Reply #59: You present one point of view on the events in Mexico.

[JDPriestly]

I appreciate that, and I am not criticizing you for holding your viewpoint. But, remember, reasonable people have other points of view. I know two people who are otherwise very liberal who disagree with you. A friend of mine who is married to someone from Oaxaca blames corrupt labor union leaders vying for payoffs for some of what she sees as "the problems." She says that the strikes and sit-downs are orchestrated by union leaders who are most interested in their own wellbeing, in getting their "cut," so to speak. Whether that is truth or false, I cannot judge. The important thing is that many people believe her version to be true. It may be correct to label my friend's point of view as "corporatist," but peoples' questions about the leadership of the labor movement in Mexico need to be answered just as much as their questions about the current leadership.

The genius of our founding fathers was that their political philosophies arose from the enlightenment and from the belief in the fundamental equality of all people. I may be wrong, but I do not have the sense that the leaders of the protest movements in South America are grounded enough in enlightenment thought to understand the careful balancing of power that is needed to make a democracy work. (We are reminded of the need for that balance today where a Republican president and Congress have completely thrown that balance off kelter.) It is the spirit of the enlightenment that prevents democracy from becoming despotism by the majority. That is why I question your view that the Chavez's of Central/South American will bring salvation to their countries. I would suggest you back off just a bit from your advocacy for the current leadership until we see whether they build enduring democratic institutions that permit different points of view to be heard. That will be the real test.