greatly in the recession is Wal-Mart; profits for Mexico's largest retailer in the second quarter jumped by 16 percent from last year, helped in part by Semana Santa falling later this year. (H/T Mexico Institute)

Down: Only four Mexican businesses appear in the 500 largest in the world, according to Fortune. Last year, the figure was five. This year's entrants are Pemex, CFE, América Movil, and Cemex.

Good Summary

The Mexico Institute has a nice post-op of Sunday's elections available here.

Two (very minor) quibbles: first, the article calls Monterrey the nation's most important economic center. You hear that a lot, but it's not true. Mexico City's GDP, eighth largest in the world measured in purchasing power parity, is five times the size of Monterrey's. Some six times more people live in the Mexico City region than in Monterrey. Mexico City is also home to the nation's Central Bank, stock market, economic decision-makers, and many of the nation's most important industrialists (though Monterrey has a bunch as well).

Second, it says the economy may contract by as much as 3 to 6 percent this year. Given that Carstens is predicting a 5.5 percent decline and he's been overly optimistic throughout the crisis, I'd say it's a virtual certainty that the GDP shrinks by more than 6 percent.

Knifing Each Other

The resignation of Germán Martínez has done nothing to calm the waters inside the PAN. Excélsior ran a long article about the finger-pointing inside the PAN today, with complaints surrounding the selection of candidates, the closeness of Martínez to the president, and the marriages of convenience with unsavory characters like Valdemar Gutiérrez.

Incredibly, Vicente Fox sent a letter to Jorge Fernández Menéndez in which he laid the blame for the losses at the feet of his fellow panista, Felipe Calderón. One of the quotes from the letter, whose third-person form offers a hint of Fox's narcissism:

President Vicente Fox during his term worked constantly close to the population. Today the people are demanding that closeness from the authorities.

This, even more incredibly, seems to have led to a narrative that Fox knew how to govern, and Calderón doesn't. (Perhaps I overstate the prevalence of said narrative, but article linked above was rife with the sentiment.) This is simply insanity. The popular impression of Fox was, Nice guy who didn't know how to operate at the highest levels of Mexican politics. The only problem with that characterization is the first part. Fox's legislative achievements were surpassed by Calderón in the latter's first year in office. Fox's mid-term elections in 2003 were every bit the disaster that Calderón's were on Sunday. Fox couldn't get his preferred candidate through the PAN primaries in 2006. He was the manager of the famous Montessori cabinet. Fox operated during a much friendlier economic climate, but growth was consistently disappointing. One label that simply does not apply to Fox is "capable manager and smooth political operator whose government was always close to the people."

Joblessness

Rogelio Ramírez de la O expresses uncertainty about the world economy's recovery, and highlights some problems specific to Mexico:

Mexico has an almost fine line to walk, now that it has let a recession come to harm the structure. Today the structure of the public finances is as damaged as the social structure.

Because the government likewise had no success in designing truly structural reforms that assure higher rates of growth and employment (which must be the test of whether reforms are good or not), the only practical thing today is to concentrate on a few contextual issues. Among these, unemployment is the most worrying.

If it continues to rise, the losses that have already registered 710,000 jobs in six months, without including the informal sector and available non-assets (which also rose), will have the capacity to further damage the economic structure, causing business bankruptcies and losses to financial entities that lent to today's unemployed. And social tension will increase, scaring off investments.

Maybe, if the government reorders its ideas, examines the instruments it has at its disposal, and takes effective action, it can manage to reduce unemployment.

The Best Way to Hear "Um" and "I Think" 16,000 Times in Fifteen Minutes

Me on the radio.

Bowden in Mexico

Commentator JD pointed me to a new profile of a Mexican reporter fleeing vengeful army troops, written by Charles Bowden. Down by the River was one of the pieces of writing that first interested me in Mexico, and, as always with Bowden, there's a lot to admire in this piece. He has a sharp eye for detail and a noir-ish style that, while it might rub some people the wrong way, I usually find rather gripping.

But this piece was not nearly as satisfying as Bowden's book, in part because Mexico's drug traffickers aren't as new to me as they were in 2002, but also because of several flaws in the article. The problems of military abuse are real, and something to which Mexican officials don't pay nearly enough attention. Compared to my experience in Torreón, he overstates it; I've heard rumors about and read reports of soldierly misconduct here, but there is a definitely a sense of respect for them as both more hard-assed and more professional than the average cop. I've never been asked for a bribe by a soldier, but I probably have been hit up half a dozen times by cops. I think geography explains a lot of that; on average, a hopper in West Baltimore probably hates the police more than his law-abiding cousin Bowie. Which takes me to my second point, that rural Chihuahua isn't reflective of the country at large. It's like looking at the US through the lens of the ugliest street corner in Detroit or Los Angeles. Focusing as it did on one man in one troubled region and asking readers to extrapolate from his troubles a coherent view of Mexico, the piece was too narrow to make an effective denunciation of army abuse.

Bowden seemed to want to make up for the narrowness of his facts with broad, poorly supported accusations. Take this: "To have a general speak to you is not something to be desired. They can hand out death like a party favor." That's a nice, provocative statement for a cocktail party, or a novel, but what is it doing in a serious magazine article? Another example: "The Army, the largest gang, is not attempting to seize the bankrupt and withering state, but grabbing market share in a place whose two largest industries are supplying American drug habits and exporting millions of people." Bowden has offered little to support what is an extremely sweeping allegation besides his instinct, which is insufficient. The Human Rights Watch report that came out earlier this year, which avoided the hyperbolic conclusions in favor of the specific details of the more than a dozen cases it investigated, was a far more illuminating look at the army's weaknesses. As was today's Post story.

I think a lot of what's wrong with this piece is summarized in this portion:

There are two Mexicos.

There is the one reported by the US press, a place where the Mexican president is fighting a valiant war on drugs, aided by the Mexican Army and the Mérida Initiative, the $1.4 billion in aid the United States has committed to the cause. This Mexico has newspapers, courts, laws, and is seen by the United States government as a sister republic.

It does not exist.

There is a second Mexico where the war is for drugs, where the police and the military fight for their share of drug profits, where the press is restrained by the murder of reporters and feasts on a steady diet of bribes, and where the line between the government and the drug world has never existed.

The choice between those who know the real Mexico and the saps who buy into the mendacious narrative is a false one. I don't consider myself a wide-eyed sucker on Mexico, but in point of fact, there are newspapers operating here, many of them run by jokers, but many of them muck-raking and aggressive as well. To suggest that there aren't is an insult to people like Jesús Blancornelas. Likewise, there are laws and courts and police--obviously, they don't operate effectively as they need to, and there's a different standard for the rich and the poor, but they operate. For all of the dirty cops and crooked politicians, there are honest officials working in Mexico.

Bowden's contention to the contrary is insidious even beyond its obvious incorrectness. There is a tendency in Mexico to leap to the lowest common moral denominator, to assume that because one official was crooked, they all are, and to believe that because one government engaged in cover-ups, everything with a stamp of officialdom is a lie. This habit is an enormous barrier to a more open, democratic society. It's part of the explanation for why Mexicans don't believe in their institutions, even the ones that work. It's why Mexicans who are abused by authorities are hesitant to seek penalties, which of course encourages more official wrongdoing. This tendency allows a truly dirty official to shrug off any accusation as mere mudslinging, and puts honest politicians under undue suspicion. It's why outlandish conspiracy theories often have more credibility than the boring, verifiable truth. It seems to me that it's a reporter's obligation to fight through the morass of conspiracy and untruth and look for some objective conclusions based on facts, narrow though they may be.

More Reports of Abuse

The Washington Post's story on abuses by the Mexican military reads like a mini version of the Human Rights Watch report on the same subject, which is to say, it's disturbing. Obviously, changing a military culture is not an easy task, and it's made even trickier by Calderón's reliance on the army, but the article sure leaves you with the feeling that Mexico's isn't taking this problem seriously, as did the HRW report. Take this response from Fernando Gómez Mont: 

"I know that the armed forces are not acting inappropriately, although there have been some cases," said Interior Minister Fernando Gómez Mont, who is responsible for coordinating security operations across Mexico. "The government honestly believes that. There is no incentive for abuse."

The phrasing of the bolded part completely destroys the credibility of the sentiment, although perhaps he was speaking in a language with which he is not entirely comfortable. The final sentence is certainly correct; allowing a brutalizing army (even if only periodically so) to operate when a professional one would be much more effective is a mistake. Again, this isn't something Mexico's political leaders can fix overnight, but Mexico could be doing a much better job of addressing this. That is, unless you believe the gist of the recent Charles Bowden piece on Mexico, which will have to wait until tomorrow. 

A Graceful Finale

Jorge Fernández Menéndez on Germán Martínez falling on his sword:

Germán Martínez resigned on Monday from the national presidency of the PAN in a worthy act following the electoral defeat of his party. It's not a bit from our politicians: en 2000, Dulce María Sauri stayed on for the PRI after the defeat of Francisco Labastida and in 2006 we had to wait for a new internal election so that months later Beatriz Paredes arrived to the presidency. In the PRD a party president has never resigned for bad electoral results. In the PAN, Luis Felipe Bravo Mena stayed at the head of the PAN almost a ear after the results in 2003, so as to turn over the party to Manuel Espino (who now demands the party's independence from the president, when his arrival to the PAN was caused by his closeness to Vicente Fox).

It looks like Jesús Ortega is in no hurry to leave either. You wonder if his exit was broached in the meeting of three PRD governors in Michoacán

Economic Predictions

Agustín Carstens is prediction a rebound in 2010 of 3 percent growth. Of course, he's predicting a 5.5 percent contraction this year, which is probably about 2 points too low, so maybe we should assume that 1 percent growth is on tap for next year. For a less biased assessment, La Jornada ran a piece featuring the predictions of José Juan Ruiz, a former official from Felipe González's government who now works for the bank Santander. Ruiz said the region may start showing some expansion next year, but it will be 2011 before the region's economy returns to levels of health growth.

Odd Take

This line from the LA Times editorial page's response to the Mexican elections seemed out of place:

We hope voters are simply punishing the PAN for its shortcomings rather than longing for a return to a one-party patronage state.

Let's not go overboard--the PRI won less than 40 percent of the vote. The days in which any party wins even a majority of the votes don't seem to be imminent, although a two-party presidential system would likely be more effective than the present set-up. There's no evidence whatsoever that the votes for the PRI are longing for a return to authoritarianism. Indeed, the PRI won because it was assigned no responsibility for the economy and insecurity, and because it avoided the messy public spats that we saw from the PRD, not because Mexicans are eager for another López Portillo.

Sharp Writing

For anyone who hasn't gotten enough reflection on Michael Jackson, I thought John McWhorter's take was about as good as I've read.

Voter Profile

Kate D Artigues points us to a piece of data that would seem to negate any possibility of a generation of PRI dominance: more than 40 percent of their voters were between 61 and 96 years old! Also, despite parties of the left being more popular among the young (at least, so goes the stereotype), only 15 percent of voters between 18 and 25 voted for the PRD, versus 34 for the PRI and 28 for the PAN. Actually, the youngsters pretty well replicated the national dynamic, with slightly more support for the PRD.

D Artigues also makes another worthwhile point:

I read it everywhere: after the triumph of the PRI in these elections we must prepare ourselves for the return of the PRI to the presidency in 2012 with Enrique Peña Nieto. It's "inevitable".

First, answer two questions:

Who would have thought on July 2, 2005, not to mention 2003, that Felipe Calderón would be president. Indeed, not even the PAN candidate; the inevitable one was Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Who would have thought that a year before the elections in the US, in November 2007, that Barack Obama would win? Wasn't the contest merely a formality for the inevitable Hillary Clinton?

Taking Sides

In the dispute between the moderate leadership and the more extreme left represented by AMLO, it's never been entirely clear where Marcelo Ebrard has come down, but his inlination has always seemed more toward ALMO. Another illustration of that: in his comments on the PRD's electoral performance, Ebrard called the internal dispsutes a "grave error" and seemed to blame them entirely on Jesús Ortega, rather than López Obrador.

Less Popular

According to the El Universal pollster Berumen, Calderón dropped slightly in popularity as the election approached, going from a 53.7 to a 51.6 percent approval rating. Berumen's measures of Calderón have always been slightly less favorable than other pollsters', so it'll be interesting to see if this holds up in other surveys.

Who's to Blame

Asked whether Sunday was a defeat of the PAN in general or of Felipe Calderón in particular, close to two thirds of the respondents to a Grupo Imagen poll answered the party was the big loser, not the prez.

More Friendliness

I've mentioned on a few occasions the increased military cooperation between the US and Mexico. Another example: Air Force General Victor Renuart, head of the Northern Command, is in Mexico, talking with his counterparts about bilateral security issues related to drug trafficking and the Mérida Initiative.

Big Signing for the Yanks

He may not be Kaká, but Oguchi Onyewu's transfer to AC Milan sure adds some prestige to the American national team.