Mexico: On the brink of Marxism

It is perhaps the most significant potential threat to U.S. national security with regards to our southern neighbor since Poncho Villa raided a U.S. border town in 1916. Mexico will be holding its presidential election on July 2, which will determine whether Mexico, with its nearly 2,000 mile border with the U.S., joins an emerging anti-American Marxist alliance in Latin America. It will decide whether Mexico follows Venezuela's example in becoming a state sponsor of terrorism with a potential pool of 12-20 million illegal immigrant recruits already inside our borders, a couple of million of whom recently conducted mass demonstrations against our country, or continues to be ruled by the much more mainstream PAN party.

Ultra-left Marxist candidate of the Party of the Democratic Revolution, or PRD, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, continues to outpoll his more mainstream socialist PRI and center right PAN party opponents in the in the final run-up to the Mexican presidential election scheduled for Sunday. Obrador is a close ally of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez who is himself a close ally of Communist Cuban President Fidel Castro. Together, Chavez and Castro have been the two principal supporters of Communist and Marxist revolution throughout Latin America.

The PRI's presidential candidate, Roberto Madrazo, has warned that "there are clear similarities between (Venezuelan President Hugo) Chavez and Lopez Obrador. … They have very similar attitudes. I see authoritarianism in them both." Madrazo further said that Obrador, like Chavez, does not respect the rule of law and that foreign investors would shun Mexico if Obrador were to come to power. Madrazo also accused Obrador of being in close contact with Chavez aides and suggested that Chavez was trying to sway the Mexican elections towards Obrador, accusations Obrador did not deny. Obrador's populist leftist appeal and his socialist-style handout programs as mayor of Mexico City have fueled the comparison with Chavez. These allegations were strengthened when Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., told several Mexican legislators that he had intelligence reports revealing major financial support from Chavez to Obrador and his political party. These attacks against Obrador by his presidential rivals have succeeded in reducing his lead in the polls to just a few points.

Madrazo's comparison of Obrador to Chavez is chilling given the fact that Chavez is a self-proclaimed Communist who has declared Communist Cuba as his primary model for Venezuela. The People's Weekly World, the official newspaper of the Communist Party USA, has staunchly supported Obrador and has noted that his party "was formed in 1989 by left-wing elements of the PRI, the Communist Party of Mexico, and other left and progressive groups." Having a Hugo Chavez-clone elected president of Mexico, a country with a nearly 2,000 mile long border with the United States at a time when President Bush has been trying to open the borders with Mexico and grant amnesty to 12-20 million illegal immigrants and allow tens of millions more to enter the country at will would presumably change the administration's preoccupation with the war in Iraq and focus its attention on America's "backyard" where it belongs.

Dick Morris recently reported in a column this past April entitled "Mexico's Hugo Chavez" that "Chavez is a firm ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro. Lopez Obrador could be the final piece in their grand plan to bring the United States to its knees before the newly resurgent Latin left. Between them, Venezuela and Mexico export about 4 million barrels of oil each day to the United States, more than one-third of our oil imports. With both countries in the hands of leftist leaders, the opportunity to hold the U.S. hostage will be extraordinary. Think we have security problems now, with Vicente Fox leading Mexico? Just wait until we have a 2,000-mile border with a chum of Chavez and Castro. … Lopez Obrador would be part of the Latin America's new, anti-U.S. left. … Mexico, with its vast oil resources and its long border and free-trade agreement with the United States, would be the crown jewel for America's enemies."

A recently published article entitled, "Who Lost Latin America" similarly noted, "Washington confronts the distinct possibility of having an explicitly hostile government in Mexico. The implications of such an outcome could be far-reaching for the integrity of our southern frontier, illegal immigration, drug trafficking, terrorism, trade and the radical 'reconquista' movement (which is intent on 'taking back' at least parts of the United States for Mexico)."

Even under the relatively friendly government of Vicente Fox, as Heather Mac Donald pointed out last November, "Mexican officials here and abroad are involved in a massive and almost daily interference in American sovereignty." Imagine what representatives of an unfriendly Mexican apparat might do. The consequence of all these elections may well be the complete undoing of Ronald Reagan's legacy of successfully countering and, with the notable exception of Castro's Cuba, defeating totalitarianism in our hemisphere.

If Obrador wins this presidential election, it would herald, along with the election of Communist front leader Lula da Silva in Brazil in 2002, the most important victory for Marxist revolutionaries and the biggest defeat for the cause of freedom worldwide since the fall of China to Communism in 1949. The Bush administration should pursue all peaceful avenues available, including covert means, to ensure that Obrador does not succeed in his bid to become the next president of Mexico, or else the national security woes of this administration and this country may increase substantially.

If Obrador wins, President Bush's already badly damaged presidential legacy will likely end up being a much greater terrorist threat to this country than before he became president, and the loss of over 100 million citizens of our southern neighbor to Marxist control nearly two decades after Reagan "won" the Cold War against the Soviet Union.

"... Roberto Madrazo, has warned that "… They [Chavez and Obrador] have very similar attitudes. I see authoritarianism in them both." Madrazo further said that Obrador, like Chavez, does not respect the rule of law..."

Roberto Madrazo is hardly one to talk about democracy. Lopez Obrador became a national figure taking on Madrazo when Madrazo's party stole a state election, and Lopez Obrador (then a oil workers' union leader) led the opposition -- it was the sight of AMLO, in a bloody shirt after being beaten by state cops that made him known nationally.

I lived in (and still live on and off) Mexico City during Lopez Obrador's tenure as head of government ("mayor" is misleading, with the Federal District having a much larger population -- and economic importance -- than most Mexican states). He's from the "left" and his party includes some ex-Communists (and his presidential coalition ticket includes a tiny party that used to call itself "Trotskyite") but he's no communist. What made him effective -- and extremely popular with the local voters -- was successful "garbage pickup and street lighting" type iniatives, most of which were public-private sector partnerships. He's got significant support from big business types (like Carlos Slim) and,more importantly, the mom-n-pop business owners.

Ironically, if he is president, you won't like his rhetoric, but I don't think you'll oppose a lot of his suggestions for slowing down emigration to the U.S. More investments in the rural areas (where most of the U.S. illegals come from), public works projects to keep workers at home, etc. As far as I can tell, Calderón is just offering more of what the Fox administration did, which hasn't worked at keeping people home.

At any rate, I agree with Benito Juarez, who said the world would be better off if we all minded our own business.

Write the fool in chief, your arrogant incumbent Senators and the RINOs in the House and perhaps, just perhaps it isn't too late for the US. Our boy has 463 troops at the border, protecting us as he upholds his oath of office! I am underwhelmed by his actions and overwhelmed by the illegals

Hey, I know spouting the "red meat" rhetoric is fun and all, but how about dealing with the reality? There ALREADY HAS BEEN significant tightening of the border.

Ten or fifteen years ago the typical illegal border crossing was a five or ten minute walk, usually within or just on the outskirts of a city, so the illegal could grab a taxi just across the border. Today the typical crossing involves a two day walk across desert, at some risk. (About one illegal dies per day on average.) At the same time the cost of hiring a "coyote" (a guide for your illegal border crossing) has increased around 3,000 percent.

Naturally these massively higher disincentives have already had an effect on illegal border crossings, which have plummeted. Yes, you can make the border tighter yet, but you'd better understand that further decreases in illegal crossings will be INCREMENTAL. We've already gone from crossings being easy and cheap to quite difficult and expensive. Those still crossing nevertheless will only be incrementally deterred by making the process merely a bit more difficult and a bit more expensive.

You also have to understand that we need to deal now, and proportionally more in the future, with the inevitable problems that a tighter border entails. It's simply delusional to pretend that a tighter border alone is the solution. It has effects which are undesirable. This is NOT to say that a tighter border is not desirable OVERALL, but just that you can't wish away or ignore mitigating factors. Which is why a comprehensive response -- not just better border control, or sanctions against those employing illegals -- is required.

What are the undesirable effects of a tighter border (and employer sanctions)? Well, for instance, more illegals from Mexico now STAY in the country once they get here, and they're more likely to consume public resources, be involved in crime, and/or compete with Americans for higher wage jobs.

Consider the bad old days of cheap and easy border crossing for a minute. You walk across the border in a few minute and jump in a cab. What do you do?

If you're like most illegals you don't actually want to settle down here in America. You've left the wife and kids back home. You just want to work, make some money, and then go back home. So what do you do? You generally do what's easy. You go to work. You'll probably head straight for the farmland where you know work picking fruit and vegetables, for instance, is available. You don't need to be involved in further illegal activities, like acquiring a fake ID, for instance. The farmer isn't going to ask you for an ID -- there're no meaningful sanctions facing the farmer remember -- so why bother with that. Oh, you might if you plan to work in the city, but relatively speaking the incentive is far less.

It doesn't work like that anymore. Now, with the Fed beginning to not only levy fines, but charge people CRIMINALLY, with likely JAIL TIME, for hiring illegals, the farmer, or the construction foreman, or whoever, is going to require some kind of ID. Now you'll have to associate yourself with, and support the creation and maintenance of, a criminal enterprise to acquire the papers you'll need.

What's more, that agricultural job may not be good enough anymore. You've got to cover your expenses in crossing the border, if you do intended to continue doing so seasonally, or maybe you decide that it's too expensive to cross and you're better off to remain in America once you get here. Either way you'll need a better, higher paying, and maybe non-seasonal job. A job that an American would otherwise have. OR you'll need to go on public assistance OR you'll have to turn to crime.

If you do decide to remain in America, rather than face twice yearly dangerous, iffy and expensive border crossings, eventually you'll get to missing your wife and kids. Likely you'll decide to bring them across too. Now, with a family, you're consuming far more public resources than when you were a young, single man.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.