Texas (...) fits here in my heart

 Texas (...) fits here in my heart

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

We have known the Lone Star State from a distance, it constitutes one of the spaces of the American Union with greater belonging to Mexico, not only for having been part of it and constituting one of the significant traumas of national identity, but also because it is a of the main receiving communities of Mexican emigrants for several decades, if not centuries.

However, the land of Arenita Mejillas represents the paradoxical ambiguity of the relationship between Mexico and the United States. He was a forgotten land due to the legacy of Spanish laziness that gave rise to the most abusive and shameful Mexican war; However, he has returned so much for Mexico that, at times, it is no longer known if the historical memorandum of rancor makes sense.

Governor Greg Abbott's actions to promote his candidacy for the presidency of the United States adopt the issues of immigration and drug trafficking as local solution strategies that could be implemented later, upon his arrival in the White House. If they worked, it would even be the best idea to also offer him the presidency of the Mexican Republic, but Abbott lies as Houston and Austin did to defeat General Antonio López de Santa Anna.

North American theological liberalism points out that it is useless to try to change the human nature of people, therefore it is appropriate to agree on interests. Probably, after bitter experiences for Mexico, that is why Texas represents the optimum of understanding that countries like the United States and ours can achieve, for the good and, above all, for the bad.

Texas is not the same as California, but it is very similar. Although in the immediate past both entities have distinguished themselves by radical and even xenophobic anti-Mexican policies, economic interests -mainly those of an informal nature- have forced them to institutionalize amnesties for Mexican immigrants, to leave things more or less similar to the previous state that was I wanted to solve.

A previous article by Dr. Samuel Schmidt seems to take up an idea that Carlos Salinas had when he envisioned the issue of drugs and the way they affected the Mexican-American relationship: the gringos do not want to solve the problem, they only want to regulate it. Abbot dodges issues of immigration and drugs, shipping them off to Washington just like when Houston and Austin sent Santa Anna on a ride with the threat of hanging him or leaving him locked up in an African-American slave room. If the Alamo caused so much pain, the worthy thing would have been to shoot the President from Veracruz. Worthy and honorable for all parties, but the interests overcame the nationalist sentiment. The same thing happens with Abbott, he plays the convenience to run as a Republican candidate for the Executive Power of North America, but he does not want to solve anything.

In Texas, as in other states of the American Union, millions of illegal workers arrive, as Joan Sebastián's song says. The search for the American dream and development that Mexico could not offer them, forces an interaction that is paradoxical, complicated, good and very bad. It is certain that Greg Abbott is found every day in the street to hundreds of

drug traffickers, bosses, businessmen and political criminals -natives of Mexico- who have decided to settle in Texas, legally or illegally, to launder their money, live peacefully from their robberies and even continue developing their criminal economy. they don't destroy them? Why doesn't he persecute them and send them to Alaska? Why do so many powerful Mexican criminals live comfortably in Texas? Because Abbott is not an asshole and, above all, he has no ethical principles or friends, he only has interests as dictated by the Monroe Doctrine. There is a vicious, reprehensible, corrupt and toxic circle in the Mexico-United States relationship, worse than the sins of Las Vegas or New York and that is represented in Texas; but Abbott doesn't want to fix it but to weigh the desirability of it. Abbot, like Trump, have forgotten that order is indispensable even to the most voracious liberalism.

Doctor Schmidt formulates scenarios that should be seriously considered towards 2024 by politicians and scholars in Mexico and the United States. The temporary convergence of the successions for power in both nations, can unleash what the futurist George Friedmann points out when the tortilla is finished turning against our countries.

Mexico is experiencing hundreds of Alamos all the time, a low intensity war that calls for arrangements and order, the convenient subterfuges between Mexico and the United States are going to end up infecting both States with Failed and Dangerous States. Lying politicians like Gregg Abbott, Donald Trump and the opposition to Morena - who recognize the failure of the military strategy but do not want to recognize the desperation that he feels for the lack of ideas - are the real danger for our countries and humanity.

Alejandro Armenta and the Morena crisis in Puebla

 Alejandro Armenta and the Morena crisis in Puebla

Diego Martin Velázquez Caballero

Even when Marinism seemed to disappear in the face of the rise of the leadership of Rafael Moreno Valle, it was preserved as a current political tendency for the triumph of Miguel Barbosa Huerta in the extraordinary elections and, probably, in the designation of a candidate as, as it seems to represent Alexander Armenta.

Alejandro Armenta saw his political career bear fruit by sticking to and defending the political group of Mario Marín, who sought to develop a career in search of the presidency of the republic. The scandal of the Lidia Cacho case exposed the structures and mechanics of an oligarchic and corrupt power that has not been able to banish itself from the state of Puebla.

The economic, social and electoral support of Marinism was singular for the support of the interim government, as well as for Morena to triumph in the elections against Enrique Cárdenas and Alejandro Armenta, as operator and architect of Mario Marín, Javier López Zavala and Valentín Meneses. , generated the consensus that made the traditional “green vote” work, which was imposed against Acción Nacional and legitimized barbosismo.

Almost immediately, Miguel Barbosa tried to distance himself from the authoritarian and corrupt vision of the Marinista group, which was already beginning to be a burden for the state government. Armenta himself starred in conflicts that revealed the dark side of Marinism to displace Barbosa from the Executive Branch. Despite this and other contemporaneous contempt for Marinism with Barbosa, it seems that Senator Armenta represents the way for Barbosismo and its social bases to build a political process capable of confronting Bartlismo and the still surviving PRIANRD coalition.

Marinism is in force in the figure of Alejandro Armenta and willing to generate a mechanics of cacique, migrant, business and PRI alliances so that the regional power of the historic priismo of Puebla is preserved. For its part, the National Regeneration party has failed to generate an efficient institutional architecture and the cost has been the storm of its internal state and national processes, as well as the lack of authentic candidates committed to the Fourth Transformation to succeed the government in power. the state of Puebla.

The scarcity of lopezobradorismo in Puebla has allowed the will and fortune of the regional chieftainships -such as Marinismo- to prevail and demonstrate their political craft against an incompetent leftist government and the local democratic transition.

Morena's conflicts in Puebla destroy the possibility of the permanence of progressivism in the entity and reveal the appetite of the opposition factions and parties to reach the governorship again. Puebla continues with an interrupted political transition and an authoritarian structure worthy of the old regime, as the aspiration of the Morenista more Marinista supposes.

SALINAS, GORBACHEV AND THE MEXICO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP

 SALINAS, GORBACHEV AND THE MEXICO-AMERICAN RELATIONSHIP

Diego Martin Velazquez Caballero

The electoral campaigns have moved forward in Mexico and the United States, perhaps for this reason the political climate is so intense that nothing can go unnoticed, for example: the death of Mikhail Gorbachev and the consequences of the frustrated modernity that Russia is experiencing, particularly reflected in the Russian-Ukrainian military conflict. The last president of the USSR is a benchmark of the change of era that affected the world and now, as well as at the time of the disappearance of the USSR, his absence invites us to reflect on the Western liberal-democratic globalizing failure.

Carlos Salinas de Gortari wrote one of the best diagnoses regarding the torn modernity of our country's political system: Mexico: a difficult step towards modernity. And even when the technocratic group is accused of implanting a counter-model to the structural characteristics of the Mexican Republic, the truth is that it was also intended to generate a nationalist modernization that would be synchronized, at least ideologically, with the United States. Mexican liberalism is nothing more than the path of social transformation to abandon the humanistic medieval Hispanism that gave rise to Mexico, but which was not useful in containing North American imperialism. However, this Mexican liberalism also has a terrible dimension identified with the ugly aspect of Mexicanness: violent factionalism.

The Mexican people may be as liberal and Darwinian as anyone else, but incapable of accepting political modernity and inclined to live in an eternal collectivist cycle of violence and structural poverty to protect their particularisms, whatever the cost. Mexico has a primitive and barbaric liberal root that manifests itself in uncontrollable cacicazgos, anarchist social movements and civil disobedience.

The sterile comparison made between Carlos Salinas and Gorbachev is controversial, especially because it is produced motu proprio from the former president. However, Salinas is not only comparable to Gorbachev but also to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and other modernizing leaders, as the late political scientist Samuel Huntington stated; but, above all, with General Plutarco Elías Calles. Mexico, Russia and Turkey are representatives of cyclical, failed and cumulative schizophrenic modernizations.

Our country, like the Tsarist Empire and the core of the Turkish Ottoman Empire, are hinge nations between antagonistic civilizations and breaking points for civilizational expansion or defeat. The Anglo-Saxon axis that determined neoliberal globalization was not able to share the complete recipe for successful modernities: the construction of the State. On the contrary, the interpretation of the Minimum State was confused -conveniently- with the Famished State, mainly that of limited governability -or ungovernability- at the service of the de facto powers, the groups of organized violence and, especially, imperialism. . More neoliberal than Salinas were the dinosaurs of the Revolutionary Family, the cassocks of the religious extreme right and the criminal caciquism disguised as drug trafficking, social movements and rurality. These dark forces, historical enemies of the Mexican State, found the dismantling of the National State and its subsequent liberalization more than useful to continue limiting the Mexican Prince.

Unlike Mexico, in Russia an elite emerged from the military forces that knew how to recognize the flower-scented poison that neoliberalism implied and, despite significant costs, set fire to Western modernization to rebuild the Russian state and resist the imperialist demands of the West that forgot the democratic, political and social compromises with the Baltic Slavic civilization. The United States is afraid of Russia and that is why it has always sought to destroy it, the Russo-Ukrainian war cannot be written without such a script.

Mexico and the United States are already at war. The fight against drug trafficking is but another version of the Mexican-American conflagration that took place throughout the 19th century and with some significant intrusions in the 20th century. Mexico and the United States have always coexisted under the scenario of low intensity warfare. Yankee interventionism has no measure and, in addition to forcing national governments to submit to its war economy, it invests in different drug trafficking groups and factual powers to destabilize the country. Who is who in this new patriotic war that we are going to experience? Who is the main interested in that the Mexican State does not finish consolidating? Manuel Camacho Solís pointed out the historical knots that the armed forces must destroy to consolidate the Mexican State, in addition to the criminal groups.

Organized crime, the ruling powers and the invisible power have established their realities in the United States, but what is the reason that in this space they are not risky? The political and institutional capacity of the North American government to regulate, control and take advantage of the socioeconomic interests of said entities. In Mexico, the State is increasingly limited and a pact of healthy coexistence cannot be generated with the hindrances of the old regime, although they disguise themselves as modern conservatives, they continue to be an obstacle for any government. The powers that be in Mexico have ended up devouring the State and López Obrador has had to recognize the failure of the Fourth Transformation because it is becoming more and more notorious that the powers that be order, not the president.

Salinas and Calderón reflect the dilemma of imposing laws and authority on Mexicans, as well as the failure of authority. Samuel Huntington analyzed the furious Mexican 1994 from the perspective of a conservative people that refused to modernize and a president that was unable to consolidate the armed forces to use legitimate violence. López Obrador faces this situation: without the honest awareness that the Mexican Army is going -again- to war with drug trafficking, the national State will not be consolidated and the Yankee Empire, as it has always done, will find the incentives and interests to come to an understanding with the powers that be: there will always be exploitation for the emigrant lumpenproletariat, possibilities of money laundering for all those interested in not paying taxes to the Mexican State and, mainly, an exalted market for the vice of addictions.

The Mexican Army has never stopped protecting the political system, the 20th century of our country cannot be explained without the strength of the Official Party, which was nothing other than the extension of military officers to regularize the political dispute, and it worked. There was a limited democracy, but also governability.

State public institutions are in a state of decomposition similar to that of the Santanista era. The Failed State is a plague that forms in our country and also infects the powerful neighbor to the north, however, mutual destruction cannot be the optimum of our futures.

The climate of opinion that develops around the relationship between Mexico and the United States forgets that they are completely different civilizations and countries. Particularly our country conflicts when it has to assume Hispanism, indigenism and Catholicism in the face of an Anglo-Saxon culture that determines everything from a rational liberal perspective. It is not easy to live next to North America.

For an economy like the Mexican, the institutional agreements with the United States have been of little use, the best understanding has been that of the informal economy. The FTA-TMEC has only benefited North American companies, while Mexican society receives income from emigration and, above all, drug trafficking; the rest of the population must endure public or private underemployment.

Mikhail Gorbachev's naivety explains the current circumstances in Russia, while Mexico's innocence and ambition regarding the good intentions of the United States also puts us on the verge of formal war.