MAGA Has Fallen in Los Angeles

MAGA Has Fallen in Los Angeles

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero 

The emergence of various social groups in some of California's major cities in response to the US federal government's intervention by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) has further discredited Trumpism globally.

The reaction of the Hispanic community in Los Angeles, California, in particular, may represent a breaking point for Trump's MAGA movement and signal that the United States' techno-feudal neoliberalism cannot exclude migrants working in the informal economy.

California has been the starting point for mobilizations within North America and around the world to challenge Donald Trump's administration.

California is one of the world's most important economies; in addition to the impressive civil resistance of the Hispanic community, there have also been strong demands from various business owners, landowners, and industrialists expressing the economic damage that the mass deportation of immigrants would cause, according to MAGA's approach.

Donald Trump's nativist economic proposal requires a costly restructuring that cannot be based on reactive impulses.

Removing migrants from workplaces and production chains, as Donald Trump is proposing, will disrupt important economic structures and generate greater problems than those Trumpism seeks to solve.

The attacks on migrants by ICE and the various security forces promoted by the Republicans have ultimately incentivized activism among various groups opposed to the American far right, and the country is becoming polarized in ways that are inconvenient for Donald Trump.

If the Republican Party is considering winning the midterm elections and retaining the presidency of the United States, it might consider tempering Trumpism.

The various demonstrations in American cities and the global criticism of WASP conservatism are elements that strengthen Democratic voters and will complicate partisan competition in the immediate future.

Donald Trump's first presidency failed to produce the expected results. It left his country deeply divided, and the confrontational mood, which some consider bordering on civil war, is not conducive to the Republican Party's tendencies.

Furthermore, the abuse of Trumpist measures against the American civilian population will also be an element that will affect the legitimacy of Donald Trump's second presidency.

California has become the Waterloo of Republican Trumpism.

The Calexit forces a rethinking of MAGA and American exceptionalism, and the idea of ​​a North America that includes Mexico and Canada on equal terms is increasingly consolidating.

Artificial Right-Wings in Mexico

 Artificial Right-Wings in Mexico

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

With the exception of openly pro-Cuadro-teist news programs, almost no one takes into account the developments of political movements such as those led by Raúl Tortolero, Eduardo Verástegui, Mexico Republicano, and FRENAAA. After the elections for the judiciary, as well as the local elections in Veracruz and Durango, the country's Hispanic and neoliberal right-wing movements have held back, ceding public opinion to right-wing groups that present themselves as extremists but, in concrete reality outside the internet and social media, lack impact.

Mexican politics, influenced by a culture of masks and co-optation, always tries to incorporate traditional ruling elements through a form of transformation where the economic, political, and social hierarchy remains the same. Morena has been integrating too many opposition figures into its political structure and marginalizing pure and faithful elements.

The extreme right in Mexico represents more of a spectacle than a reality; However, it serves to paralyze the neoliberal right, which, in effect, lacks the arguments to oppose Morena and, likely, faced with the need for specialists and technocrats increasingly demanded by the Fourth Transformation regime, is waiting their turn to join López Obradorism, as has happened with the most diverse hegemonic taxonomy.

Figures without followers, with minimal social structures and a more than radical austerity, suddenly generate quasi-fascist messages to try to reach the presidency of the republic and promote a revolution against the regime. Offline, none of this happens. The Mexican far right is a virtual right, lacking resources and a variant between the Catholic clerical structure and the ruling political class of Mexico and the United States. The messages of the far right, no matter how radical they may present themselves, do not seem to have any binding effect or mechanism in society. Even the Pink Tide mobilizations have been left adrift.

The neoliberal democratic project that the PRIANRD and middle-class civil society groups had sought to build during the transition period through competitive elections no longer shows any signs of life. Lopezobradorism has imposed itself by default and has been aided by extremist figures who have displayed a Nazi-like right wing in Mexico, but one that is practically harmless.

The Mexican right wing is clientelist and, as in the recent past, will be incorporated into the hegemonic model of political control in order to function. Meanwhile, like Salvador Borrego in María Auxiliadora, the followers of the neoliberal technocratic PRIAND will experience permanent starvation.

Culture of Authoritarian Poverty

Culture of Authoritarian Poverty

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

Latin American populism, whether left or right, always ends up drawing on the culture of poverty that distinguishes the primitive social complexity produced by the economic structure.

Jaime Castrejón Diez, focusing on the analysis of the types of civilization that make up Mexican society, found that the elements of the primitive and basic social fabric were predominant in our country.

The foundation of Mexican society is primitive given its marginal economic level.

The failure of neoliberals to change the Mexican order would have logically resulted in the triumph of populism—left or right—sooner or later.

The liberal democratization of Mexico depends on the construction of a middle class, which, until now, is more a wish than a concrete reality.

The reaction of the opposition to Morena in the face of a populist wave that continues unabated in the country is ironic. What did they expect? José Antonio Aguilar Rivera—like Loris Zanatta—has described the enormous difficulties that liberal culture faces in Latin America due to the social and historical context.

Indeed, the liberal commitment—high civilization—suddenly appears to be a lost adventure in Mexico.

Foolish republics become eternal and multiplying.

However, the bill for civilizational failure must be imposed not only on society but primarily on its elites.

This regression not only condemns us to backwardness and poverty in political evolution, but also to a series of problems that will complicate governability: caracoles are slow but impetuous.

Carlos Salinas had to make twice as many authoritarian decisions as Lázaro Cárdenas is credited with in order to achieve neoliberal modernization. Fox lacked the courage to cut the umbilical cord with the PRI, and Calderón led the country into a war that had been corrupted and negotiated as a defeat since Los Pinos.

The authoritarian poverty of the elites is worse than that of society.

The social primitivism of the people that terrifies Zanatta and Aguilar Rivera—as it did with Tocqueville—is less than the part that concerns the elites.

Municipal Government and the Drug War

 Municipal Government and the Drug War

Diego Martín Velázquez Caballero

The municipality is becoming a crime zone or authoritarian enclave that represents enormous governance problems for the Mexican State. During Felipe Calderón Hinojosa's administration, crime rates in the municipalities were high; now, the degree of cartel penetration in local governments is excessive; it can be said that city councils represent the petty cash of the groups generating violence.

What is happening with the municipal government even represents an added variable for the phenomenon of caciques. The caciques used violence and crime to impose their power; now, the situation in several municipalities simply presents alternative governments led by organized crime.

Hence the contradiction between the mayor of Uruapan, Michoacán, and the presidency of the republic in Mexico. The federal government lacks the sensitivity to understand the magnitude of the violence and pressure of the problems generated by drug trafficking. Once again, the situation in Michoacán during the Calderón administration serves as evidence of local problems and the way they have grown. Michoacán is one of the states hardest hit by drug trafficking violence.

How can extreme violence be reduced at the regional level? If the security policy of the previous administration has proven counterproductive, it is important to stop minimizing regional problems and propose new forms of public policy. Michoacán has had significant problems stemming from drug trafficking; the governments of Felipe Calderón and Enrique Peña Nieto ultimately exacerbated the situation of insecurity. Morena has also failed to find a consistent way to protect society. The Bajío region of the country is one of the most violent areas in the republic.

Mexico's mayors, for the most part, are helpless in the face of drug trafficking, and governability, as well as the rule of law, are disappearing in the face of the power of drug trafficking militias and organized crime. The good ideas regarding security intelligence and institutional protection at the local level that were developed to amend constitutional articles 11, 21, and 115 remain a dead letter if the federal government fails to act. How many Teuchitlanes or Igualas will Mexico endure? Narco-governance cannot be sanctioned or judged if the abandonment of the established federal government is the recurring method of responding to the local government's calls.

The local government is abandoned and faces drug violence without any recourse other than civil courage.

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.