Posted by
Bill Crawford on Friday, May 21, 2010 1:49:37 PM
I feel for the guy. He inherited a series of really nasty problems going in to office. The real economy there has been deteriorating for years, and Vincente Fox (his predecessor) didn't do much to help things. They have had a series of gangs become prominent in most of their cities, mostly Guatamelan and Venezuelan (heavy on the MS-13), and their police, already some of the most corrupt in the hemisphere, can do little about it. This has in turn trashed much of their tourism industry because Americans don't want to go or send their kids to places where crime and kidnapping has gone viral.
And now he has problems with us, because the gangs are now of the belief that the profit in bringing their violence into our country outweighs the possible consequences.
Calderon is a pipsqueak, in charge of a third world economy. If he wants to stand up and announce that we are the problem because of our insatiable appetite for drugs, that's his right. If he wants to hold aloft his hypocrisy by having the draconian immigration laws that they do there, and lecture us on how we should not, that is the freedom of the small.
I never would hold that against him. No, the problem I have here is with the political leadership here that ignores that hypocrisy and cheers him on, for their own sakes.
I can try to understand all that as another cultural lodestone in our great debate. Where I run into real problems is why the hell this White House would lend themselves to this organ grinder act. Sometimes that is the price you have to pay for concessions elsewhere.
What do I mean by that? Here's one: In 1972, Nixon and Kissinger went to the Paris peace talks. They sat down with the Viet Cong leadership and Nixon's first act was to sit mute while the various reps of the Ho Chi Ming government tore him to pieces over everything, including the actions of the two guys who held office before him. It was often strewn with outright lies, but we took it and didn't say a word. Nixon knew that it would be on record that the small guys had told him off in person, and for that, they were willing to make concessions at the table they may not have otherwise.
My question is, what is Obama getting from the Calderon government for this? I can't figure that one out. And, in the absence of concessions, why the hell would he stand by and watch this guy take apart one of our states in public view?
That's the part that worries me. I think Obama agrees with Calderon. Sweeping into office as the great uniter, Obama and his minions seem to be fomenting a new civil war here, and I don't think they realize it.
The lesson from 1972 continues. Many people would not vote for McGovern that year, even though they held no great affection for Nixon, because they thought McGovern would look at the negotiations between us and the Soviets, or us and Vietnam- and turn around and kick us first. Well, we elected a professional at kicking America first, and that is why the political capital that got him elected had drifted away, leaving only his base.