62 The New York Review
and the purchases of these commodities
and services by middle-class people would
go down, in turn resulting in lower employ-
ment for the least skilled. The mere fact
that she does not even consider such a pos-
sibility is the problem here and in much of
the rest of her article when she only consid-
ers one side of a complicated situation.
I suggest that novelists should not write
essays on economics and that economists
should not write essays on literature.
Donald Wittman
Professor of Economics
University of California at Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz, CaliforniaMarilynne Robinson replies:
First, Donald Wittman describes devel-
opments under the economic system he
defends that, on their face, are just the op-
posite of what we have seen happening in
America. Our middle class has been con-
tracting, and poverty among us has been
increasing. (I must stipulate that he and
I are both speaking in terms of the status
quo ante, the world before the pandemic.
For him this means he may be claiming ame-
liorations that, to the extent they were real,
are vanishing globally. For me it means that
the criticisms I make of the newly old order
are made in the hope that we can create a
more humane order in its place, one that will
do less violence to those emotional buttons
he mentions.) In our present state of uncer-
tainty, the model of past practice amounts
to no more than a theory about the conse-
quences of continuing in the course pursued
until a few months ago, assuming that to con-
tinue in it will be possible. Important deci-
sions will be made on the basis of discussions
like this one. So we need some definitions.
He speaks of millions rescued from “(ex-
treme) poverty”—to enjoy the comforts of
unmodified poverty, presumably. Those pa-
rentheses are his. Let us assume that the im-
provements he describes are real and mean-
ingful, weighed against environmental and
other costs. Whether these changes would
be sustainable as the American economy,
so long the engine of the world economy,
is dismantled is another question. So many
variables have been added to the situation
that the old answers, whether yes or no,
are now strictly hypothetical. We do know
and can say with confidence that issues of
social justice in this country, economic in
their origins and their effects, have grown
worse. The pandemic underscores the in-
justices that have been tolerated among us
on the theory that economics should make
civil and moral choices for us, or, more pre-
cisely, should obviate them.
In our present limbo, when so little can
be known about future demand for energy,
Janet Yellen’s proposal for a carbon tax
showering benefits on the poor and on pos-
terity looks a little dreamy. It is telling that
no actual policy is cited to show that these
admirable impulses have yielded anything
more substantive than 3,500 signatures. As
for the Yellow Vests, an economist should
know that the cost of fuel affects the cost
of all kinds of goods and services as well
as of commuting and personal travel. As
rural economies thin out, the need for die-
sel and gasoline increases, which for people
in marginal circumstances introduces an ur-
gency that is not captured by the term “self-
interest.”
Who has not heard, ad nauseam, the ar-
gument that a higher minimum wage would
exclude the unskilled from employment?
This is a pure instance of the exploitation
of poverty. The idea is that these people
should work in order to work, with some-
thing like subsistence as a side benefit.
They should do this to subsidize the “job
creators” who would not survive the real
cost of doing business. But we all know
that low-income people spend because they
need things. With a little discretionary in-
come, they buy things that strengthen local
economies. Macroeconomics is notoriously
indifferent to the local, but it is the basis of
effectively, equitably distributed wealth.
MEXICO’S ‘GUARDIAN’?To the Editors:Enrique Krauze’s article “Mexico’s Ruin-
ous Messiah” [NYR, July 2] on the pres-
idency of Andrés Manuel López Obrador
(AMLO) is a litany of reproaches, some of
which are justified, most of which are not,
and all of which contribute to a portrait of
the president as an “elected despot” who is
“ruining” Mexico and threatening demo-
cratic pluralism. The authors of this letter
do not agree on every aspect of the AMLO
presidency, but we do think it is important
to respond to these allegations, which are a
collation of talking points used by Mexican
conservatives to discredit the efforts of a
popular president to combat rampant cor-
ruption and channel more state resources
into projects for social welfare. We can-
not in this short space reply to each of Mr.
Krauze’s arguments, but we will address
some of the essential ones.
Mr. Krauze claims that AMLO controls
the Mexican media, suggesting that there
is something dictatorial in his behavior. In
fact, he has put an end to the institutional-
ized practice of bribing the media into con-
formity (el chayote) and as a result has much
media hostility to contend with. Yes, he
often criticizes the media that oppose him
and his projects, but Mr. Krauze would be
at pains to point to a single example of “re-
stricting free expression,” as he contends.
It is difficult to understand on what basis
Mr. Krauze can claim that AMLO has
“brought...to a halt” the construction of a
multiparty democracy. Since the 2018 elec-
tions, in which he won the presidency with
a clear majority, and in which his party,
Morena (Movement for National Regen-
eration), won majorities in both houses of
Congress, the opposition has been weak
and divided and some of its leaders have
resorted to Trump-like tactics of calumny.
The two major established parties, the PRI
and the PAN, do not embody a focused and
constructive opposition, but that is not the
fault of the president.
According to Mr. Krauze, AMLO con-
trols his party with an iron hand. In point of
fact, the cohesion of Morena is threatened
from within by certain regional leaders who
are less dedicated to an agenda of social
change than the president himself. Far from
imposing his control, AMLO has left party
leaders to resolve these problems on their
own and indicated he may take his distance
from Morena if it falls under conservative
control.
While casting doubt on AMLO’s claim—
central to the credibility of his presi-
dency—that a struggle is being waged by
legal means against systemic corruption,
Mr. Krauze curiously never mentions the
work of dedicated and incorruptible mem-
bers of AMLO’s government such as Irma
Eréndira Sandoval, who is the head of the
Secretaria de la Función Pública, or Special
Prosecutor Santiago Nieto Castillo.
While some aspects of AMLO’s han-
dling of the Covid-19 pandemic are indeed
problematic, it is wrong and defamatory to
suggest that he has a “contempt for experts
that is similar to Trump’s.” Strangely, Mr.
Krauze refers not once to the work of Dr.
Hugo López- Gatell, subsecretary of health,
whose calm and informed guidance in com-
batting the pandemic has certainly helped
to control its spread and avoid a catastro-
phe of Brazilian proportions.
The leitmotif of Mr. Krauze’s complaint
is that AMLO, although personally incor-
ruptible in material terms, has been “cor-
rupted” by power and seeks to become a
modern-day caudillo. He is apparently in
thrall to outdated normative representa-
tions of Mexicans and other Latin Amer-
icans as culturally backward and prone to
charismatic authoritarian leaders, caudi-
llos. In this view, popularized by Domingo
Faustino Sarmiento, president of Argentina
(1868–1874), and taken up by Mr. Krauze
in one of his books, Latin Americans nat-
urally tend toward authoritarian, “barbar-
ian” leaders and are incapable of exercisingthe restraint needed for republican rule in
“civilized” societies.
Does AMLO really owe his high rates of
popularity, as Mr. Krauze suggests, to the
“religious aura” that he cultivates? Has he
cast a spell on his supporters with messianic
promises of redemption? If his enduring
popularity in the midst of a pandemic and
prolonged economic stagnation were ex-
plainable only by demagogy, there would
be reason for great concern. However, the
AMLO administration has undertaken nu-
merous projects of interest to poor and mar-
ginalized citizens. Mr. Krauze clearly thinks
very little of these and sweeps them aside
as failures, but there is a material basis for
AMLO’s continuing majority support.
Many of AMLO’s choices are indeed de-
batable (regarding ecology or immigrants’
rights, for example), but it is simply untrue
that public debate has been suppressed; itremains very lively in spite of Mr. Krauze’s
dark premonitions about the suffocation of
democratic life. Mexico for the first time in
decades has a president with an agenda of
social change, and that seems to be the main
reason Mr. Krauze and a handful of other
conservative intellectuals are so upset.Edward Blumenthal and James Cohen
Professors
Université Sorbonne Nouvelle (Paris 3)
Paris, FranceEnrique Krauze replies:I am delighted that Edward Blumenthal
and James Cohen admit that they “do not
agree on every aspect of the AMLO presi-
dency,” that “many of AMLO’s choices are
indeed debatable (regarding ecology or im-
migrants’ rights, for example),” that “some
aspects of AMLO’s handling of the Covid-
19 pandemic are indeed problematic,” and
that “some” of my “reproaches...are justi-
fied.” Since they have nothing to say about
AMLO’s policy of appeasing organized
crime, which has given rise to unprece-
dented levels of violence, or about the 10
percent fall in the economy predicted for
2020, which may result in the loss of two
million jobs and the condemnation of nine
million people to poverty, I have to assume
that these also belong to those “aspects”
about which they agree with me and not
AMLO.
Blumenthal and Cohen are specialists in
the subjects of exile and migration in South
America, and they teach in France. They
offer as an example of the fight against cor-
ruption “the work of dedicated and incor-
ruptible members of AMLO’s government
such as Irma Eréndira Sandoval.” In my
article, I alluded to the various members
of AMLO’s cabinet or his inner circle who
have committed vast acts of corruption and
who have been exonerated by Sandoval.
But the events of recent weeks allow me
to add one further case: that of Sandoval
herself. An investigative journalist has re-
vealed that she and her husband, Dr. John
Ackerman, both academics, inexplicably
managed to accumulate property worth $3
million over the past two decades. Worse
still: in her declaration of assets, which is
compulsory for all public employees, San-doval omitted information so as to prevent
her fortune from looking too outrageous. A
formal complaint against her is before the
Secretaría de la Función Pública.
Blumenthal and Cohen accuse me of
being one of those “Mexican conserva-
tives” who want to “discredit the efforts of
a popular president to combat rampant cor-
ruption and channel more state resources
into projects for social welfare.” It would
trouble them to learn that the main point
of AMLO’s social agenda—the channeling
of state resources into a vast program of
distributing cash—is directly inspired by El
Progreso Improductivo (The Unproductive
Progress, 1979) by Gabriel Zaid, a writer
who according to their criteria would be a
“conservative.” Zaid has criticized the im-
plementation of the program for the same
reasons I did: he thinks the dismantling of
the state brash, irresponsible, and chaotic;
he has lamented the destruction of valuable
public institutions, like the National Health
Institutes and the Popular Insurance Pro-
gram; he has condemned the recruiting
by the government of the “servants of
the nation,” young people who determine
who does and does not deserve to receive
support, because their work lends itself to
political manipulation, arbitrariness, and
corruption.
If Blumenthal and Cohen were bas-
ing their views on any reliable source of
information beyond the official version,
they would know that it is López Obrador
himself, Trump’s great friend, who uses
“Trump-like tactics of calumny,” and that
because of these a number of journalists
have been dismissed from newspapers and
TV. They would also learn that thanks to
the “calm and informed guidance in com-
batting the pandemic” of Dr. Hugo López-
Gatell, Mexico today (July 22, 2020) had
790 deaths and 6,019 new infections, adding
to the sum total to date of 362,274 cases and
41,190 fatalities. Has López-Gatell “helped
to control its spread and avoid a catastrophe
of Brazilian proportions”? That depends
on how you measure these “proportions.”
Mexico has about half Brazil’s population
and (in the questionable official account)
about half its number of deaths. But if we
continue under the “calm and informed
guidance” of López- Gatell—which includes
not recommending the use of face masks,
not implementing testing, and systemat-
ically lying about actual figures—we will
overtake Brazil soon enough.
On June 22 López Obrador declared that
he would be the “guardian” of the midterm
elections in June 2021. But as it happens,
Mexico already has an independent insti-
tution that is the guarantor of its elections
and its democracy: the National Electoral
Institute (INE). This month, a committee of
seven people (Dr. Ackerman among them)
will elect four new electoral counselors to
the INE, out of a total of eleven. We shall
see then whether the “guardian” respects
the guarantor. Let’s hope he does. Because
the only way in which I am “conservative”
is in wishing the conservation of democracy
in Mexico.CORRECTIONIn Mark Mazower’s “Clear, Inclusive, and
Lasting” [NYR, July 23], Fernand Braudel’s
“right-hand man” was Clemens Heller, not
Jacques Heller.Letters to the Editor: [email protected]. All other
correspondence: The New York Review of Books, 435
Hudson Street, Suite 300, New York, NY 10014-3994;
[email protected]. Please include a mailing address
with all correspondence. We accept no responsibility
for unsolicited manuscripts.
Subscription Services: nybooks.com/customer-service
or The New York Review of Books, P.O. Box 9310, Big
Sandy, TX, 75755-9310, or e-mail [email protected].
In the US, call toll-free 800-354-0050. Outside the US,
call 903-636-1101. Subscription rates: US, one year
$89.95; in Canada, $95; elsewhere, $115.
Advertising: To inquire please call 212-757-8070, or
fax 212-333-5374.
Copyright © 2020, NYREV, Inc. All rights reserved.
Nothing in this publication may be reproduced with-
out the permission of the publisher. The cover date of
the next issue will be September 24, 2020.