Fire Hydrant of Freedom

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/26/opinions/biden-criminal-justice-trump-first-step-act-osler/index.html

https://amgreatness.com/2024/04/18/are-irans-nine-lives-nearing-an-end/

https://archive.ph/Fc4nx

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/ccp-provides-government-funding-tax-rebates-to-fentanyl-producers-house-report-finds/

https://cointelegraph.com/news/nsa-days-from-taking-over-internet-whistleblower-edward-snowden

A very savvy tech friend responds:

"No. Also Snowden lives in a house paid for by Putin and has security from Putin.  He is guy responsible for maybe 200 cia deaths from the documents he stole and then passed to China/Russia which led to multiple networks being revealed and the people killed.  So I always take any article like this quoting him with a big piece of kosher salt."

That said the part about seizing servers etc seems both plausible and frightening.

The Fourth Amendment Isn’t in Jeopardy
A bill headed for a House vote would harm U.S. intelligence and law enforcement with little impact on privacy.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
April 16, 2024 5:34 pm ET



There is no shortage of bad ideas in Congress, and too many have a chance to become law these days. An example is the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, which would prohibit the U.S. government from buying digital information that would remain available to the likes of China and Russia.

The bill, scheduled for a House vote on Wednesday, would ban the government from buying information on Americans from data brokers. This would include many things in the cloud of digital exhaust most Americans leave behind online, from information on the websites they visit to credit-card information, health information and political opinions.

Our libertarian friends fret that letting the government buy data infringes on the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee against unreasonable searches. But the Supreme Court held in U.S. v Miller (1976) that “a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties.” The Court updated Fourth Amendment law on tracking cellphone location data in Carpenter v. U.S. (2018), but the Not For Sale Act goes much further.

The Justice Department says the bill, sponsored by Rep. Warren Davidson (R., Ohio), would limit the ability of U.S. law enforcement to seek information online that often helps solve federal crimes, including hacks and other malicious digital acts. The bill also bans the purchase of records on Americans’ location information, a change that Justice says would hinder the ability to track missing children, hunt fugitives and investigate criminal networks.

The bill would force U.S. intelligence officials to avoid data that could include information on an American. That’s a burden on tools the Defense Department uses to protect foreign military bases and troops abroad.

In a letter to Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan and ranking Democrat Jerrold Nadler in December 2023, the Fraternal Order of Police wrote that banning the use of digital information would end law enforcement’s access to “tools that generate leads into crucial and often complex cases.” The National Sheriffs Association says the proposal “empowers the cartels.”

The bill’s co-sponsors include voices on the extremes of both parties, including Rep. Andy Biggs (R., Ariz.) and Democrats Pramila Jayapal (D., Wash.) and Mr. Nadler. Let’s hope the sensible center prevails on this one.

https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/hotlines/even-liberals-admit-big-problems-with-mail-in-voting/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2sk99mxwxCN4txi_eoXggcOnTcTCf6PE58MF9osIM8g0AjzSNSgFfHdJs_aem_Acg31WDRWrFqqnjTw1weX1j8s9FQ8fY8sGVzrWekH3MtT-Lcegmr-iyXBBN3TBydfnP7QUoFS8_BAR_4BZym9K8y

second

https://www.oann.com/newsroom/nashville-court-set-to-hear-arguments-regarding-release-of-trans-covenant-shooters-manifesto/

(4) SCRANTON ARMY AMMO PLANT CATCHES FIRE: Local authorities are investigating a fire at the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant in Scranton, PA, that broke out yesterday and said the extent of damage is unknown at this point.

The Scranton plant is the only manufacturer in the U.S. of 105mm and 155mm shell casings for the U.S. military.

Why It Matters: There is no information yet on the cause of the fire, and the base case is likely an accident. However, the Scranton plant presents a target of opportunity for foreign adversaries or domestic far left radicals who called for disrupting U.S. defense contractors and defense logistics. The contraction of the U.S. defense industrial base created choke points in the U.S. defense supply chain, allowing single points of failure to have a potentially outsized impact on U.S. national security. – R.C.

(2) FEDERAL AGENCY OVERWHELMED BY CYBER VULNERABILITY REPORTS: The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) said the agency will temporarily pause the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) to “regroup and reprioritize” because the agency is being overwhelmed with software vulnerability reports.

Censys researcher Emily Austin said security professionals across disciplines and organizations rely on the NVD, and they are at a major disadvantage due to issues with the database.

FBI Director Christopher Wray told the American Bar Association’s Law and National Security Committee last week that state-linked hacking groups are ramping up threat activity against the United States.

Why It Matters: NIST covers a broader spectrum of cybersecurity threats than the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and is overwhelmed by reports on software vulnerabilities at the same time foreign adversaries are increasing cyberattacks against U.S. critical infrastructure. According to reports from industry groups, there were 420 million cyber incidents in 2023, a 30% jump from 2022, and about one-third of all attacks targeted operational technology in the industry and the energy sector. – R.C.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3vMGZVxxv5/?igsh=OW95Z2NxZGJscGNr

With a presidential rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump now all but confirmed, the world is focusing on what could be the most consequential election ever. If the disasters of the past three years have taught us anything, it’s that we need a conservative back in the White House. The West is succumbing to challenges from its enemies abroad while being undermined from within by the promotion of leftist ideologies, eco-extremism and wokeism. A Trump victory would provide much-needed leadership to the Western world.


But even if President Trump is re-elected, his battle will have only begun. Across the West—especially the English-speaking world—there has been a shift of power away from democratically accountable officeholders to unelected bureaucrats and technocrats. The administrative state undermined Mr. Trump’s first term and undermined my tenure as Britain’s prime minister, forcing me out of office after 49 days. I assumed that I would be able to drive through the agenda on which I was elected. How wrong I was. The opaque British bureaucratic state undermined my proposed reforms, and their American equivalents will have Mr. Trump in their sights if he is victorious in November. The deep state will attempt to undercut him even more than it did in his first term.

Conservatives need to understand that winning an election isn’t enough. The winner needs a concerted plan to dismantle the deep state, which seeks its own self-preservation. When I entered Downing Street in September 2022, growth in the British economy had been anemic for years, despite artificially low interest rates that served to accustom government and consumers alike to cheap money and inflation. Tax burdens and energy costs were high, and the expansive welfare state was bloated. The U.K. had left the European Union in 2020, but reams of burdensome laws remained on the British statute book. The economic establishment had bought into the high-tax, high-regulation, big-government European approach and had little appetite for supply-side policies or tax cuts. Too many conservatives went along with the establishment’s push for net zero and high immigration.

As soon as I announced plans to institute a range of supply-side reforms, I was marked by the technocrats for political extinction. On the eve of the publication of our growth plan, the Bank of England raised interest rates, but not by as much as anticipated—a misstep that prompted a fall in the value of the pound, leading to higher yields on U.K. government bonds, known as gilts. The central bank also announced plans to sell £40 billion in gilts that evening, prompting private bond holders to pre-empt the sale by flooding the market with their own gilts.

Rising yields were a problem because of pension funds’ exposure to leveraged liability-driven investment funds, which are highly susceptible to interest rate risk. Due to failures in regulation and oversight, U.K. pension funds were uniquely exposed to the same kind of risk that caused several U.S. banks to collapse in early 2023. The liability-driven investment funds’ leveraged bets on gilt prices began to sour while the Office for Budget Responsibility—a U.K. version of the Congressional Budget Office—leaked its claim that our plans would create a £70 billion “fiscal black hole.” OBR forecasts like this one have consistently been wrong because they underestimate the Laffer curve effect of tax cuts and the benefits of supply-side reforms.

Unelected bureaucrats caused this market turmoil, but elected representatives were blamed. Neither I nor Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng had been given any warning before the liability-driven investment fund situation blew up. When the Bank of England announced it would buy gilts to support the pension funds—a move that everyone knew would prompt investors to unload their government bonds—I knew they had me at gunpoint. We had to ditch our program or risk a market meltdown that would leave the government unable to finance its debt. There should be an independent investigation into what happened, but the establishment would never allow it.

The U.S. economic establishment already is arming against Mr. Trump and his economic program. After the disaster of Bidenomics—with its ballooning subsidies, tax hikes, burdensome regulation and more than $34.6 trillion of debt—a program of supply-side measures like oil and gas exploration, spending cuts and tax reform is desperately needed. In March, CBO Director Phillip Swagel explicitly warned that the mounting U.S. fiscal burden threatened a crisis of the kind that brought me down. Corporate borrowers are also reportedly preparing for market volatility. Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan has warned the federal debt is pushing the economy toward a financial cliff.

This isn’t a fight only to return to fiscal responsibility, but also to return power to the people’s elected representatives. My Republican friends must be ready for the fight of their lives.

Ms. Truss served as Britain’s prime minister in 2022. She is author of “Ten Years to Save the West: Leading the Revolution Against Globalism, Socialism, and the Liberal Establishment,” out Tuesday.

The Jan. 6 Riot Reaches the Supreme Court
Did the feds go too far in charging rioters with obstructing Congress under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act?
By The Editorial Board
Follow
April 15, 2024 5:30 pm ET


The people who breached the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, are being held accountable, and attempts to rebrand them as patriotic choirboys are a sign of the bizarre political times. Yet is it unduly stretching the law to prosecute Jan. 6 rioters using the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002?

The Supreme Court will consider this Tuesday in Fischer v. U.S., and rooting for the government to lose requires no sympathy for the MAGA mob. Joseph Fischer says in his brief that he arrived late to the Capitol, spent four minutes inside, then “exited,” after “the weight of the crowd” pushed him toward a police line, where he was pepper sprayed. The feds tell an uglier tale.

Mr. Fischer was a local cop in Pennsylvania. “Take democratic congress to the gallows,” he wrote in a text message. “Can’t vote if they can’t breathe..lol.” The government says he “crashed into the police line” after charging it. Mr. Fischer was indicted for several crimes, including assaulting a federal officer. If true, perhaps he could benefit from quiet time in a prison library reading the 2020 court rulings dismantling the stolen election fantasy.

Sarbanes-Oxley, though? Congress enacted Sarbox, as it’s often called, in the wake of Enron and other corporate scandals. One section makes it a crime to shred or hide documents “corruptly” with an intent to impair their use in a federal court case or a Congressional investigation. That provision is followed by catchall language punishing anybody who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes” such a proceeding. Now watch, as jurists with Ivy degrees argue about the meaning of the word “otherwise.”

In Mr. Fischer’s view, the point of this law is to prohibit “evidence spoliation,” so the “otherwise” prong merely covers unmentioned examples. The government’s position is that the catchall can catch almost anything, “to ensure complete coverage of all forms of corrupt obstruction.” The feds won 2-1 at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Yet two judges were worried how far this reading would permit prosecutors to go. Judge Justin Walker, who joined the majority, said his vote depended on a tight rule for proving defendants acted “corruptly.”

Judge Gregory Katsas filed the vigorous dissent. The government “dubiously reads otherwise to mean ‘in a manner different from,’ rather than ‘in a manner similar to,’” he argued. The obstruction statute “has been on the books for two decades and charged in thousands of cases—yet until the prosecutions arising from the January 6 riot, it was uniformly treated as an evidence-impairment crime.”

A win for the feds, Judge Katsas warned, could “supercharge comparatively minor advocacy, lobbying, and protest offenses into 20-year felonies.” For example: “A protestor who demonstrates outside a courthouse, hoping to affect jury deliberations, has influenced an official proceeding (or attempted to do so, which carries the same penalty).” Or how about a Congressman (Rep. Jamaal Bowman) who pulls a fire alarm that impedes a House vote?

Special counsel Jack Smith has charged Donald Trump with obstructing a Congressional proceeding, and he says Mr. Trump’s “fraudulent electoral certifications” in 2020 are covered by Sarbox, regardless of what the Supreme Court does in Fischer. The other piece of context is that prosecutors going after Jan. 6 rioters have charged obstruction in hundreds of cases. But if those counts are in jeopardy, don’t blame the Supreme Court.

Presumably many of those defendants could be on the hook for disorderly conduct or other crimes, and the feds can throw the book at them. What prosecutors can’t do is rewrite the law to create crimes Congress didn’t.

https://pjmedia.com/kevindowneyjr/2024/04/15/mommy-queerest-mother-moves-son-to-ca-for-chemical-castration-n4928191

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/20569/hamas-destroys-gaza-victory

The Lessons of Israeli Missile Defense
Biden hails what he once opposed, but the aerial threat is escalating.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
Updated April 15, 2024 6:22 pm ET


The performance of Israeli air defenses, combined with assistance from U.S. jets and interceptors, saved countless lives on the weekend. But Iran, Russia and other adversaries are learning from each engagement and probing for weaknesses to exploit. The U.S. needs to do more to deter and protect Americans from future assaults.


It’s no small irony that President Biden is hailing the success of missile and drone defenses over Israel. In the 1980s there was no more dedicated foe of missile defense than Sen. Joe Biden. Democrats have resisted or under-financed missile defenses for decades on grounds that they’re too expensive and too easily defeated by new technology.

Progressives oppose defenses because they think vulnerability somehow makes war less likely. On nuclear arms, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others prefer the doctrine of mutual-assured destruction to being able to shoot down enemy ICBMs.

Israel’s defenses proved how wrong this view is, displaying their practical and strategic value. If the more than 300 drones and ballistic and cruise missiles had reached their targets, Mr. Biden wouldn’t be able to say, as he told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday night, “take the win.” The mass casualties would have all but guaranteed a large-scale military escalation.

The weekend success of air defenses is a tribute to Israeli strategy and decades of investment in defense technology. U.S. assistance was also crucial—an example of alliance cooperation paying off in both directions. The U.S. helped to finance Israel’s Iron Dome defense system, which evolved into a co-production agreement that also covers gaps in U.S. missile defenses. The weekend exchange shows that Israel’s defense capability is far superior to Iran’s—at least for now.

But enemies never stand still, and the West’s adversaries are adapting their methods and technology to defeat aerial defenses. One threat is overwhelming defenses with sheer numbers. Israel stood up well against Saturday’s large attack, but it had U.S. and other help. It isn’t clear that Israel could have similar success if Hezbollah unleashed its missile arsenal from Lebanon and Syria while Iran attacked from the west and the Houthis from Yemen.

There is also the question of asymmetric cost. Drones are cheap to produce and easy to transport, but they can be expensive to shoot down. They can also arrive in swarms. That’s why a middling power like Iran specializes in drone production. Iran has been a crucial drone supplier to Russia, which deploys them to deadly effect in Ukraine. Azerbaijan’s drone swarms made the difference last year in its war with Armenia.

Kyiv has built its own drone production line and has bought Turkish drones. But the West will need to innovate to counter the problem of having to shoot down drones with interceptors that are a hundred times more expensive. The U.S. military is experimenting with promising technologies such as high-powered microwave weapons.

Iran’s attack also puts into focus, or at least it should, the shortfall in U.S. interceptor production. The U.S. stockpile is thin, and the Biden Administration had to ask Japan to transfer some of its Patriots so the U.S. could maintain enough for its defenses.

The Senate aid bill for Ukraine, Israel and the Pacific includes money to grow production of the most advanced Patriot interceptor to 650 a year from 550 now. But only 650? The U.S. could exhaust a year’s worth of production in mere weeks of intense fighting, and that figure is insufficient for the growing missile threats around the world.

The U.S. military needs to field new technology rapidly while also shifting closer to a wartime footing to produce more current munitions, including the Standard Missile that handles air defense on U.S. Navy destroyers. That means U.S. defense budgets will have to increase. Saturday night’s events are a lesson in why the U.S. never wants to be low on ammunition to defend itself.

Yes, Florida immediately clears and arrests traffic blockers. 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/newt-gingrich-demands-americans-be-tried-for-treason-for-saying-death-to-america/ar-BB1lGAp5?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=HCTS&cvid=2a3bbe3a99644942a73daf80837d24bf&ei=30

https://www.dailywire.com/news/saudi-arabia-publicly-acknowledges-defending-israel-from-iranian-attacks-reports?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro&fbclid=IwAR1ra5h-fBJ7tq8gNYhgWhQXtZYfgtJJnQqy8U6lrWKdXiJ8KAGwE4qqmK0

https://nypost.com/2024/04/15/opinion/how-biden-helps-iran-pay-for-its-terror-by-refusing-to-enforce-current-sanctions/?fbclid=IwAR3kmRe1swcOPFQmb9DiBpooW7opF494RnSB9B331h6MUKc8ReHhTUjti7c

Doug:

We have walked the same path here.

April 12, 2024
View On Website
Open as PDF

Rocket Launch Exposes Russia’s Technology Gaps
The space industry is a bellwether of Moscow’s technological development and import substitution efforts.
By: Ekaterina Zolotova

Russia on Thursday successfully test-launched a heavy-lift rocket called the Angara-A5, its first space rocket developed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Though the Kremlin has touted it as a success, the event was plagued by several setbacks. The launch at the Vostochny Cosmodrome was initially planned for December 2023 but was postponed. It was rescheduled for April 9 but canceled at the last minute. (Officials said there was a failure of the pressurization system of the rocket’s central block oxidizer tank.) It was postponed again the following day, due to technical issues, before the rocket was finally launched on April 11. This case highlights Moscow’s challenges in the face of Western sanctions, especially in technology-heavy sectors such as the space industry.

For Moscow, the space industry is critical not only in maintaining Russia’s status as a space power but also in ensuring the continued progress of its defense and tech sectors. Space technologies are key to guaranteeing the security of communications, the internet and global navigation systems, which have both civilian and military purposes. Since the Soviet era, the West has repeatedly tried to impede Russian advancements in these technologies. For example, restrictions were imposed in the 1990s when Russian rockets entered commercial markets, and after 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea. On Feb. 24, 2022, the first day of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. restricted the sale of certain advanced technologies to Russia, which led to supply shortages, the cancellation of launches and the suspension of scientific programs.

Russian Rocket Launches, 2018-2024

(click to enlarge)

Since the sanctions came into effect, the space industry has become a bellwether of Russia’s technological development and import substitution efforts, not only in space but also in related industries, from mining to manufacturing to transportation. The Kremlin believes successful rocket launches can demonstrate that, despite sanctions, Russia can develop new technologies and maintain its space program while also continuing to supply its military campaign in Ukraine and stimulate its economy.

The Kremlin doesn’t have much choice but to develop more advanced technologies that can aid its war effort and ensure internet accessibility for all regions of the country. The Soviet-era Proton-M rocket, which Angara-A5 was designed to replace, will be in operation until only 2025. Angara-A5 has several key advantages over its potential predecessor, including that it is kerosene-based and does not use toxic fuel components. It’s also produced with only Russian components and can be launched from Russian cosmodromes, unlike Proton-M, which is launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, a Russian-operated spaceport in Kazakhstan. Russia doesn’t want to rely on a foreign country to conduct its space operations, especially considering that Kazakhstan has recently emphasized its neutrality, fearing it could be hit by secondary sanctions if it’s seen by the West as helping Russia’s war effort.

This week’s test-launch was the first for this particular rocket at the Vostochny Cosmodrome in Russia’s Far East region. Previous launches took place at the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in the northwestern Arkhangelsk region in 2014, 2020 and 2021. They were moved to Vostochny for financial and safety reasons. According to the Kremlin, Vostochny will also enable the country to conduct more frequent launches on its own terms, without having to rely on a foreign facility.

Russian Launches at Cosmodromes, 2023-2024

(click to enlarge)

In addition to Angara-A5, Russia hopes to produce completely domestically operated communication satellites by 2026, after foreign companies stopped providing satellite services. However, Moscow’s space industry has suffered many stumbling blocks due to continued reliance on foreign technologies and components, despite its attempts to ramp up domestic manufacturing and innovation. The company that produces engines for the Angara family of rockets indicated that it had to find Russian analogues, or at least analogues from friendly countries, of parts needed to manufacture the engines in order to fulfill the order. Russia is also still dependent on imported microelectronic components, which has especially affected the space program. Development of Russia’s Glonass navigation system has also stalled due to reliance on foreign-made parts. (The satellite uses 6,000 types of imported electronic components.) In 2023, Russian imports of communication base stations and their components increased by 15 percent. These parts are produced mainly by foreign tech firms Huawei, Ericsson and Nokia and supplied most likely through Russia’s parallel imports program rather than direct contracts, meaning they are likely purchased at retail and at higher prices than in the past.

Clearly, there are many gaps in Moscow’s import substitution scheme due to a lack of personnel, equipment and modern technology. In the energy sector, Russia remains almost completely dependent on foreign sources of catalysts, used in the production of various fuels, including the kerosene used by Angara rockets. Cutting off supplies from abroad completely would have a ripple effect, potentially closing production in sectors from automotive to food. In 2024, under Moscow’s Action Plan for Import Substitution in the Oil and Gas Engineering Industry, Russia aims to increase self-sufficiency in the geological exploration, geophysical equipment and seismic equipment category to only 40 percent; metal-cutting machines to 33 percent; pumps to 55 percent; equipment and materials for drilling, cementing wells and overhaul of wells to 45 percent; and reactors and coke chambers to 55 percent. Sanctions have also caused delays in repairing oil refineries – which forced the fourth-largest refinery in the country to reduce gasoline production by 40 percent. Adding to these deficiencies, production facilities are now also concerned about Ukrainian drone attacks, which have become more frequent since the start of this year. These strikes have targeted oil refineries, which have already reduced output by about 10 percent, and plants focused on the domestic market.

Russia’s space industry is managing other long-term problems, such as corruption and brain drain. A shortage of engineering and scientific expertise creates risks for the quality of services and reliability of the satellite fleet. Moreover, developing expensive advanced technologies requires substantial funds, which could attract corruption. In 2019, Russia’s prosecutor general said more than 1.6 billion rubles ($17 million) to modernize the country’s production base and weapons industry were stolen from state-owned firms Roscosmos and Rostec.

It seems that Moscow realizes now that its transition to import substitution will be slow, complicated by structural problems and complexities arising from sanctions and geopolitical disruptions. But time is running out, especially when it comes to critical industries like space. The lack of funds and increasing difficulty in implementing the parallel imports scheme add to the roadblocks, and as deadlines approach, the Kremlin will seek more external funding and cooperation from its remaining international partners. In the meantime, it will tout its few successes – including the Angara-A5 test launch – to distract from its failures.

In Upcoming Elections, Mexico Weighs Its Political Future
The two leading candidates support divergent paths to the same end.
By: Allison Fedirka

The biggest question facing Mexico in the upcoming presidential election is how the country can balance democratic governance while also supporting strong centralized authority. The two leading candidates in the race represent opposite sides in this debate. The approach that prevails on June 2 will serve as the cornerstone of the administration and will shape its strategies toward security, economics and international engagement for years to come.

Despite the two leading candidates’ differing approaches, there is consensus among Mexican politicians and the general public on the main problems facing the next president. They agree on the need for a strong central authority that promotes national development and can wield control over regional governments. They also agree on the need to end the country’s drug war and find ways to take advantage of China’s economic decline and other opportunities created by the global economic climate. Where they differ is on how they believe Mexico can achieve these goals.

Mexico’s geography and history dictate that a strong central government is needed to keep the country together. National unity has been a challenge for Mexico as far back as Spanish colonization. Mountains, deserts, plateaus and peninsulas naturally segment the country, resulting in power vacuums, disparities in economic development and strong popular support for local leaders over distant federal ones. Over the years, this challenge has manifested in various forms, from separatist movements to parallel governments to revolutions. These internal fault lines tend to get aggravated during times of insecurity, economic hardship and political uncertainty.

Historically, the Mexican government dealt with governance challenges by centralizing power. Porfirio Diaz, who ruled the country from 1876 to 1880 and again from 1884 to 1911, and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), which ruled from 1929 to 2000, stand out as the most prolific sources of centralized power in Mexican history. Diaz’s stints in office, known as the Porfiriato, were characterized by economic growth, modernization and limited personal freedoms. (This period did not end well, and helped kick off the Mexican revolution in 1910.) The PRI’s dominance differed in that the party ruled by relying on clientelism, rotating party figureheads and controlling political leadership at both the national and state levels.

The end of the PRI’s power monopoly set the stage for Mexico’s current governance dilemma. Politicians initially adjusted the constitution with the aim of reducing executive authority and empowering other government institutions, particularly the judiciary. This was viewed domestically as a democratization push, resulting in the expansion of political participation throughout Mexico and the decentralization of political power, with three different parties – the National Action Party, the PRI and the Morena party – occupying the presidency since 2000. However, the changes also undermined the power structure that kept order among the different interest groups vying for influence. Over the past 25 years, the democratization process has largely stalled, with some institutions weakening or collapsing completely due to political fragmentation. However, others have evolved and improved their standing – including, most notably, the Supreme Court. From this situation, a key question arose: How does a country that requires strong central control maintain democratic governance?

Traditional political theory offers two schools of thought. The first, institutionalism, prioritizes building institutions and enforcing existing norms. Constructivism, on the other hand, calls for building a strong public consensus around shared ideas and values and then creating norms based on these ideals. Both schools of thought revolve around constructing a strong foundation and enforcement mechanisms that, if executed successfully, will allow the government to project power across the country and, eventually, abroad. While the general concepts and end goals are similar, the strategies for achieving them drastically differ.

Mexico’s two leading presidential candidates each embody one of these schools of thought. The candidate of the ruling Morena party, Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, has adopted a constructivist approach. Morena views the political party as the main vehicle connecting the central government with local governments and the people based on shared views and values. It also supports reducing the power of government institutions in favor of prioritizing the role of political parties, with the aim of reasserting control over the country. The party has reached deals with diverse groups to allow them to operate in exchange for their support during elections. Morena argues that this approach is democratic because it does not advocate the dissolution of state institutions, but the party’s outreach to groups outside the government has raised concerns that it could eventually undermine democratic institutions. Morena has faced opposition from different interests, like the Supreme Court and security forces, that have gained power in recent years and feel threatened by its governance strategy.

Meanwhile, opposition candidate Xochitl Galvez has adopted an institutionalist approach. The opposition has called for professionalization of institutional structures, which would help make them the center of the country’s political system and the main source of power projection within Mexico. Some of the more hardline members of this camp also support modernizing the constitution to formally change the country’s political system to one dominated by technocrat-run institutions. A major challenge facing this strategy is that it would require tearing down the old power structure before installing a new one. This would inevitably create political tensions and irk some powerful economic actors that benefit from the remnants of clientelism and crony capitalism.

Mexico's choice in the upcoming election is ultimately between returning to a governance system that worked in the past or transitioning to a new one. The outcome of this struggle will decide the future of influential groups in Mexico like the military and teachers' unions. It also runs a high risk of creating conflict among business elites who support different governance paths, based on what better serves their interests. Mexico’s ability to resolve this issue will also directly affect its ability to project power abroad and improve its international standing.

Andres Araujo contributed to this analysis. Mr. Araujo is an intern at Geopolitical Futures and a student at the University of Valle de Atemajac in Guadalajara, Mexico, where he studies international relations.

OK, I will have to look into my browser after I get back home to NC late tonight.

No worries, but FYI this is not the first time.