Posted on 06/22/2007 7:59:42 AM PDT by DogByte6RER
Is it any wonder socialism and communism would flourish in such an environment?
We are indeed fortunate in Anglo-America. A true aristocracy of wealth never developed here - so far. The British government encouraged mass immigration from all parts of the British isles and even encouraged and actively recruited immigrants from other parts of Europe to come here . This created a large middle class and historic opportunities for wealth for the common man. For some reason the British aristocrats never moved here in any great numbers.
Contrary circumstances in South and Central America resulted in the kind of mess that is now threatening the integrity of our own borders.
Perhaps we should consider an invasion of Mexico, removal of the ruling elites from power, redistribution of land and money there, and education of the masses as real solutions to our southern border problems.
In the same spirit of The Battle of the Alamo and The Battle of Thermopylae, you might like these 2nd Amendment products from LifeLibertyEtc.com (one of my favorite internet shopping sites)...
http://www.lifelibertyetc.com/product.aspx?pid=14
http://www.lifelibertyetc.com/product.aspx?pid=21
http://www.lifelibertyetc.com/product.aspx?pid=32
There are several reasons.
First, the areas he lost were exceedingly marginal, vast though they were they had tiny populations and negligible immediate economic significance.
Second, his successes (or well-publicized heroism) occurred in or near the heart of the Mexican population, during the war against Spain and against Spanish and French invasions, in places like Vera Cruz and Tampico. He was also very effective at putting down rebellions (save one, naturally). It was his military specialty, and he was very successful at it, repeatedly over twenty years. It is usually forgotten that the Texan revolution came as part of a general rebellion of much of provincial Mexico, which he put down.
Third, he was an exceptional personality, a politician of magnetism and great ability, exploiting a chronically chaotic situation.
Fourth, Mexico’s other leadership options were, in general, no better. Santa Ana was not the only military dictator and coup plotter in the picture. Mexico was overrun with men like him.
Fifth, he was perhaps unique in having a reputation as a sort of Mexican Cincinnatus, as he was several times called upon to take over when Mexico was in difficulty, and he did in fact repeatedly voluntarily (and several times not-so-voluntarily) renounce power once the emergency of the day was over.
The big problem with Mexico has always been the direct correlation between political power and wealth. The wealthy had political power because of their wealth, and were always willing to co-opt an efficient warlord into their midst, providing him with wealth through corruption, intermarriage, etc.
Another way of looking at this is that you never want the same people to control most of the money and most of the guns.
There is relatively little “churning” of those with wealth. The families with great wealth today are largely those who were wealthy 75 years ago. This is not true in the US, where the wealthiest people in the country had never been heard of 25 years earlier, or in some cases 10 years.
“Is it any wonder socialism and communism would flourish in such an environment?”
Mexico (and most Latin American countries) have never had true free-market capitalism, even the diluted version we have in the US. Their system is crony capitalism, a very different animal.
I like those products. This one is also my style: http://www.pongo.co.il/bestisraelitshirts/product9_139.asp
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.