Eduardo Verástegui and Trumpist Christian Nationalism

 Eduardo Verástegui and Trumpist Christian Nationalism

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The meeting between Eduardo Verástegui and U.S. Ambassador Ronald Johnson has generated interest due to Verástegui's closeness to President Donald Trump and his MAGA movement. Verástegui represents a faction of the Mexican right that seeks to consolidate a political bloc aligned with Trump's interests in Mexico.

Verástegui has established ties with international right-wing leaders, especially Trump, and has participated in Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) events in the United States. His goal is to found a political party in Mexico similar to Trump's Republican Party, promoting a political-religious agenda that combines neoliberalism, Christian nationalism, and Catholicism.

The Mexican right is currently dispersed and lacks a coherent discourse, divided into several factions. Verástegui seeks to attract disenchanted conservative sectors and PAN members with an agenda aligned with the principles of the American right. Their movement, "Viva México," could open a new space for the right in the country.

The Mexican right is dispersed, divided, and lacking a strategic logic, much less a coherent discourse. The Mexican right has become tribalized by economic factionalism. On the one hand, conservative and traditionalist Catholic nationalism is unsure whether to remain in the PAN, found a new political party, or even join Morena at the express invitation of Ricardo Monreal. The neoliberal right remains tied to technocratic essentialism, but lacks the capacity to explain and justify itself to society, which it continues to view as a six-thousand-dollar group. The libertarian right has become an anti-populist and anti-Mexican club. The civil and liberal right is dispersed in the pink tide, recreating the nostalgia for decent PANism.

The adoption of Trumpism by Verástegui and other participants at CPAC Mexico could intensify political polarization and legitimize radical discourses. The presence of international figures with classist and racist discourse could deepen social divisions and erode Mexican democracy.

The closeness between Verástegui and Ambassador Johnson is significant, as Johnson called Verástegui "his brother" during a private dinner in his honor. This meeting reflects the interest of a faction of the Mexican right in strengthening its ties with Trumpism, which carries significant risks for Mexico's political and social stability.

With Verástegui, Mexico could become like Costa Rica, Panama, Ecuador, Puerto Rico, or the Dominican Republic. Perhaps this is not a bad invitation to the right-wing parties in our country, who lack the strength to transform Mexico into a conservative modernity like Spain, Chile, or Argentina. It is not just a traditional patriarchy that lies behind Eduardo Verástegui; there is a Mexican national project that integrates, in some ways, with Donald Trump's MAGA perspective. The power network surrounding Verástegui connects North American politicians seeking to replicate Miami in Latin America, but there are also Latin American and Hispanic collaborators.

Verástegui's national project conditions Mexico's annexation to North America and, above all, ecumenism with Protestant Christians. Although the anti-Castro influence of Hispanic North American politicians seems evident, there is also a hidden Catholic right wing that is on the verge of religious schism due to its lack of influence in the Catholic Church, mainly due to recent changes.

Gray or Failed State: Mexico and the United States Facing Drug Trafficking

 Gray or Failed State: Mexico and the United States Facing Drug Trafficking

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The narrative of the fight against drug trafficking has been a recurring theme in the relationship between Mexico and the United States. However, reality suggests that both countries have failed to address the problem effectively. US intervention in Mexico has focused on regulating the drug phenomenon, but not on limiting it or reducing the flow of psychotropic drugs into the country. Meanwhile, Mexican cartels have continued to operate with impunity, and violence in the country has reached unprecedented levels. The recent departure of drug trafficking leaders to the United States to negotiate with the White House is an indication that the balance of power between the cartels has spiraled out of control.

Some analysts suggest that the US government's intention is to weaken the cartels and impose its hegemony in the region. However, this hypothesis is difficult to understand in a context where violence in Mexico continues to increase. The flight of major drug trafficking groups to the United States is not unprecedented, and one might wonder whether the use of intelligence by the Americans will protect them from possible acts of defense or violence on U.S. soil. Rafael Loret de Mola's novels had already presented scenarios in which the Americans intervened in Mexico to capture the political class linked to crime, but the reality is more complex. What would happen if the war between the cartels also spread to the United States? This has happened with mafias in other countries and even with fights between fundamentalist or terrorist groups.

The relationship between Mexico and the United States has become a vicious cycle, in which drug trafficking and violence feed off each other. Canceling visas and confiscating capital and materials have not been effective in other Latin American countries, and they likely won't be in Mexico. The question is, what can be done to break this cycle of violence and corruption? The response of some intellectuals, such as Sabina Berman and Juan Carlos Monedero, has been to question whether US intervention has been effective in other countries. However, the experience of Panama, Colombia, Costa Rica, and Honduras after the US intervention suggests that these intrusions have been positive.

In this context, it is important to analyze the relationship between Mexico and the United States from a critical perspective. The official narrative regarding the fight against drug trafficking obscures the true intentions of both countries. The United States seeks to maintain its hegemony in the region, while Mexico is incapable of addressing the structural problems underlying drug trafficking. Cooperation between the two countries is an illusion, and the reality is that both are trapped in a labyrinth of violence and corruption. The reality is that both Mexico and the United States are failed states and gray areas in their own right, incapable of addressing the structural problems underlying drug trafficking. However, the nearly fifty million Mexicans living illegally in the United States should be asked whether they would like Mexico to be a protectorate or the 52nd state of the American Union. Berman and Monedero skew their interpretation and overlook this dynamic between Mexico and North America, which, fortunately, beyond politicians, intellectuals, and international organizations, presents an independent path.

Zedillo: The Technicians and Specialists Speak Out

 Zedillo: The Technicians and Specialists Speak Out

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

According to Miguel Basáñez, the public sector in our country is made up of three significant groups: politicians, technicians, and specialists. Recently, given the decomposition of the Mexican State and the threats of invasion from the Yankees, it can be said—with complete certainty—that we have an unhealthy political class. The generation of Juárez liberals faced foreign invasion due to insufficient payments on the foreign debt and geopolitical reasons; now, Mexico is on the verge of being taken over by corrupt, corrupt, and criminal thugs. One reason for the current state of affairs is that the technical and specialized sectors of the government have been tied up, blocked, and silenced in the name of absolute loyalty to abject ignorance.

Political hegemocracy, as Basáñez defines it, did not begin entirely with Morena. The balance of power has benefited politicians since the Vicente Fox administration and has reached total dominance during the Fourth Transformation. Lopez Obrador's administration pledged to rebuild the Mexican state through one of the most effective expert sectors: the Army; but something went wrong along the way. The traditional patrimonialism and pragmatism of Mexican job creation prevailed in the political landscape. The macro-networks of bosses, corporatism, and clientelism boosted Morena's electoral strength, and now there's no turning back. Paying bills and political favors blocks economic growth and development.

Zedillo has raised the debate on the country's economic projects in the public sphere. Even from an extreme Machiavellian position, the results are what they are, and the reality facing the Sheinbaum administration and the progressive populist national revolutionary project cannot be called a success. If Zedillo were wrong in his remarks, Claudia Sheinbaum's letter to Morena would not have been sent, much less would it have triggered the moral code for the Morena politician. Why insist on the good conduct of the Morena politician if the 4T is pure, untainted, and God-fearing? The dominance of Morena politicians is affecting the Mexican state, as many make immorality their main virtue; especially the defectors, whose political entrepreneurship becomes savage, barbaric, and overwhelming.

Beyond neoliberalism, technical skills and specialists must balance willful and pragmatic political action. Mexican empiricism has brought us to the brink of chaos, and it is necessary to recognize that technology has no ideology nor does it belong to the domain of a class or caste. Mexico's capacity to govern is on the brink of ineffectiveness. The government must engage the appropriate technicians and specialists to restore the lost consistency between the formulation and results of public policies.