Abstract The paper provides an account of Lazaro Cardenas' youth and the situation in Mexico before he came to power. The paper discusses his populist beliefs and how he rose to power and led the country. The paper describes how Cardenas championed the populist-drenched cause of peasants, taking land from the rich and distributing it to the poor. Yet, the paper points out that there are conflicting viewpoints as to his true legacy. The paper concludes that no matter what will be written about him or has already been written about him, he will always remain a key figure in post-revolutionary 20th century Mexico. Certainly, he made life better for many peasants and workers. But his legacy over the long term view of Mexican history is still being debated.
Contents:
Introduction I - Cardenas' Political Evolution and Influence
Introduction II - Cardenas' Seizing of Power and Aspects of his Regime that are Distinctly Populist
How Cardenas is Perceived Today
From the Paper "Lazaro Cardenas del Rio was born May 21, 1895, and died of cancer October 19, 1970. According to Wikipedia online dictionary, Cardenas was "born into a lower-middle class family" in the pueblo Jiquilpan, Michoacan, Mexico. He stopped attending grammar school when he was 11 years of age, and provided for his family from age 16 on, due to the death of his father. He worked as a tax collector, a printer's devil and a jail keeper all before he turned 18 years of age.
"He got involved in politics and law enforcement during the period of the Mexican Revolution, after President Francisco Madero was overthrown by Victoriano Huerta. After Plutarco Elias Calles became President, Cardenas, as governor of Michoacan in 1928, "became known for his progressive program of building roads and schools, promoting education, and land reform." He also was known at that time for the "unusually strict honesty" of his governor's administration."
This paper compares the presidencies of Lazaro Cardenas and Carlos Salinas de Gortari in an effort to describe how the traditional ruling party of Mexico lost in the election of 2000.
Abstract This paper is primarily a study of democratization. Its subject matter is Mexico and it traces how the Institutional Revolutionary Party consolidated its power over Mexican politics and how it lost this power in July 2000 with the election of Vicente Fox. It does this by examining the presidencies of Lazaro Cardenas and Carlos Salinas de Gortari. Both of these men wielded their power in such a way as to effect massive change in Mexico.
From the Paper "On July 2, 2000 an event unprecedented in Mexico's 20th century electoral history occurred. The benign authoritarian rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party ended when the candidate of the opposition PAN became Mexico's garnered 43.4% of the vote. Francisco Labastida of the PRI won 36.8% of the vote. After a century of one-party rule, the PRI became a victim of its own reforms. The evolution of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, from the primary political player in Mexico to a vector for a reform and democratization is the result of the maneuverings of an extensive and eclectic succession of jefe maximos. These presidents have traditionally wielded the majority of power in Mexico. Whether or not a Mexican president will utilize his substantive powers to improve the lives of the Mexican populace depends on a rational political calculation. They must take into account the mood of the masses, the state of the economy, and international factors. Notably the two presidents who did the most to change the landscape of the Mexican polity did so not so much out of their own convictions, although in the case of Lazaro Cardenas that certainly played a part, but because of societal pressure. This paper will seek to answer two questions; how the PRI was able to remain in power for most of the last century and how democratization became a consequence of this power. In order to examine these questions fully, this analysis will focus on the sexenios, or six-year terms, of Lazaro Cardenas and Carlos Salinas de Gortari."
Abstract This essay provides an account of how Thomas Benjamin's deconstruction of historiographies of the Mexican Revolution demonstrate how the ideology associated with written versions of the Revolution is a state sponsored one. It often tended to deny the distinct causes, leaders and enemies of Revolution in favor of promoting a unified effort that would promote national cohesion and a common struggle.
From the Paper "Thomas Benjamin's 'La Revolucion Mexico's Great Revolution as Memory Myth and History' the author provides an account of how culture and memory are often the products of production by elites who rule society ..."
