|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
It was a time of changes in the northern part of the American continents. The U.S. started to engage with China (Nixon’s visit), while Mexico’s economic “miracle” was nearing its end. For decades, Mexico’s single-party system had shielded the country from foreign influences or at least limited its exposure. Investors’ and speculators’ sway in Mexico was limited, and the ruling party focused on protectionist policies and monopolizing key industries, such as energy production, to ensure sovereignty. Just like the Americans, Mexicans are entrepreneurial by nature, but the economic climate was very different from their northern neighbors. Instead of the market being the main incentive for economic growth, businesses in Mexico focused on obtaining government contracts, which were very lucrative, as the basis for growth. Although this brought benefits like stability, social programs, and the creation of a middle class, it came at a steep price. Corruption was rampant, as high-ranking politicians used their power to manipulate industries at the expense of growth and innovation.
To the modern reader, the idea of perpetual single-party rule controlling economic destiny seems offensive and anti-American. But in Mexico, things were bad but not catastrophic. Since its independence in 1821, Mexico had seen political turmoil, economic misery, and, just a couple of generations ago, a bloody civil war (Cristero War). What Mexican society likely yearned for was stability, just like a family seeks stability. The single-party rule offered Mexico the appearance of stability as long as the bulk of society was willing to look the other way when the government engaged in corruption schemes. Any individual perceived as a threat to the ruling system was promptly “transferred” (to the eternal life).
Winds of Change
Nothing lasts forever, and the shifting winds came to Mexico, ready or not. Absolute power corrupts, and after long decades of dominance, the ruling party became the symbol of corruption and inefficiency. The Cold War ended, and global money became more powerful. A new generation of political leaders rose in Mexico, boasting post-graduate degrees at American universities, which influenced their political ideology. As time went on, two different ideologies started to rival internally. As Our Lord said, “Every Kingdom divided against itself will be laid to waste” (Matthew 12:25). The new leaders embraced foreign money and its influence, while the old guard remained staunchly nationalist. By opening Mexico to world markets, the new guard sought growth opportunities and new ways to take advantage of nascent industries. The old guard saw its monopolies threatened. This ideological battle came to a head in the mid-90s. Carlos Salinas, a globalist and a key figure behind NAFTA, was president, and his successor was supposed to be Luis Donaldo Colosio, a longtime friend. However, Colosio’s alignment with the old guard clashed with Salinas’s vision, leading to Colosio’s assassination in 1994. His death, captured on tape, sent shockwaves across the nation, highlighting the brutal reality of power struggles in Mexico. Salinas then selected Ernesto Zedillo, a leader more aligned with the new guard’s ideology.
America 2024
Watching the murder attempt against President Trump eerily reminded me of Mexico’s turbulent transition period. America is facing its own transition, struggling to find a path forward. Currently, we have a sitting president trying to take us in a direction that most of the nation clearly opposes, just like President Salinas was trying to take Mexico in a direction that many were uncomfortable with. Political dissent was stifled in Mexico, with mainstream media echoing the government’s message—parallels we can draw to our own media landscape today. The suppression of free speech then mirrors the threats to our First Amendment now. Interestingly, both transitions involve a figure named Donald, with a key difference being that one Donald survived and the other didn’t. Political discourse has become perilous, but we must engage in it to avoid Mexico’s fate. Financing ideas, not violence, is crucial.
Instead of solely blaming Leftists for their irrationality, we should examine why they’ve become radicalized, how we’ve failed to influence them, and how to engage new generations effectively. Learning from our ancestors’ successes and failures is key. This reflection should lead us to understand that financing ideas over violence is not only a strategy for political engagement but also a principle that ensures stability at both the national and family levels. A stable family life is indispensable, as strong family units are the foundation of a healthy society. Ensuring fathers are actively present in their families’ lives creates the conditions for nurturing future generations who are capable of open dialogue and rational discourse.
I am confident we can find answers as long as we keep the door of dialogue open. Closing that door turns brothers into enemies, bringing grief to Our Lord.
