The hysterical nonsense that Americans and Canadians are fed about the dangers of Mexico has long been a staple of bloggers south of the border.
I have simply become accustomed to the stereotypical journalist misuse of a few facts to weave a tapestry of terror. And it never seems to end.
But a Christmas warning from Texas got me back on my high horse. As Kurt Vonnegut would say: Here it is.
"Mexican drug cartel-related violence continues in the northern Mexican border cities and other location, such as Monterrey and Acapulco," said Texas Department of Public Safety director Steven. C. McGraw. "Drug-related or other criminal activity has been documented in popular tourist destinations such as Cancun and Mazatlan. The safety and security of holiday travelers cannot be guaranteed if they venture into Mexico."
Is there drug gang violence in northern Mexican border cities? Yes.
Have Monterrey, Acapulco, Cancun, and Mazatlan suffered drug-related violence? Yes. And so have a lot of other towns and cities, including my small fishing village by the sea.
But what about the conclusion -- the safety and security of holiday travelers cannot be guaranteed in Mexico?
Guaranteed? What can be?
Well, Crime Dog McGraw, can you guarantee if I drive in Texas, I will be perfectly safe? If I invest in Texas, will you guarantee that my investment will be safe and give me a good return? Can you guarantee my safety if I travel in drug-areas of Austin?
Of course not. Just like the FBI cannot guarantee that all terrorist plots on American targets are going to be foiled.
Plug in any large American or Canadian city in the Texas warning. After all, every big city has its crime problems.
Then why don't we see warnings like: "The safety and security of holiday travelers cannot be guaranteed if they venture into Canada or the United States."
The reason is simple. Because the conclusion cannot be drawn from the facts. It is pure fear mongering.
I thought of that the other day when a friend of mine sent me a link to a piece entitled: "What to Expect From Mexico in 2011." I fully trust Al's suggestions. But I am a bit leery of American writers discussing Mexico's future.
I do not know the author: Victor Davis Hanson. But, at least in this piece, he has a very level-headed view of the relationship between the United States and Mexico. He idealizes neither Mexico nor the United States. What he offers is a new take on how to start resolving relationships between the two countries.
I am not a closed borders fan. For one basic reason. Closed borders do not work. Even the iron curtain had leaks.
But I must concede a point to Mr. Hanson. He argues that as long as some of Mexico's hardest workers can find financial benefits by heading north illegally, Mexico has no incentive to do what it needs to do to reform its social and political structure.
"Mexico has not embraced open markets, truly consensual government, respect for private property, transparency, and an independent judiciary—in the style of the reformist agendas in Chile and Brazil—and thus cannot provide security and prosperity for its own people."
This is the discussion that should be taking place inside Mexico (perhaps, with a friendly nudge from Washington and Ottawa). There is no reason why Mexico cannot do what Chile and Brazil have done.
The Economist published its annual Latinobarómetro poll earlier this month. When asked "How satisfied are you with the way democracy works in your country?", a majority of Brazilians and Chileans said they were satisfied.
They have seen how democracy and liberal markets can work for the benefit of their countries.
Not so, Mexicans. Less than a quarter are satisfied with how democracy is working for them.
The good news is that, even though Mexicans are not satisfied with the way democracy is currently working for them, they are not interested in an authoritarian government. (Ironically, the only three nations with lower pro-authoritarian sentiment, each have authoritarian governments: Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.)
As for me, I am not venturing north of Nogales for Christmas. It is just too dangerous (and cold) for me.
They have seen how democracy and liberal markets can work for the benefit of their countries.
Not so, Mexicans. Less than a quarter are satisfied with how democracy is working for them.
The good news is that, even though Mexicans are not satisfied with the way democracy is currently working for them, they are not interested in an authoritarian government. (Ironically, the only three nations with lower pro-authoritarian sentiment, each have authoritarian governments: Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.)
As for me, I am not venturing north of Nogales for Christmas. It is just too dangerous (and cold) for me.
