Democratic Debate Diabetes and the Mexican Revolution

Around a hundred years ago — during what’s called the “Mexican Revolution” — President Madero, out of fear of public revolts, commissioned the viscious Victoriano Huerta as Chief General of the Federal Armies.

Some say that iron entered the soul of the Mexican Revolution at that juncture. Plenty of stomach-turning atrocities had taken place prior to that moment, but following Huerta’s rushed appointment treachery, murder and crimes against humanity became the norm rather than the exception.

Huerta’s rise to power was part of what’s commonly — and understandably — known as La decena tragica (“The Ten Tragic Days”). If you don’t already know, I’ll spare you the gory details attached to his Dantesque spectacle of horror.

He wasn’t the only Bad Guy, of course. The desire for bloodlust and a tearing down of all boundaries was quite infectious. But Huerta was The Man. He led the way.

That’s what we’ve got today.

But you’d never know it to listen to the Democratic Party Debates.

A simple point here, but quite instructive, I believe. That is, if you believe that our “leaders” are war criminals, you’ve got to be taken aback by the polite tones embraced by all the candidates who want to take over the reins. The question of impeachment rears its indelicate head now and then, of course, at opportunistic moments. But there’s a total absence of the kind of language the same people have used in reference to our long list of Unbearable Dictators (some called “Hitlers”) in the past.

The simple retort, of course, would point out that they can’t use such language as long as the Commander-in-Chief is directing troops here and there midst enemy fire.

And the clearest reply I can think of to that rationale is that none of the candidates will be adopting such language — if elected, or not — even long after Bush has been retired.

That should tell you something.

Because even now that we’ve entered our seemingly unending tragic days, with casual conversation about the pros and cons of Neocon (and other) torture quite routine, not a leading soul exists in The Other Party who is calling a filthy spade a filthy spade.

For the same reason that they won’t speak that way once he’s gone. They won’t be able to afford to say what we can’t afford them not to say ’cause they’ll be too invested in their careers, tolerated maverick talk within acceptable parameters notwithstanding.

Neither talking impeachment nor quietly questioning the mental health of The Executive does the trick. There’s other language and different tones that we reserve for war criminals.

Any one of them getting into the highest office in the land will guarantee ongoing tragic days. Because one can’t be as “polite” as they’re being, and make significant change. One can’t give such a priority to personal advancement over values, or short cut clear cut communication now without dooming us.

If we’re voting this time ’round at all, we must vote our conscience, and not try to second guess the value of our vote, not cleverly rationalize what’s proper form at the booth.

In terms of our increasing crimes against humanity, then, it won’t make much of a difference whether or not we select this one or that one from the two major parties. For there is a long, long history of both parties overseeing abominations like the major one General Huerta learned best from, our pacification of Filipinos in horrific concentration camps around the turn of the century. None of the candidates will own to that because no candidate is allowed to do so, allowed to be in the position of being a candidate without first being carefully screened. Over time.

And so, in one form or another, the show is slated to go on as is.

President Francisco Madero, at one point, received definitive evidence from his trusted brother, Gustavo, regarding Huerta’s duplicity, his plans to replace Francisco. But El Presidente, El Idiot, bought the General’s cock ‘n bull blather about being loyal, and — promising to take care of all of Madero’s problems in twenty-four hours! — got his gun back!!!

It’s considered by most as one of the most egregiously self-destructive actions in all of history.

Gustavo (“One-Eye”) Madero was blinded with a sword, then tortured beyond belief before being dispatched, amidst much laughter. His brother, the leader of all Mexico, had his foolish head chopped off. Not literally, but you get the idea, I’m sure.

The question is whether or not you get what’s going on on our shores. Today.

Everyone’s been caught with their pants down, guns out of their holsters at present, the smoke from their firearms coming up from our end of the floor. Within our reach.

We gonna bend down, pick up one of their weapons … and hand it over again? Repeat history?

The Democratic Debates are much too sweet for us. They’ve got what it takes to kill us.

Marcelle Cendrars, freelancing daughter of Blaise Cendrars, can be reached at: She is the "Provost" of San Jose, California's Free Underground College to Kindergarten Educational Retreat, a home school network of dissenting citizens who encourage parents to have their children drop out of mainstream institutions, and make use of alternative educational options. Read other articles by Marcelle, or visit Marcelle's website.

4 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. dan elliott said on November 19th, 2007 at 12:55pm #

    hear hear.

    the rethuglicans are great liars but they are paragons of candor compared to the Dumbockrats. GOPers are primarily concerned about the interests of the Affluent & White American, will the Dems stock in trade is being All Things To All People. It’s like Marx’s “alienation effect” where the worker’s own labor keeps him in exploited subjection: in the USA today, the concerned citizen activists’ own attempts to “participate” wind up reinforcing the Imperial State With A Twist of Zionism.
    For instance, the Civil Rights movement ended legal Segregation but didn’t stop Jim Crow. “Integration” turned out to mean Mass Incarceration. “Black Empowerment” turned out to mean the vast Suit & Tie Subliminal Plantation, typified by the Cong. Blk. Caucus. The “inside[outside strategy” turns out to mean “Protest is okay, but you have to get our permission first”.

  2. Marcelle Cendra said on November 19th, 2007 at 6:22pm #

    I just came from meeting with a very influential member of the Latino community (including union members, et. al.)…for the purpose of making use of the electoral system following a new paradigm. Ordinarily, I’d have absolutely no hope for anything positive coming out of engagement with electoral politics. However, this meeting was promising. There is a new model on the table for discussion now. And anyone living in the Bay Area and thereabouts in California should be a candidate for meeting with us…to make a difference. I thank Dan for his joining in here. I’d like to take the “disenchantment” down a singular road now, if there’s any solidarity to be had out there. — Marcelle

  3. Lloyd Rowsey said on November 19th, 2007 at 9:51pm #

    I’d like to express my support for a new electoral system paradigm, a different way to approach getting people elected. I live in the Bay Area and I would appreciate more information, Marcelle, about what is “on the table for discussion now.” There’s such disgust as I’ve never seen with politics-as-practised! It’s profound and it’s everywhere.

    Something MIGHT be done.

  4. Marcelle Cendra said on November 20th, 2007 at 1:41am #

    Hi, Lloyd. For starters, please note that your emails to me have been returned as undeliverable. That should be corrected so that we can communicate privately. In confidence. Once that’s straightened out, I’d be very happy to set up a rendezvous and share the ideas with you. I submitted my proposal tonight as per the request of a leader in the (California) Latino community, and I expect a response very shortly. I had met with him earlier today, and he seemed to approve of the basics; he requested an email delineation of the concepts. He has access to a huge number of union workers and others (who have much reason to move in solidarity), and I want to underscore, once again, that this “new approach” should pull in high stakes, and prove to be quite an historic accomplishment. Inspiring loads of people on the fence. I appreciate the interest expressed by Lloyd. I’d like some others to jump on board here. Thanks for your kind consideration, Marcelle