Luis Rubio

The Colombian president taught us all a lesson that he had no intention of delivering: he got into a fight with Samson, I mean Trump, and lost in less time than a goose crows. Compared to that spectacle, President Sheinbaum has conducted this extremely complex relationship with skill and clarity of purpose. Obviously, it is too early to claim victory, but the result to date is not bad. The problem is reaching the finishing line.

Trump is a born negotiator. His book describes in detail his way of proceeding: he pushes, threatens, corners and tests the resistance of his counterpart. Depending on the response he gets, he counterattacks until he finds a way to get his way. But, as his book describes, his objective is to win, regardless of the size of the prize: he attacks left and right and, when he wins, he moves on to the next thing. It is not very difficult to understand that the way to advance in a negotiation with him is to give him spaces to win where the cost for the counterpart is not prohibitive.

A derivative of the above, which I think would be desirable in Mexico’s case, would consist of finding a way to leverage the Mexican government’s projects with the objectives (and, above all, resources) of President Trump. The most obvious example, but far from the only one, would be the security strategy that, after so many hugs, has become a nightmare for citizens and a formidable challenge for the authorities. While her predecessor facilitated the growth and consolidation of criminal organizations, the latter dedicated themselves to entrenching themselves in their territories and equipping themselves with armored equipment and increasingly sophisticated weapons. The power of criminals grows exponentially in the face of a weak government. Beyond false nationalism, punctual and concerted support would be more than useful for a government that could easily be overtaken.

Whatever one’s opinion of Mr. Trump, it would be a serious mistake to underestimate him. But that is exactly what President Petro of Colombia did. Instead of designing a strategy to deal with Trump, he launched a rhetorical attack aimed at his base without considering the consequences. So absurd, improvised and clumsy was his tirade that Trump finished him off in a flash. It took just a few hours for the Colombian government to cave in and accept the entire package of conditions imposed by the American president. In the vernacular language that the previous Mexican president employed often, he folded.

So far, President Sheinbaum has managed to keep Mexico safe from the Trumpian onslaught. Whatever she is doing, it is working for her. The problem is that the American president is not going to be satisfied with verbal agreements and the capacity, as well as willingness, of the Mexican government to respond to his demands is not enormous. The question becomes serious; in a traditional Mexican expression, “How to get the ox out of the ravine?”

There are two key aspects to this matter: the internal and the American. On the internal side, the president has achieved a balance between her internal rhetoric and the negotiation with Trump. She has achieved this essentially by keeping the exchanges that are taking place with her counterpart secret, while exacerbating her harangues to the Morena base. The problem for her is that the scheme is not sustainable. First, the contradiction between the two discourses will soon be noticed, partly because what was agreed will have to be implemented and partly because at some point what is said in private will come to light. That is to say, sooner or later, the president will have to decide between satisfying her base or building the future, because the two are not compatible, at least not in the short term. And it is precisely for this reason that it would be extremely useful to leverage Trump’s objectives with a Mexican strategy to achieve tangible benefits that attenuate the potential Morena reaction.

The other side is the United States. Just as it would be foolish to underestimate Trump, it would be equally obtuse to disdain the checks and balances that characterize the American political system. Although the Republicans have a majority in both legislative chambers, each legislator answers to his or her voters and many of those citizens are susceptible of exerting pressure on their representatives. This is how it works there: a well-designed strategy to approach the districts that are relevant to Mexico -those that live off the bilateral relationship or where citizens with ties to Mexico live- could defuse the worst blows or, in a positive sense, help advance the achievement of favorable results for Mexico. Everyone uses the weapons they have, and Mexico has many potentially, but very few active ones. The first priority should thus be to identify them and put them into action.

Einstein said that “life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance you must keep moving.” The Mexican government, both the current and previous ones, enjoyed the advantages of migration and exports without solving the most basic problems facing the country. Now it is time to start moving. The key lies in finding common ground with Trump to solve our problems and, with that, his own.

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubio

Luis Rubio

One frequently hears the in-joke that Canada and Mexico have a problem in common. In effect, in contrast with European nations -some big, some smaller, but none overwhelming- the dimensions and transcendence of our common neighbor entail singular characteristics. Decades ago, Canada as well as Mexico opted for converting the United States into an opportunity for economic development; however, each of these nations acts very distinctly and the effect of those differences is much greater instability and unpredictability for the Mexican flank. 

Although most Canadians speak English, their culture is very distinct from and contrasts with that of the U.S. More European in their conduct and social organization, Canadians take pride in their differences with respect to their U.S. neighbors. Nonetheless, several decades ago they decided that their economic future would greatly benefit from a tight linkage with their neighbor to the South.

Since the sixties they established the first formal trade agreement with respect to the automotive sector with the so-called “auto pact” (APTA) in 1965 that joined the two nations in their industrial heart (above all, at the beginning, the province of Ontario with the state of Michigan) to subsequently convert it into the world’s most active industrial-exchange zone with respect to automotive matters. Decades later they negotiated a free trade agreement (FTA) between the two nations followed, a short while later, when Mexico came on board, with the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA.

Beyond the formal institutions, Canadians recognize the crucial importance of their economic ties with the United States and have developed systematic and permanent strategies to ensure that nothing and no one calls into question the viability of the structures (the treaties) that support them. The contrast with Mexico is extraordinary and notable. For Canadians, there is no doubt about the need to nurture and preserve the political ties that make the successful functioning of their economy possible. Consequently, they devote enormous resources to preserving these ties.

It is not that Canada is altruistic nor that it has sold itself out to the Americans. The logic of its action is based on the best Canadian national interest: they recognize the centrality of the U.S. for its well-being and, therefore, they invest time and resources in all decision-making ambits in the U.S. Every federal ministry, as well as the provincial premiers, visit their counterparts in the U.S., have a presence in the U.S. Congress and Senate and present evidence of the transcendence FOR the U.S. of the Canadian economy. In economic terms, they protect their supply chains and advocate for the interests of their nation. In addition to that, they assume as theirs the U.S. priorities in ambits such as relations with China (e.g. blocking Tik Tok and Huawei), all with the objective of avoiding its being the target of U.S. political ire, recently exacerbated by the US’s new President. They accept certain limitations for the sake of attaining general well-being, without ceding any fundamental principle.

Mexico lives from its exports to the U.S. The supply chains that transverse the three North American nations are crucial for the production of all types of goods and the Mexican contribution to the process is not only critical for these three nations, but transcendental for Mexico’s own economy. The exports translate into demand for goods and services inside Mexico and these in turn generate economic activity throughout the entire national territory. Were we Canadians, we would be devoted body and soul to protecting the permanence of the mechanism that makes these exports and its counterpart possible in the form of foreign investment. Notwithstanding this, despite Mexico’s having put together a very ambitious political strategy in the nineties to secure the approval of the original FTA (NAFTA), that exercise was not sustained, and we now see the consequences…

It is obvious that Mexico entertains a challenge distinct from that of Canada, which implies it being the target of interminable attacks on the part of U.S. politicians, principally regarding migration, drugs and the violence exercised by organized crime, some of which transcends toward the U.S. It is evident that these are matters that clearly should concern Mexicans and that affect Mexico as much or more than the U.S., but successive Mexican governments have done next to nothing to confront them in Mexico and have been completely negligent in advocating for Mexican interests within the political realm of its neighbor to the North. Much would be gained by acting decisively in these internal ambits to improve the perspectives of USMCA, but this should be in addition to a well-developed political strategy within the U.S. governmental apparatus.      

In 1962 John F. Kennedy could say that “Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. The economy has made us partners, and necessity has made us allies.” President Trump would never pronounce a phrase such as this, but Mexico should dedicate itself to ensuring that at least the society and the friendship would begin to reestablish themselves starting now…  

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

AMERICA ECONOMIA – English edition • Worldcrunch
Luis Rubio
January 20, 2025
-Analysis-

U.S.-Mexico-relations

Mexico must dial down the nationalism in dealing with Donald Trump, and try to think instead how it might use his intransigence to solve some of its biggest problems — like massive, unchecked crime.

MEXICO CITY — There is no bigger challenge for Mexico than its relations with the United States. It is critical for reasons that are obvious, and have recurred over the long history of both nations. Today, at the outset of a second Donald Trump presidency, the question for us is not so much what Donald Trump wants, but what we need in Mexico? It’s about seeing an issue with radically opposing perspectives.

Trump has made it abundantly clear what he wants from Mexico, and threatened to use extraordinary means — like slapping tariffs in a free-trade zone — to get them. We know he likes to win. Thus perhaps the most pertinent question here is: what can be done to give him a victory that will also benefit Mexico, aid its progress and help resolve some of our critical problems?

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

But it doesn’t look like anyone’s asking that question. Instead of trying to understand Trump, both in his nature and objectives, the government of Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has so far sought to parry or thwart him… like a matador skirting around a charging bull.

Follow the Canadians

While we’re thinking up more and cleverer answers to his claims and nasty declarations, the Canadians — the other free-trade neighbor facing his ire and a threat of tariffs — are working on building a constructive relationship. Of the two of us, who is doing better at handling the inevitable challenge?

A defensive strategy, if strategy is the right word, is of little use. As the Prussian general Helmuth von Moltke said, no war plan survives contact with the enemy. Observation, flexibility and adaptation are what are needed, which is precisely what the Mexican government has failed to show.

Trump strikes where he sees weakness — and strikes harder if you resist.

Our government has voiced indignation at Trump’s declarations, which displays both ignorance and laziness. Trump strikes where he sees weakness — and strikes harder if you resist.

We know him

Yes, this is hitting below the belt, but we can’t stop it from happening. Canadian politicians, who understand they are accountable to voters and take stock of the national interest have decided not to trash talk back at Trump but find effective, damage control strategies.

Let’s start by putting aside our prejudices on Trump, the Americans and our shared histories, and see what we’re actually facing. We know Trump, since he was president before. He is clear and transparent and we should know what works or doesn’t with him. The Canadians are doing their homework: why not do the same instead of denouncing them as sell-outs?

A second point to bear in mind is that much of what Trump says about Mexico is true. We may not like an outsider telling us crime and corruption are rife in Mexico and the cartels control vast chunks of our territory, but to pretend it is not the truth is no kind of way to lead a nation.

Stop playing the victim

Does puffing ourselves up with national pride serve any purpose?

So thirdly, adopting a problem-solving outlook, we might consider how to use Trump’s conduct to find solutions to some of our problems, or in other words, put him to good use. Instead of visceral reactions and counter-diatribes, let us go to Trump with a proper plan for two-way solutions.

Let’s forge a a three-state trade policy that addresses the issue of China.

Yes, we admit it, our problems are overwhelming, we should say — and we could use your help! But not with drones and tariffs: let’s forge a common security strategy or a three-state trade policy that addresses the issue of China.

Again let’s find a common perspective on the reasons for migration and why people are compelled to leave their homes, but also on regulating the American economy’s need for cheap labor.

I’m not spelling out the solutions, but pointing out that we need to change our ideas on how to handle a change of administration in a country so crucial to our economy. It’s not about focusing on specifics but accepting there are problems in our country — big problems — and seeing in the Trump administration an opportunity to tackle them either jointly or with U.S. help, be it direct support, logistical or technical.

Let’s stop playing the victim, and start thinking in terms of problem-solving. Instead of being alarmed by Trump, let’s try to understand him and how to make the most of his time in office.

https://worldcrunch.com/eyes-on-the-us/us-mexico-trump-sheinbaum

Luis Rubio

Tomorrow Donald Trump will be inaugurated as President of the United States. He was elected in compliance with all the requisites imposed by the law of his country and obtained an absolute majority not only in the Electoral College, but also in the popular vote. No one in his country disputes the legitimacy of his triumph (although not all are pleased with it), thus it is that we Mexicans must respect the decision of the American electorate, understand the rationality of the result and act so that this critical bilateral relationship can be as good as possible.

It is indispensable that we Mexicans identify and accept the vital nature of the bilateral relationship and apply ourselves to ensuring that Mexico’s national interests are preserved. The latter does not imply that Trump will be a conventional president nor that what is to come during his term of office will be easy or unfettered by consequences.

Everyone has observed how the next U.S. president conducts himself, the aggressiveness of his agenda and the popularity that accompanies him.  In contrast with his first four-year presidential term, this time Trump arrives at the presidency emboldened, with clarity of purpose, experience with respect to what he wants to accomplish and, more importantly, with a clear popular mandate, precisely in the matters that concern Mexico: migration, drugs and organized crime, in addition to China. Any expectation that he will moderate his agenda or his style is unrealistic and irresponsible.      

In addition to what the person of the President wants to and is thinking of advancing, it is crucial to entertain an understanding of the changes that the U.S. society has been undergoing, the circumstances that the U.S. has been living through and that lie in the heart of the overwhelming electoral result. It appears evident that Trump 2.0 comes in concert with a broad popular mandate, the product of a series of crises inherent in his society but that favored him as a candidate. Certainly, Trump did not create those crises, but those crises explain the result of this election and are those that will dominate the agenda of the government to be inaugurated.

These crises can be denominated in diverse ways, but they include a variety of elements that affect significant segments of the electorate and that, taken together, explain the electoral results. Some of these crises are generic, others specific, but they coalesced in last November’s election. Among the key factors one finds the addiction crisis, especially that of fentanyl, whose lethality led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. Next is that of political polarization, which many conceive of as a crisis of values and/or beliefs, but that, in its essence, constitutes a dispute even of language (political correctness) that has summarily divided the country into “red” (Republican) and “blue” (Democrat) states; in close proximity to the latter is the crisis of the  discourse of the progressives, whose manner of acting in matters of gender, abortion and sexual transition gave rise to a profound abyss in the heart of the society. The economic inequality that many attribute to the free trade agreements that the U.S. has signed with other nations (especially Mexico) and to which, together with migration, many attribute the rise in unemployment above all in the Midwest. And, finally, a governance crisis in the sense that an important part of the electorate feels that it is not represented by those in government nor by its legislators.

None of these issues is new nor are all especially limited to the U.S., but the sum of these led to the point at which a disruptive candidate could have benefitted, even without his necessarily having comprehended this before or now.

The combination of these circumstances and the personality of the about-to-be-sworn-in President has created a context propitious for a great political and cultural transformation of the U.S. society that some authors* for years now liken to what occurred with Andrew Jackson at the beginning of the XIX century, to Lincoln at that mid-century, to Roosevelt at the start the thirties and to Reagan in the eighties. In that reading, the U.S. society is experiencing a far-reaching cultural revolution that will harbor consequences not only for its own country, but for the entire world.     

In theory, Mexico has two options in the face of a new U.S. government. One is to pretend that nothing has changed and to cling to what exists, supposing (or hoping) that, as a sovereign nation, it entertains all the options of the world. This pathway would lead Mexico into a crisis because not only would it put at risk the viability of the principal growth engine of our economy, but we could also even attract the ire of the people in the U.S., with what that can imply. 

The alternative would be to actively advocate for the matters that are of vital interest for Mexico, attend to the seabed of the problems that the U.S. citizenry (correctly) attribute to Mexico as the cause of the problems that affect them, and collaborate with them in the solution of the problems bilateral in character or in those that, although they are theirs, have obvious and profound links with Mexico. 

Many years ago, a Mexican governor commented to me that, on taking possession of his post, he had to decide whether to fight the narcos or join them, but that “he could not play dumb.” The same applies for the country today: the notion that Mexico could remain on the periphery of what is taking place in the U.S. and that with that attitude we can avoid being the victims of their acts is not only infantile, but unduly irresponsible.

* For example, George Friedman, The Storm Before the Calm

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

There is no greater challenge for Mexico than its relationship with the United States, a matter not only crucial for obvious reasons, but also recurrent throughout Mexico’s history.  However, as of today, the true question is not about what Trump wants, but instead about what Mexico requires: two very distinct perspectives. Trump has been very clear about what he wants from Mexico and has threatened to employ heterodox instruments, such as tariffs, for imposing what he wants. We also know that what he likes most is to do is win. Therefore, the question that seems pertinent to me is what to do so that he wins something big, while at the same time helping Mexico to advance to resolve, or to contribute to resolving, some of the decisive problems that Mexico faces.

The evidence to date is not praiseworthy. Rather than attempting to understand Trump, his way of being and nature as well as in his substantive objectives, the government has confronted him or attempted to dodge him. While Mexico hesitates and persists in its perverse cycle of taking offense, arguing, complaining, avoiding, fearing and taking offense again, Canada, as a nation, is giving shape to the foundations of a constructive relationship. Who advances more?

The strategy, if it can be called that, of defense and resistance clearly does not work. The grand Prussian general von Moltke said it best: “no battle plan survives contact with the enemy.” In contrast with that great strategist, who advocated for constant adaptation in the realm of reality, the Mexican government clings to its prejudices and, rather than clawing its way of the quagmire, it continues digging the hole in which it finds itself. Reality will not adjust itself to the governmental preconceptions, which is why there is no alternative other than to change the strategy or, better yet, develop a strategy appropriate for the circumstances.

Rather than adapt itself, the propensity has been to dispute Trump’s statements and react in ill-timed fashion to the utterances of diverse Canadian politicians. In both cases the Mexican government projects its ignorance as well as its indolence. Trump shoots from the knees and identifies the weaknesses in his counterpart; as he encounters resistance, he attacks again. For their part, Canadian politicians, that rare species that does indeed have to be accountable to its electorate, act at the local level as in any democracy worthy of respect. It is absurd to confront them into a street-scuffle diatribe. It would be better to identify Mexico’s national interests and devise a strategy to advance them.

A strategy susceptible to avoiding costs and simultaneously advancing toward the solution to the problems that besiege Mexico would imply beginning by eliminating prejudices to focus on the real issues. Before anything else, understand the actors in the game: Trump is transparent and, given that he has already been president, there is extensive evidence of what matters to him, how he responds, and what works with him. The Canadians have done their homework and it is working for them. It would be more useful to learn from Canada than to accuse them of being traitors. In second place, it would be necessary to recognize, and accept, that much of what Trump says about Mexico is true. Mexicans may not like it when an outsider says that there is criminality in Mexico, that the drug cartels control vast territories or that there is a great deal of corruption, but it’s hard to deny it…

The penchant for Mexicans to wrap themselves in the flag is enormous, but minutely productive. It would be more useful to accept the existence of these issues to address it. In that way, in third place, it would be crucial to ask ourselves how we could leverage Trump’s manner of acting to advance solutions that Mexico does need. That is, instead of reacting viscerally it would be more productive and useful to go to Trump with a well-conceived plan and to propose joint solutions: the problems that Mexico faces are overtaking us, so we would be grateful for your help, but tariffs -or drones- would be counterproductive. Instead of that, the proposal would continue, it would be better to engage in a mutual, regional, security strategy, and a common trade policy (of the three countries) to confront the Chinese challenge. Similarly, we must work on a common vision of the causes of migration and the need for conferring order to the demand for workers within the U.S. economy, on the one hand, and solutions to the factors that lead migrants to abandon their place of origin, on the other.

With this I do not pretend to define the solutions, but rather to propose that a change is urgent in the manner of conceiving of the problematic facing Mexico with the change of government in the U.S., our neighbor and main source of economic growth. The essence does not lie in the specific, but rather in the willingness to accept that there are problems in Mexico that demand solutions and to see the government of Trump as an opportunity to face them together or with its support (whether direct, logistic or with a specialized equipment). The point is that it is urgent to shed the attitude of victim to replace it with one of “how do we fix it.”

Yogi Berra, the great baseball player, said that “you can observe a lot by just watching.” Instead of worrying about Trump, it would be better to understand him. Or, as Camus wrote in The Plague, destiny demandsassuming the challenge: “All I can say is that on this earth there are pestilences and there are victims‒ and as far as possible one must refuse to be on the side of the pestilence.”

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

All the world’s governments initiate their mandate with great political as well as physical investments and of resources to lay the foundation of their project: narrative, legislation and budget. Once the bases are established, these instruments are deployed in the form of bills, developments, constructions and a plethora of political activity, all oriented towards giving shape to their vision in practice. Nonetheless, this exceedingly natural logic has not been that of the new Mexican government. Four months of changes -actually massive destruction- of the (already in itself) weak scaffolding relied on by Mexico to promote economic growth begin to clash with the reality.

Now with a new year upon us, the government must start to deliver results, but these will not materialize because the whole plan was ideological and political more than being the product of an evaluation of the real circumstances in which the country finds itself. Instead of the paradise that the outgoing president thought he was bequeathing, the point of departure for today’s President, the reality is quite different, and the plans that have been materializing, especially through the legislature, do nothing other than limit the potential of the government’s success.

To start with, the López-Obrador project was one of power and not of development. The narrative of well-being had been concealing the true objective, while cash transfers sealed the pact with its beneficiaries. All this was possible thanks to the work of previous administrations that had been erecting the scaffolding that conferred exchange-rate stability on the economy and the contingency funds for unpredictable situations, all structured over an export economy and one integrated into that of the U.S. That is, as the colloquial saying goes, no one knows who they work for: the great beneficiary of his much-reviled neoliberalism ended up being none other than López Obrador.

The problem for President Sheinbaum is triple: first, the constitutional changes thrust upon her by her predecessor during the last month of his government radically alter the legal and political milieu. Second, the macroeconomic scenario evidences an acute deterioration; and third, the U.S. economy, on which everything depends, confronts political challenges in matters of enormous transcendence for Mexico, especially in migration and trade, which revamp the environment in the extreme. That is, what was valid in 2018 is no longer so in 2025. But the present government has not yet detected the change of context.

The context in 2018 could not have been more propitious for the government of López Obrador. On the one hand, he encountered an economic structure that, although certainly not ideal, it produced very favorable results for the economy, manifested in the form of massive investments in energy and entire regions growing at Asian rates. It is certain that not all the population was benefiting directly, but the country, after three decades of convulsion, had finally achieved sustainable macroeconomic stability. On the other hand, in political terms, the unpopularity of his predecessor (Peña-Nieto) had paved the way for him to alight as the virtual savior, even to the extent that he took the liberty to cancel the building of new Mexico City airport without incurring, apparently, particularly substantial reverberations.

The polarizing, disqualifying and aggressive discourse emboldened a resentful and upset population, all of which discouraged private investment, but was in turn not immediately perceived given both due to the significant improvement in the population’s real income (the product of remittances, direct cash transfers and the minimum wage), as much as the accelerated growth of the U.S. economy from the end of the pandemic. All these elements coalesced to bring about an exceptional end of the administration, that manifested itself concretely in last year’s election.

Now Mexico is facing the undertow: a very high fiscal deficit, a mushrooming debt and two political legacies that mark both an end and a beginning: first the overrepresentation of the governing party in Congress -the steal that made it possible to control all the national processes- and then the constitutional reforms of September and October. The party currently in the government has demonstrated that it can impose its law and has done this with generosity. What it cannot impose are the results that the President requires to be successful.

And that is the issue taking effect from this beginning of the year: the coup that her predecessor had heralded hither and yon was in the end led by AMLO himself: on refashioning the vectors of Mexican politics, above all of the Supreme Court, the factor that (together with the North American Free Trade Agreement) conferred certainty on the political as well as on the economic life during the past three decades, the party of the government came out extremely powerful, but it dismantled the pathway to the future rather than right it, without building anything useful in exchange.

For three months, the President has dedicated herself to promising countless novel spending programs, when all the while the Treasury chests were empty. But what is a promise? According to a dictionary, it is “an express assurance on which expectation is to be based.” The population will wait for results and, sooner or later, will exact accountability from the recently inaugurated government. Governments and their parties tend to think that they are eternal. None achieves this and the present one will be no different.

www.mexicoevalua.org

@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

Freedom is an ever-scarcer commodity. In contrast with other key factors for the development of a nation, such as education and health, freedom is the factor that strengthens both the citizenry and society at large. A nation of free people is a nation with potential for growth and development. As Allan Bloom once wrote, “Reason transformed into prejudice is the worst form of prejudice, because reason is the only instrument for liberation from prejudice.” Obviously, in a society with inequalities as big as Mexico’s more than freedom is required to prosper, but prosperity is impossible without freedom.

This year I looked for quotes and anecdotes about freedom to celebrate the holidays.

“What is missing I all of this is the simple insight of the anarchist Charlotte Wilson: ‘We dream of the positive freedom which is essentially one with social feeling: of free scope for the social impulses now distorted and compressed.’ For Wilson, freedom is not a thing to be defined. It is something like humanity’s founding metaphysic. As with love or beauty, we don’t know what it is be we couldn’t get through a day without it. It is like Hegel’s concept of Geist (‘spirit’), an intuitive confidence in freedom as a guiding and ongoing human project.”

Curtis White, 2023

Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense. Positive liberty is the possibility of acting — or the fact of acting — in such a way as to take control of one’s life and realize one’s fundamental purposes. While negative liberty is usually attributed to individual agents, positive liberty is sometimes attributed to collectivities, or to individuals considered primarily as members of given collectivities.

Isaiah Berlin, 1958

“A man is either free or he is not. There cannot be any apprenticeship for freedom”

Amiri Baraka, 1962

“There are certain sweet-smelling, sugarcoated lies current in the world which all politic men have apparently tacitly conspired to support and perpetuate. One of these is that there is such a thing in the world as independence: independence of thought, independence of opinion, independence of action… We are discreet sheep.”

Mark Twain, 1932

“Aren’t people absurd! They never use the freedoms they do have but demand those they don’t have; they have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.”

Soren Kierkegaard, 1843

“Thanks to the fiesta, the Mexican opens out, participates… their frequency, their brilliance and excitement, the enthusiasm with which we take part, all suggest that without them we would explode. They free us, if only momentarily, from the thwarted impulses, the inflammable desires that we carry within us.”

Octavio Paz, 1950

“I am truly free only when all human beings, men and women, are equally free. The freedom of other men, far from negating or limiting my freedom, is, on the contrary, its necessary premise and confirmation.”

Mikhail Bakunin, 1871

“Freedom and equality, the two basic ideas of democracy, are to some extent contradictory. Logically considered, freedom and equality are mutually exclusive, just as society and the individual are mutually exclusive.”

Thomas Mann, 1940

“Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for  the one who thinks differently.”

Rosa Luxemburg, 1918

“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it.”

John Stuart Mill, 1859

“Woe the nation whose literature is cut short by the intrusion of force. This is not merely interference with freedom of the press but the sealing up of a nation’s heart, the excision of its memory.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, 1974

“Let us make our own mistakes, but let us take comfort in the knowledge that they are our own mistakes.”

Tom Mboya, 1958

“I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.”

Coretta Scott King, 1994

“Freedom is not a luxury we can indulge in when at last we have security and prosperity and enlightenment; it is, rather, an antecedent to all of these, for without it we can have neither security nor prosperity nor enlightenment.”

Henry Steele Commager, 1954

“Civilization without restraint is impossible; and there can be no restraint where there is no liberty.”

Will Durant, 1961

“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms -to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances.”

Victor Frankl, 1946

“As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy.”

Abraham Lincoln, 1858

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

“The ultimate gift of conscious life is a sense of the mystery that encompasses it”
Lewis Mumford

Knowledge advances at such speed that it is only possible to grasp some sample nuggets of it, but while some of these are truly revealing, the sensation always remains that one learns more but knows less. Here is a brief description of my best readings for this year as it comes to a close.

The Political Thought of Xi Jinping by Steve Tsang and Olivia Cheung lifts a smoke screen for the sake of discovering the motivation and objectives of the Chinese leader’s politico-economic project. The result is not praiseworthy, at the least not agreeable: what these authors, both British scholars, describe on removing the veil of the rhetoric and verbal slang is an egocentric world view, in which there is nothing important or significant outside of the leader’s reality.  It considers, in fact, a totalitarian perspective where control of the population is the sole means of advancing a project not of development, but instead of control and imposition, both within and outside of China. A book that allows one to understand and be in the end very worried about the future of that extraordinary nation.

The appearance of “strong-arm” leadership approaches on the left as well as on the right in recent years has been the reason behind innumerable books. Nils Karlson writes Reliving Classical Liberalism Against Populism as a means for combatting the destruction of institutions and opportunities for individuals and nations in which autocratic leaderships have proliferated. It is more a manual for action than a treatise on the subject, but that does not prevent it from being interesting reading.

In addition to being an exceptional history and biography, albeit in the form of a novel, A Man Called González by Sergio del Molino is a delicious tale on the Spanish transformation after the fall of Francoism. Mixing history with the leadership of the first socialist president of the “new” Spain, one comes to understand the intent as well as the operational capacity characterizing that great personage and how the nation came to change not only in its political aspect (the democratic transition itself), but also an entire society that fully integrates itself and with conviction into Europe, adopting during the process not only democracy, but many of itscharacteristics and practices. It is a book absolutely not to be missed.

Marcelo Bergman, a criminology academician, published last year his most recent analysis of the causes of criminality* and its implications. With a regional lens that permits him to compare similar phenomena and problems under distinct national circumstances he arrives at very specific conclusions that explain the nature of the problem confronting each of the nations of the region and allows one to derive a notion of the dimensions of the challenge facing Mexico to change the tendencies in matters of security. 

Ivan Krastev and Stephen Holmes have for years been, each on his own, writing and meditating on the transitions toward democracy during the last years of the 20^th century, especially after the finale of the Soviet Union, and they have dedicated themselves to studying the peculiar phenomenon of the birth of the movements of the illiberal or antiliberal parties that have undermined the progress of democracy. In The Light That Failed, these authors came together to explore the implications of the resentment that democratization triggered in multiple societies, altering the course that appeared to be linear and producing new political phenomena that today are the reality of many nations around the globe.

Few books were as timely for me this year as that of Jared Cohen: Life After Power,** a text that delves into the life of seven U.S. former presidents and how they adjusted to their new circumstances. At a moment when the Mexican president was about to terminate his mandate, and as he was engaged in doing any and everything possible to remain the only relevant person in the country, this book illustrates why it is so important for ex-presidents to have a space for themselves, including an adequate pension that permits them to live comfortably. Cohen studies the way personages from Jefferson in the 19^th century up to George W. Bush retired from being public functionaries and who, at the same time, found a way to be useful and relevant for their compatriots. This book complements another extraordinary one published some years ago, The Presidents Club,*** which deals with the requests that the president in office has made from his predecessors, of both parties, as support for his function, a symptom of a consolidated democracy.   

In anticipation of this year’s electoral process, I found myself in the possession of two books by José Elías Romero Apis, meticulous observer of national politics. El jefe de la banda and La banda del jefe are two volumes full of interesting anecdotes that make available the content of many of the forms and histories of the old political system. In Poder y deseo, a text written with Pascal Beltrán del Río, the authors describe a series of presidential successions with equal color and seriousness.

In these times of growing conflict at the world level, no one should miss the new book by Sergei Radchenko**** concerning the repeated attempts of the Kremlin to be a world power.

*El negocio del crimen **Life After Power *** Gibbs, Nancy and Duffy, Michael ****To Run the World: The Kremlin’s Cold War Bid for Global Power

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

During her transition period, the president-elect was extremely cautious about how she would exercise power, especially given the large majorities with which Morena controls Congress. She was emphatic in protecting the rights of minorities. However, once in office, that change of tone disappeared from the map. Harmony disappeared, being replaced by renewed militancy. No country can prosper when its population, including the counterweight mechanisms that are essential for the stability and functionality of any society, are constantly under siege, denigrated and disqualified. The question is how, in the context of a government capable of launching acts of authority with no counterweights, is it that the government pretends to achieve both prosperity and harmony.

In his recent book entitled Age of Revolutions,* Fareed Zakaria makes an interesting distinction in the way that leaders over the last four hundred years commandeered relevant processes of change and analyzes which were more successful and why. Revolutions, states the author, follow a common pattern: technological or economic changes of great magnitude unleash a change in the population’s identity (how people understand themselves), leading them to demand a new type of political response. What distinguishes leaders under these circumstances is the way in which they manage the situation, because that determines whether the revolution will end up improving the quality of life of the population involved or whether it will unleash great chaos, violence and stagnation. As an example, the author contrasts the so-called “Glorious Revolution” in the United Kingdom in 1688 (in which the monarchy was deposed and parliament began to acquire relevance), with the “Reign of Terror” and the House of Bonaparte dynasty in France. In the former case the leaders procured the support of the populace and developed gradual solutions that respected citizen rights, thus securing legitimacy among the middle classes. In the French case, the politicians who conceived of themselves as enlightened, intended to force a rapid change in a very traditional and marginally developed nation, with predictable results.

The lesson to be learned is relevant because it suggests that an electoral triumph is not sufficient to guarantee the success of the processes of change that the government emanated from an election unfurls. That is, the formal majorities are not enough: similar in importance, if not even more so, is involving the populace (this distinct from trying to manipulate it) and building the scaffold of supports that permit not only approving the laws, but also making them work. It is sufficient to take a glance backward two or three decades to appreciate the significance of this lesson effected by Zakaria’s book:  many of the reforms intended or undertaken by recent Mexican administrations were approved but were at the end of the day dysfunctional or unviable in that they were not socialized nor did they in the last analysis enjoy legitimacy, thus popular recognition.

Still more important for the government is the complexity of the Morena Party in these matters, where there is the prominence of Jacobin-like extremists, radical personages who are decided on and dedicated to advancing extreme causes, the product of their history and the purity of their ideology, but not representative of or desirable for the population, including of course many of whom voted for today’s President. The how, says Zakaria, makes an enormous difference in the long term. The propensity of the “pampered elites” in aspiring to impose sudden radical changes is frequent in history, but rarely culminates in success and these changes are nearly always destructive and violent. Nothing like cultivating popular support for substantive changes liable to improve the quality of life, raise productivity and economic growth. The how is yet as important or more than the what.

Radical militants within the governing party harbor a revolutionary zeal and a natural tendency toward imposed solutions, which would inevitably clash with diverse elements of the agenda of the government itself, starting with the removal of obstacles to the growth of the economy. The way the government decides to promote growth is likewise key: although the mantra is that the government should “marshal” the economic agents, the way to make the economy grow is through creating conditions that attract private investment. There’s no alternative to this.

When a government invests in infrastructure (or decides where it should be installed), it is by that sole act deciding on and incentivizing private investment. But much more important than physical infrastructure, that in the same fashion can be financed through private investment, Mexico faces massive deficits in health and educational matters, two indispensable conditions, first for the healthy development of the populace, but also fundamental for adding value to the productive process, thus elevating the income potential of those laboring therein. The formality, that is, the way things are presented and managed, matters as much in the political world as in all the others.

“Institutions and laws, wrote Lord Acton, have their roots not in the ingenuity of statesmen, but as much as possible in the opinion of the people.” Much better to bring everybody on board towards progress than attempt to impose, thus to paralyze.

*Revolutions: Progress and Backlash from 1600 to the Present

www.mexicoevalua.org
@lrubiof

Luis Rubio

The government changed, but the problems remain, which does not mean that they can cease being attended to. Mexico has been experiencing a peculiar paradox for many years: an increasingly activist government with an increasingly weak State.   Perhaps this is about a way of facing, or hiding, the true problem: the government increasingly controls less territory and its capacity of leading the country diminishes in parallel with the nearly uncontainable rise of the population’s expectations but, especially, of the ambitions of those who govern.    

The problem is not new in Mexican political life, in that it goes back to the beginning of the country’s independent life in the XIX century: the great challenge was always that of pacifying the country and its integration as one, sole nation, especially after the American invasion of 1847. The time of the Porfirio Díaz government (1877-1911) was the first period during which the government achieved a consistent pace of economic growth, a circumstance that repeated itself with the PRI after the revolutionary feat. The contradictions of that system and its inevitable limitations eventually led to economic liberalization and to the political opening, respectively, with the consequence (clearly unanticipated) of debilitating the government and reopening the brutal struggle for power that, as in the XIX century, although with distinct specific characteristics, starts to seem like a new normality.  

Since the nineties, when the first far-reaching political reforms were negotiated, those that would lead to undisputed democratic elections and to the development of several institutions that were critical for governance, the need was debated for an integral reform of the structure of the Mexican State. The objective soon lost its focus and the reforms were limited to the creation of some institutions and organisms oriented toward resolving specific problems that came to present themselves, such as energy, competition and elections.

What those projects and concrete reforms did not attend to, and what during those years came to light in all its dimensions in the Lopez Obrador government, was the problem of power. In a literal and conceptual sense, the objective of an institution is that of containing power, that is, hindering or limiting potential abuses by those political holding power. The point is not to hamper a president from exercising their functions and responsibilities, but instead for their acting in terms of adhering to the law and not to violate principles, so that it confers certainty on the population and protects the rights of the minorities. The idea of a counterweight is not to impede, but rather to render transparent: that the affairs be debated that correspond to the three branches of government and that there come forward those who support as well as those who object to a certain determined program or project, so that with that information, the legislature and the judiciary, respectively, can process their decisions.

To the degree that a president can act with no limitation whatsoever, the whole society lives in uncertainty. Of course, those who enjoy and benefit from the decisions assume that the latter are desirable and thus merit universal endorsement, while those who object to them and/or feel aggravated by them think the opposite. A civilized society knows that power changes hands over time and that implies that those found on one side of the equation could someday find themselves on the other; this is the reason why the existence of strong institutions liable to resisting the onslaughts of power, are beneficial to all and, thus, become a source of certainty for all. This that would seem so obvious and towards which Mexico was, more or less, advancing, was destroyed in just a few months.

The important point is that the entire population, independently of its socioeconomic reality, should have the means to be abreast of where it stands. The former government scored a milestone on raising the cash transfers to an enormous segment of the population, which, paradoxically but logically, provoked uncertainty with respect to the permanence of those programs during the electoral period. The institutionalization of those programs is thus key for the beneficiaries of those programs to be certain that those programs would not become a matter for electoral dispute.

Exactly the same is critical for the regulations that govern private investment in sectors that earlier were reserved for the government, such as electricity. The strength of institutions lies in the certainty that they confer on the population in all ambits of the society and the economy. 

Where many of those who decades ago advocated for a reform of the State erred was in focusing on the creation of institutions in lieu of immersing themselves in the containment of power. Though it is evident that containing power is manifested through institutions, this containment is impossible without an integral reform of power and that is the great challenge of Mexico, much more so now that the government is experiencing the onslaught of her predecessor. The virtues of the new president are many, but they are very distinct from those of her predecessor and will surely not permit her to contain the tensions, conflicts and interests encountered (even within her own party) without her attending to that crucial problem: the excess of the concentration of power.

www.mexicoevalua.org

@lrubiof