Opinion Archive

What to Make of the Angry Left

December 19, 2007

Perhaps the best sign of a country’s political maturity is when its “left” decides to participate fully and responsibly, playing by the rules of democratic government. This attitude is what intellectuals normally refer to when they talk about a “modern” left, as opposed to the “old” left, which insists on seeing everything through the prism of class struggle. Paraphrasing Republican presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, the modern left is socially aware, but they’re not angry about it.

Mexico’s left is angry and it’s not modern. From the teachers’ marches in Guerrero to the profound indignation of López Obrador supporters, our left still doesn’t fully accept that an economically liberal democracy based on strong institutions is either possible, or even desireable. The deepseated belief that they alone represent the interests of the poor makes all dissent an afront to millions who suffer daily in poverty. Even though they don’t say it anymore, these types of leftists have not completely overcome their desire for Marxism’s dictatorship of the proletariat. That, beyond the “radical chic” element of fashion, is the reason why the hammer and the sickle, as well as the mug of Ché Guevara, keep showing up in the endless demonstrations that do so much damage to Mexico’s social fabric. According to them, only a socialist dictatorship, free from the messy dealmaking that is the hallmark of democracy, can truly liberate the desperate masses and achieve true legitimacy. In this mindset, both institutions and laws should in all cases be subservient to what they interpret to be the interests of the working classes. Their disdain for the rule of law is not just based on ignorance, but on their belief that laws protect the interests of the powerful to the detriment of the “weak,” with which they associate.

Malcontents of the World Unite!

When López Obrador lost last year’s elections he appealed to the angry left, which makes up a not-insignificant 13% of the population. This 13% is not the poorest segment of the country (the PRI won a majority of the vote in the poorest, rural, communities). It is the urban lower-middle class, a group that saw its material aspirations fade with the multiple crises and years of lackluster growth after the “Mexican miracle” of economic growth ended in the early 70s. It is the urban lower-middle class which was taught by a public school system that was handed to the academic wing of the angry left and was never reformed.

The lack of serious education reform, not just in terms of quality, but of ideological content, is an oversight that will keep undermining Mexico’s economically liberal democracy. After 25 years of center-right governments public universities still teach dependencia theory (of developing nations on the “periphery” being oppressed by rich countries) at a time when “poor” countries are the main drivers of world economic growth. The ruling  PAN would be better served by tackling these fundamental ideological differences rather than spending their time on red herrings that are matters of personal choice, like gay marriage and euthanasia.

It’s a Question of Attitude

Some parts of the country, like Monterrey, have exorcized the left’s ideological ghosts. In discussing this with sociologist Juan Zapata, he noted the difference between poor urban neighborhoods in the Monterrey metropolitan area and those around Mexico City. Zapata cites the significant improvements in what used to be Monterrey’s slums, compared to the pervasive urban blight in places like Chalco (east of Mexico City). At the risk of oversimplifying, in Nuevo León there is a degree of “hope” based on social mobility, while in the slums of the DF and Mexico State there is a feeling of desperation based on social stagnation. Hopelessness makes people angry.

At its most fundamental level, the biggest difference lies in how one perceives the world and the changes that occur around us. The angry left believes that life is a zero-sum game and that all change that is outside their control is to their detriment. It is a “victim” mindset which turns into an insidious habit. It can also serve as a type of self-fulfilling prophecy, as their entire reality morphs into one big conspiracy against them. That is why López Obrador’s speeches have become so alien to those who are not immersed in their X-files world view.

It is time to have a serious discussion about these fundamental issues. Leaders need to revisit the issues we take for granted. Mexicans are a freedom-loving people, but we need to explain again and again why liberal democracy is a superior system to despotic Communism. Why empowering people to unleash their potential is better than imposing artificial equality. Why a socially responsible liberal democracy, based on the rule of law, is morally superior to socialism. Why only a meritocracy can generate the wealth to pull everyone out of poverty. And we need to do it without getting angry.

Return to top