Ellie Alter
Just Associates (JASS)
Mexico City, Mexico
There is a historical narrative about U.S.-Latin American relations which goes something like this: the U.S. government has routinely intervened in Central, South American, and Caribbean countries, both overtly and covertly, to further the U.S.’ political and economic agenda. Whether the purpose has been to stem the tide of socialism or northward migration in the region, or to weaken a nation’s defenses against corporate pillage, such intervention has often left in its wake a crippled civil society, and in too many cases, the violent rupture of a nation’s social fabric (for case studies, see Guatemala or Haiti).
This historical narrative, espoused fervently by the Left and by scholars across disciplines of law, human rights, and the social sciences, is one that I generally agree with, in the sense that my research corroborates the trends and political intentions set forth by this narrative. As such, I admit that this narrative serves as one of the lenses through which I experience and understand dynamics in the region.
Through various encounters I had during my fellowship, I began observing the role that this historical narrative plays in shaping the lens through which the American Left understands the current political climate in the region. Of course, it is impossible to completely rid oneself of our lenses and political/cultural biases when analyzing a current event and its ripping implications. And, history is undoubtedly an important teacher. However, it has been interesting for me to observe a divergence between Leftists in the U.S. and Leftists in Mesoamerica regarding the evolution and the nuances of the aforementioned historical narrative.
I first observed this divergence in relation to Mexico’s presidential election, which culminated in the election of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, on July 1, 2018. AMLO, as he is often referred to, is by some accounts, a complicated case: while his political roots are undoubtedly socialist and populist, some have argued that AMLO’s politics have ventured closer to the center, at times hovering to the right. Furthermore, as with most candidates on the ballot this year, AMLO’s record bore no shortage of corruption scandals despite anti-corruption efforts being a core tenet of his campaign.
AMLO defeated his opponents upon a tide of anti-establishment populism that is sweeping the globe. His rallying cries on wealth inequality echo leftist politicians like Bernie Sanders, and yet, his posture towards the elite and Mexico’s political establishment echos President Trump. At the same time, one of AMLO’s most crucial rallying cries has been his promise to take a harsher stance towards the U.S. and its heavy hand in Mexican affairs.
The subject of Mexico’s election warrants deep and ongoing analysis, one that goes beyond political analogies. What I want to discuss instead, is how eye-opening it has been to experience diverging responses to AMLO’s election. During my time in Mexico City, many expressed to me negative feelings about the prospect of an AMLO presidency. Of course, my sample was small and clearly not representative of public opinion, but the fact that my interlocutors were primarily lefties or socially progressive Mexicans, is part of the point. Individuals I spoke with–coworkers, neighbors, etc.–generally agreed with most of AMLO’s broad goals: alleviating poverty, de-escalating the war on drugs, and tackling impunity and corruption. However, almost everyone I spoke to about the election expressed grave concern regarding AMLO’s integrity to these ideals, as well as the solvency of his proposed methods of achieving these goals. Furthermore, AMLO’s platform and campaign rhetoric remains, in many ways, socially conservative and has left many women’s and LGBTQ rights activists concerned about his ambiguity on issues such as abortion and marriage equality.
As a result, I was somewhat, perhaps naively, surprised when AMLO’s victory was met with such exuberant support by champions of progressive politics in the US. After hearing so many of the aforementioned concerns about AMLO, the optimism expressed by leftists in the U.S. confused me. Is AMLO indeed a champion for the Left? Does he possess the will, the tools, and the alliances to effect real change?
Moreover, it made me question the role of the historical narrative I described above in casting a Leftist public perception that is perhaps, too simplistic to suit the current politics in the region. In other words, I wonder if AMLO deserves the enthusiasm and the benefit of the doubt he receives from the American Left, afforded him by his leftist politics. I wonder, in what ways is he given a pass for his own corruption and socially conservative views (which may translate into policy) simply because in recognizing and proposing to push back against US intervention in the region, AMLO reaffirms the Left’s historical narrative about the region. In some ways, it feels like supporting AMLO from afar is almost too convenient, and seems to neglect the legitimate anxieties and concerns of Mexican progressives. On the other hand, there are undoubtedly many other Mexican progressives who remain hopeful about AMLO.
Encountering such dissonance made me reflect on the role that such historical narratives play in influencing public opinion, or more specifically, the level of scrutiny that politicians receive based on how neatly they fit within the contours of these powerful narratives. Certainly, this remembrance is for the best in many cases, not only because history repeats itself, but also because the legacy of these histories live on and fester. If we, as human rights workers, are after truth and accountability, it seems important to refrain from allowing party politics or the convenience of preconceived narratives to shield us from the messy nuances. That means scrutinizing all political leaders with the human rights standards we exalt, regardless of the political cloaks they don, and often hide behind.
Thanks for reading!
Ellie