The Rise of Democracy: MEXICO, by Shea Nolan

Mexico first declared their independence from Spain in 1810, but didn’t gain their full independence till 1821. After the revolution general Agustín Cosme Damián de Iturbide y Arámburu was appointed President in 1881, but his term ended in 1822. Though Iturbide only ruled for a year this demonstrates the political struggles before and after independence.  

The 8^th president of Mexico López de Santa Anna was a general, and eleven times president; his total presidency spanned over 22 years. Between being a general and a president Santa Anna greatly influenced early Mexican politics and government for 40 years. Even though he has been seen as a brave soldier, hero of the army, and a cunning politician he has been recognized as the reason why Mexico had lost over half its territory.

Seizing power in a coup in 1876 José de la Cruz Porfirio Díaz Mori was a soldier and politician, who served seven terms as president. Díaz ruled Mexico with an iron fist until 1911, where it took nothing less than a revolution to dislodge him. During his term, known as the Porfiriato, the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Though there was such a large gap in social classes Mexico had become recognized as a developed nation in the world, but this all came at a price, Díaz presided over one of the most crooked administrations in history. 

The Institutional Revolutionary Party (RPI)

The Institutional Revolutionary Party was founded in 1929 due to the forces that had triumphed in the revolutions, also to give deliver stability to Mexico that had been plagued with violence. Though Mexico is a multi-party system, the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), National Action Party (PAN), and the Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD), the PRI has governed Mexico with almost complete dominance from the day of the Mexican Revolution.

Miguel de la Madrid of the PRI was elected president in 1982. He had won with 70% of the vote; this was a much lower percentage from the past. In other words this showed that candidates from the right and left were gaining ground. Though he had made a number of economic gains in his term, the PAN started to demand for additional electoral reforms as well.

Following the electoral reform in 1986 the Chamber of Deputies added another 100 seats, and 200 of the now 500 seats were devoted to smaller parties. Though there was much reform there was still much political fraud in a number of elections, mostly in the election of 1986. With every election (every 6 years) the PRI was losing its political dominance and smaller parties were beginning to rise.

A new horizon

Known as one of the most historic election in Mexico the 2000 elections was the change of a new leader and a new political party. PRI, after ruling Mexico for 71 years; Vicente Fox of the Alliance for Change was elected. Vicente Fox, winning the election with 42% of the vote over Franciso Labastida of the PRI with 36%, this was a dramatic loss for PRI. After his inauguration on December 1, 2000, Vicente Fox promised the people of Mexico that he would promote free market policies, and to strengthen democracy and the rule of law in Mexico. But the terrorist attacks on September 1^st 2001 in America affected Mexico’s economy. This event limited government funding that was going to fund Fox’s health and education programs. In the 2003 elections to renew the Chamber of Deputies, the PAN lost seats, giving less support to Fox and his programs. Fox not having the majority in congress he was unable to approve any major legislation along with a purposed tax reform and a proposed energy reform.

Approaching the July 2006 presidential election, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador of the leftist PRD was leading, against Felipe Calderon for the PAN, and Roberto Madrazo for the PRI. Felipe Calderon of the PAN was able to take the 2006 election; this allowed the PAN to serve another term ruling. All of the political events that have happen thus far in Mexico have allowed the political system to grow more into a democracy.

Religion is changing right along with Society, by Moranda Zimmer

While talking in class about religion and how people tend to go to church less now than they used to really got my attention as I think about my own life.  My grandparents will not miss a Sunday of church, unless they are extremely sick.  However, my family, as regular attenders, will miss every once in awhile.  Looking at this from a bigger picture is this how it is all across the United States or just in certain areas? 

            A recent survey was done by Gallup showing that the ratings have been the lowest they have ever been.  The survey was done to see how American’s felt religious influence was in the United States.  It came back with results that said “77 percent of American said that religion is loosing it’s influence on the American life, while only 20 percent said religion has gained in influence” (Kaleem).  The most interesting part of this all is that only one year after the September 11^th attack Americans believed that the influence of religion was increasing.  However this chart shows a different response.

            Another interesting thing about religion is not only how people are attending less, but how often people change their religion in the United States.  “More than half of American adults say they have changed religious affiliation at some point in their lives” (Paulson).  The most interesting part of this is that most people switch out of the religion they were raised in by age 24 and many change religions more than once in their lifetime.  One of the most jaw dropping finding was that “one in ten Americans is now a former Catholic, and about half of the former Catholics are now Protestants, and about half are now unaffiliated” (Paulson). 

            Many reasons due to changing a religion have to due to getting married and changing for the spouse.  As well as not agreeing with the church's beliefs anymore.  With the uproar controversy topics such as abortion, same sex marriages, birth control, as well as the gender of the pastor/priest this has let people to either switch churches, or just not attend anymore.  This graph also shows some reasons why people leave their childhood religion. 

I found all this information really fascinating because I am from such a small town that I really have never looked at religion across the United States.  It was shocking to realize how many people just don’t go to church anymore, and how many people change their religion over their lifetime.  My religion is something that I cherish very much so this topic was fitting for my interest.

Works Cited:

Kaleem, Jaweed. "Religious Influence In U.S. Seen As Decreasing, But Most Americans Want More: Survey." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 May 2013. Web. 10 Oct. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/29/religions-influence-us_n_3354499.html>.

Paulson, Michael. “Why do Americans change their faith? – Articles of Faith – Boston.com” Boston, MA news 27 Apr. 2009. 10 Oct. 2013. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles_of_faith/2009/04/why_do_american.html

On 9/11, Al Qaeda & Attacks on US Consulate in Benghazi, by Michael Werner

            George Santayana said, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."  In fact, that history may not have occurred that long ago.  Americans remember September 11, 2001.  The events of that date are etched in the memories of all most all Americans.  They have been recorded in the written achieves, so all can draw upon them, remember them, and learn from them.   It was on this date that Al Qaeda attached America.  They high jacked four planes.  Two planes were flown into the World Trade Center buildings in New York, one crashed into the Pentagon, and one crashed in Pennsylvania.  Over 3,000 people were killed.  Many believe that Al Qaeda has again attached America.  Not on its own soil, as in 2001, but in Benghazi, Libya.  On September 11, 2012 the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya was attacked.  History has repeated itself.

The attack occurred when heavily armed Islamic militants entered the consulate compound and fired upon and set fire to the consulate.  The attack resulted in the death of four American citizens.  While this number is significantly lower than the number that died in 2001, they died, it was an attack, and it is now being considered an act of terrorism.

In defense of history not repeating itself, the U.S. government initially implied the attack was a grassroots riot response to the American made anti-Muslim video.  Later the State Department indicated it was conducted by a militia associated with Al Qaeda’s branch in North Africa.  This was supported by Libya’s president Mohamed Magariaf.  He was of strong belief the attack was carried out by an Al Qaeda group hiding in Libya.  He supported this belief based on the sophistication of the attack and the alignment with the date of the original attack.  Based on recent media reports and comments out of the State Department, the Al Qaeda terrorist attack, not a grassroots riot, is the supported conclusion.

This raises the question; what was, or maybe the better question is what was not, learned from the first attack?  It has been well documented that there were warning signs ahead of both of these attacks.  At issue is whether or not those warning were credible.  We know that the Libyan Ambassador had been requesting additional security.  Some of those requests were met, but others were not.  Certainly, history leads to a path of landing with too much security.  So, why weren’t all the security requests met?  Has time alone caused a loosening of security?  Were the warning not considered credible?   Have we learned from history on American soil, but not on our overseas embassy locations?

Since September 11, 2001, it is a new world.  The history of this day cannot be forgotten.  The relaxing of what we learned from this day will cause history to repeat itself again.  When it comes to terrorism, let’s remember the words of George Santayana, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”