Danny and Derek welcome back Alexander Aviña, associate professor of history at Arizona State University, for a discussion focusing on the career of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) of Mexico.
I am in Academia, and a Mexican in permanent exile. I left the country with no intention of ever going back.
AMLO is a very bipartisan issue. Both sides are despicable.
I mention all this because I do t have a “side” in this, and as an researcher I understand empirical and objective analysis. This one is not.
A single example. He mentions protest in favor of the president while omitting the nation wide protest to protect the independent electoral institution from the president? The largest protests in the history of the county since the revolution?
AMLO is trying to dissolve the electoral college and become dictator for life. The people who oppose AMLO are commie fearing Neo-libs and we know where we stand there.
Seems like you need a New Mexico expert. I have listened to every interview with Alex. Every single was has a sprinkle of personal opinion pushed like fact. This one went too far.
Jesus: this guest’s analysis is not based on a broad understanding of policy but on AMLO anecdotes. Kind of underwhelming. You may laugh of NYT and WaPo coverage of LatAm, but I heard the very same talking points in this episode.
It is concerning how by the end of his “AMLO is anti-migrant” rant, your guest suggests Mexican migration policy is based on public perception and not in US political calculations. He forgot to mention that the welcoming migration policy was being implemented before Trump threatened Mexico with tariffs. He also didn’t mention that the very first item on the very first call between AMLO and Joe Biden was a more humane migration policy towards Central America. His proposals for a new approach fell in deaf ears, as it became clear the new Dem administation migration policy was the same as the one that came before. From a historian’s perspective one would expect to hear an educated assessment of this facts and not a visceral rant based on half-digested talking points mediated by a (by his own admission) fairly hostile US media. What a shame.
I am in Academia, and a Mexican in permanent exile. I left the country with no intention of ever going back.
AMLO is a very bipartisan issue. Both sides are despicable.
I mention all this because I do t have a “side” in this, and as an researcher I understand empirical and objective analysis. This one is not.
A single example. He mentions protest in favor of the president while omitting the nation wide protest to protect the independent electoral institution from the president? The largest protests in the history of the county since the revolution?
AMLO is trying to dissolve the electoral college and become dictator for life. The people who oppose AMLO are commie fearing Neo-libs and we know where we stand there.
Seems like you need a New Mexico expert. I have listened to every interview with Alex. Every single was has a sprinkle of personal opinion pushed like fact. This one went too far.
Jesus: this guest’s analysis is not based on a broad understanding of policy but on AMLO anecdotes. Kind of underwhelming. You may laugh of NYT and WaPo coverage of LatAm, but I heard the very same talking points in this episode.
It is concerning how by the end of his “AMLO is anti-migrant” rant, your guest suggests Mexican migration policy is based on public perception and not in US political calculations. He forgot to mention that the welcoming migration policy was being implemented before Trump threatened Mexico with tariffs. He also didn’t mention that the very first item on the very first call between AMLO and Joe Biden was a more humane migration policy towards Central America. His proposals for a new approach fell in deaf ears, as it became clear the new Dem administation migration policy was the same as the one that came before. From a historian’s perspective one would expect to hear an educated assessment of this facts and not a visceral rant based on half-digested talking points mediated by a (by his own admission) fairly hostile US media. What a shame.