Mitzi Ambriz

IR 550

Professor Skonieczny

Topic: The influence of Free Trade Rhetoric in State

Participation

Introduction

During the NAFTA at Ten Conference in 2002, Mexican

President Carlos Salinas de Gortari made the following statement,

“At the end of 1989, the world reality changed drastically. We

found ourselves facing a major global transformation, and with

it, a new political scenario for Mexico... We let it be known:

We want trade, not aid…” (Woodrow Wilson International Center for

Scholars: NAFTA at Ten Conference Report, 2002, p. 29-30). This

statement shows that President Salinas recognized economic

integration, through free trade, was the new model Mexico had to

adopt if it wanted to compete in a global market. This systematic

shift from trade to aid reflected a global trend toward a new

neoliberal world order that based on the principles of open

markets.

At the same NAFTA at Ten Conference in 2002, President

Salinas also said, “In Mexico, we had to build a consensus in

favor of the negotiations. Indeed, a consensus existed, but it

was in opposition... Through persuasion, dialogue, and intense

give and take, we managed to create a space for the discussion of

the free trade agreement among the political actors and in public

opinion,”(p. 31). In other words, Mexico’s experience with NAFTA

illustrates that the shift to a free trade regime did not go

without controversy. In many cases, free trade resistance is

answered with a persuasive appeal framed by the discussion on the

benefits of a neoliberal economic system. As President Salinas

stated, the strategy that determined the success of NAFTA was

that of rhetoric that aligned with other modern, neoliberal, and

progressive states.

It appears then that this international economic

liberalization trend is motivated by the strategic use of

language just as much, if not more so than direct economic gains.

This brings me to question the following: How does the rhetoric

influence and encourage state participation in a neoliberal free

trade regime? In this paper I argue that an existing successful

rhetorical strategy makes it possible for small or low-income

states to pursue fee trade policies regardless of economic gains

or losses. Lower-income countries feel inclined to participate in

transnational free trade agreements because of the discussions on

globalization, development, and state identity. By applying a

constructivist theoretical approach to my analysis, I will

demonstrate how the rhetoric of free trade shifts the

international norms of states toward embracing neoliberal

policies (Goldsmith & Posner, 2000).

Many scholars, as far back as Aristotle, study the role of

rhetoric to be as a crucial element in the art of persuasion. The

theoretical debate of the place of rhetoric in international

relations has only recently become emerged within scholarly

literature. This debate is best framed between the critiques of

rational choice behavior (i.e. realism) and social rule-based

behavior (i.e. constructivism), and how they either lack or

incorporate the role that language plays in defining reality.

Language is in itself a symbolic system of shared meanings that

facilitates how we communicate and understand patterns of

behavior. The intersection between language and politics happens

when political concepts are applied normatively in order to

produce a desired dialogue. Rhetorical strategies are often

produced by the use of moral and legal arguments, emphasis on key

values, and even binaries that frame political and economic

alternatives as contradicting. The very nature of trans-national

relationships is defined by subjective political concepts that

justify state actions through a rhetorical strategy.

My argument requires a thorough analysis of the rhetoric of

free trade. Without the binary dialogue of globalization,

development and free trade theory would lack the substance needed

to mobilize entire continents toward economic liberalization. The

exact definition of globalization is interpreted in a variety of

ways, but they all recognize the characteristics of innovation

and integration of diverse societies (Connell, 2007). Both sides

of the debate of globalization reveal the dangerous assumption

that this global interdependence is inevitable (Skonieczny,

2010). When determining the criteria for economic success, in the

context of today’s world, countries are now required to adopt

free trade policies in order to adequately compete in

international markets. Neoliberal principles also benefit from

strategic dialogue. There is an emphasis free trade puts on

comparative advantage, economic and political cooperation,

regional trade blocs, and additional non-economic incentives in

order to appeal regardless of the unpredictability of optimizing

trade (Trentmann, 1998).

A vulnerable international economy throughout the 20th

century gave room for the discourse of free trade to come in and

shift international economic practices away from the

protectionist status quo (Bergsten, 1996). Globalization became

this new phenomenon that encouraged modernization by integrating

different economic systems and countries of all stages in

development. My paper will attempt to demonstrate how rhetoric

positively influences a state’s participation in free trade

agreements by: a) framing the theoretical debate of the role of

rhetoric and language in international relations; b) looking at

free trade rhetoric in the context of globalization; c)

identifying the non-economic benefits of free trade; and d)

looking at a case of study of Mexico’s neoliberal transformation.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Debate on Rhetoric

Academic scholars have debated the place of rhetoric across

multiple disciplines. Aristotle first recognized the multifaceted

purpose of rhetoric in his work, where he argued that, “Rhetoric

may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the

available means of persuasion”. The technical characteristics of

the use of rhetoric are the modes of persuasion. Therefore, the

core characteristics of rhetorical analysis can be seen across

almost any subject. By applying Aristotle’s rhetorical awareness

to the discipline of international relations, scholars contribute

a more complex and strategic understanding of the persuasive

discourse within foreign affairs (Beer & Hariman).

International relation scholars have only recently

incorporated the effects of language into the theoretical debate

(Beer & Hariman, 1996; Risse, 2000; Fierke, 2002; Goldmsith &

Posner, 2002; Zarfesky, 2004; Dryzek, 2010). The current debate

concerning language in international relations is greatly shaped

by the controversy between rational choice theorists (i.e.

realism) and social constructivism (Goldsmith & Posner, 2002;

Fierke, 2002; Risse, 2000; Beer & Hariman, 1996). Goldsmith and

Posner critique the theoretical paradigms that approach

international relations from a rational choice perspective

(2000). Their argument dismisses realism and rational choice that

preoccupy nations behavioral assumptions with power and self-

interest (Goldsmith & Posner, 2000).

Goldsmith and Posner are able to rebuttal realist

assumptions by exploring the prevalence of moral and legal

rhetoric in international affairs. In their article they state

the following, “When a nation recognizes other nations or

governments, the mere utterance of words alters numerous

international relationships involving diplomatic rights and

privileges, the capacity to make treaties, and much more” (p. 4).

By looking at the signals and talk models of nations’ engaging

with one-another, their research found that moral and legal

rhetoric serve the following functions: give the impression that

a nation has a functional political system, reduce distrust from

oppositional interests, and facilitate coordination.

Following the realist critique, Goldsmith and Posner also

discuss constructivism’s concern for language in international

relations. They argue that moral and legal rhetoric are the core

of the constructivism’s effectiveness (Goldsmith & Posner, 2002).

From a constructivist theoretical approach, the role of rhetoric

in international relations is not a grand puzzle; it is simply

how behavioral norms operate. Constructivism recognizes culture

and international norms as the factors that shape national

identities and leadership preferences. Talking about norms and

values implies that there is a belief in such norms, and it is

through moral and legal rhetoric that they are justified and

complied with.

Goldsmith and Posner use one of the most blatant examples of

the use of moral and legal rhetoric to justify actions, Nazi

Germany. This article argues that the Holocaust gained support

through Hitler’s strategic use of moral and legal rhetoric that

framed a legitimate humanitarian concern. Although the

justification in the expansion of Nazi Germany was said to

intervene in the mistreatment of the German-speaking population

and relieve economic strain, Hitler’s agenda strived for maximum

power and self-interest (Goldsmith & Posner, 2000). This early

analysis of Nazi Germany allows Goldsmith and Posner to

demonstrate how using morale and international law as a

rhetorical strategy lead to the success of a campaign. With the

example of Nazi Germany, the article further argues that the use

of such rhetorical strategies does not determine compliance with

morality and international law.

Fierke (2002) begins her critique by framing this IR debate

to emphasize that the question should not be whether language is

important, but how or why language is important. The purpose of

her article is to clarify between rationalist and constructivist

assumptions; she critically analyzes Waltz and Wendt’s

theoretical contributions. Her critique on Waltzian neorealism is

that it ignored all cultural accountability and couldn’t account

for change. Her take on Wendt or constructivism, on the other

hand, is that it assumed an objective reality of the world and

language. Both theoretical approaches, she argued, focused too

narrowly on empirical work and not the role of language, logic

and the world. The concern for the study of language is then

placed in post structuralism and positivism (Fierke; Dryzek,

2010; Beer & Hariman, 1996). The article argues that despite

constructivist attempts to keep language off the table, Wendt’s

social approach to international relations allows state identity,

interests, and norms to transform. At the core of these social

transformations are the very dialectic interactions and exchanges

that shape the socialization process.

Fierke states, “If the meaning of concepts is fixed prior to

the investigation, and then compared with the world, these

categories may dictate what is seen” (p. 342). Therefore, when

language is added to the study of international affairs, she

argues speech serves a strategic use as well as a communicative

use. The strategic uses of speech serve to influence compliance

for certain goals, regardless of whether threats or gains are the

ones generating the pressure. On the other hand, the

communicative function of speech acts serve to reach a mutual

understanding and consensus based on shared meanings of the

message content. Social constructivism can then widely

incorporate the use of rhetoric as a “normative entrepreneur” in

order to mobilize states to act appropriately. After all, the

consistent discussion of norms suggests acceptance and a strong

belief of such norms.

Risse frames the theoretical debate on rhetoric between the

rational choice (i.e. realism) “logic of consequentialism” and

the rule-guided behavior (i.e. constructivism) “logic of

appropriateness” (2010). The logic behind these two different

theoretical paradigms frames a dichotomy of cultural norms vs.

material interests and identities vs. actors. Risse does however

argue that neither of these idealistic logics occurs in their

purest form. At its simplest, communicative action in world

politics is social interaction with the purpose of reaching a

mutual understanding based on a reasoned consensus. Although she

critiques the social constructivist logic of appropriateness,

Risse acknowledges that this rule-guided behavior is a conscious

process that applies appropriate norms through communicative

actions.

The puzzle Goldsmith and Posner, Fierke, and Risse explore

is not just how, but why talk influences behavior. There is a

symbiotic relationship between talk and action. Nations’ talk

fulfills that which their actions don’t; that is to soften

enemies, avoid alienation, and pacify national opposition

(Goldsmith & Posner). Fierke also argues that the use of speech

is intended as a form of action in itself. Similarly, Dryzek

(2010) studied the place of rhetoric in politics and argued that

rhetoric facilitates makeup, representation, and the audience’s

commitment or disposition. Although Dryzek work is centered

around deliberative democracy, his analysis serves multiple

subject matters in that he states, “Reason cannot escape

rhetoric” (p. 321). His work argues that rhetoric promotes a very

deliberative and effective linkage to reason. He ties this belief

back to post-structuralism, which credit “rhetoricality” as the

core of all reason giving. By using a lawyer’s ability to play

with creative explanations for evidence as a metaphor, Dryzek

demonstrates his argument that effective rhetoric serves to

provide the burden of persuasion rather than the burden of proof.

Dryzek allows us to make the transition from the abstract use of

rhetoric into a tangible analysis of specific actors’ use of

rhetoric, in that she bridges rhetorical representation

differently among actors.

Zarfesky (2004) is able to move past the theoretical debate

of what rhetoric does and address how it is that we know what

rhetoric does. His study on presidential rhetoric looks at 8 case

studies ranging form George Washington, to George W. Bush in

order to see how presidents rely on the power of rhetorical

definition. Zarfesky indeed believes that presidential rhetoric

defines political reality, thus serves as the primary power of

the presidency. He argues that there is an overly simplistic

understanding of the nature of rhetorical transactions and the

process of communication; rhetoric is deserving of being a

discipline in itself. Regardless, his study finds quantifiable

data by analyzing the rhetoric in public speeches given by

presidents and the effects it has on the public’s dispositions

and beliefs. By focusing on the narrow text choices framed around

argument selection, phrasing, organization, and style Zarfesky

found that rhetoric not only produces changes in audience

attitudes, but also reflect specific values and perspectives of

the president. Therefore, Zarfesky concludes that the political

position and resourceful means of communication available to the

president, shape the context in which the public views political

reality.

The Rhetoric of Globalization

To further illuminate the role of rhetoric in the free trade

debate, we have to understand the rhetoric of globalization. In

the context of international economics, globalization

particularly refers to the opening/deregulation and integration

of national markets with global markets (Harris, 2005). This

rapid breakdown of boundaries goes beyond economic means; it is a

multidimensional concept that serves to perpetuate

interdependence.

Connell’s (2007) work explores how we should attempt to

understand this new phenomenon: globalization. She goes on to

argue that the abundance of literature on the concept of

globalization comes from the global North, therefore lacks an

all-inclusive analysis (Connell; Mittleman, 2000). In principle,

the academic discussion of globalization emphasizes a “global

society” thus includes the global south, but in practice there is

a genuine absence of a global south narrative. This North-centric

approach to globalization studies constructs a hierarchy, and

even a dichotomy in the international economic order (Mittleman).

This privileged bias has allowed the concept of globalization to

transform from a mere economic strategy, into this idea of “a new

global society” (Connell, p. 370). Such a shift in the

theoretical understanding of globalization has allowed the

concept to become an undisputable new world system. Connell sates

that the framework of the debate on globalization no longer

questions the factual basis of the phenomenon.

This new “global society”, as Connell’s work suggests, has

developed based on the idea that the world is growing closer. The

abstract links that have virtually shrunk time and space due to

rapid political, economic, and social interdependence allows

globalization advocates to cluster diverse societies into a

“world-as-a-whole” (p. 370). In doing so, an objective global

society emphasizes and strives for modernity. Rhetoric further

facilitates the irreversibility of globalization. To further

demonstrate how globalization theory reifies a debate that

struggles to find any other alternative to what has been

previously discussed, Connell identifies the dialectic

dichotomies framed. Among the most prominent are: global versus

local, homogeneity versus difference, and dispersed versus

concentrated power. Using language that illustrates oppositional

goals when discussing the development and marketing strategies of

neoliberalism transcends the inability to overcome globalization

theory as a fact.

Additional scholarly work further explores the acceptance

of the process of globalization (Skonieczny, 2010). Skonieczny’s

article identifies a persistent assumption of inevitability that

comes from both resistance and advocates debating globalization.

Framing a modern economic system as a natural force of evolution,

Skonieczny states, is a dangerous discursive route that benefits

neoliberalism. Although empirical consequences of neoliberal

policies can demonstrate that otherwise, understanding this

debate in the context of an inevitable new world order leaves no

political or economic alternatives. Her work argues that the

misunderstanding of contingency and inevitability to be one in

the same have allowed this dominant discourse on globalization to

go unchallenged (p. 3).

Framing a globalization debate around contingency needs to

be approached with an understanding beyond that of eventuality

and uncertainty, otherwise it is easy to revert the discussion

back to a lack of alternatives for the phenomenon. The article

explores the potential for alternative discourses for the debate

of globalization and even effective resistance to neoliberal

policies if contingency was better understood as the very

disruption of said alternative means. Otherwise, framing

contingency as oppositional from inevitability. Ultimately,

Skonieczny argues that it is this very relationship between

contingency and inevitability, as either equal or dichotomies,

which perpetuate the dominant assumption that globalization, is

here to stay.

Clarke (2003) contributes to the study of globalization by

studying how this “apocalyptic view of globalization” influences

the transformation of welfare states; welfare states being

developing countries. The central force of globalization is in

the emphasis put on economics over politics. Clarke explains this

power in the global capital to be a result of how interdependent

markets now serve as institutions that dominate coordination

among states. The interpretation of globalization as inevitable

further gives free markets the power to globally transform

economic, political, and cultural trends by dissolving barriers.

Clarke’s work also points out a very important relationship,

which is that between the nations-state versus the market; he

identifies this as “another failed binary” (p. 204). This failed

binary is the result of literature that comes from political-

institutionalism that frames the state as having challenging

principles to market and capital relations. Such a conflict of

interest and interference between the state and capital is

particular to neoliberal philosophy.

Free Trade Rhetoric

Although Maline and Kubota (2005) state that “Rising

international trade flows are a primary component of

globalization” (p. 107), they admit that the deviation from the

protectionist status quo in place before 1975, especially from

less-developed countries, has been a surprise. The globalization

of free trade predicted that the integration of the global north

and south through cooperative multilateral open markets would

terminate conflict and enhance prosperity for all countries

(Bergsten, 1996). International relation scholars have explored

the significant ideas and values that encouraged the discussion

of free trade and how they have shaped the international

political economy. By looking at the historical relationship

between political economy and political culture in 19th century

Britain, Trentmann (1998) argues that the power of free trade

begins with the ideological constructions of the consumer,

national identity, and moral and civic virtues. Trentmann

disagrees with the simple logic that self-seeking material

interest glues politics and the economy to a free open market.

Instead he argues that it is through cultural meanings and

practices of political ideas, values, and discourses that have

shaped a consensus for free trade.

Free trade emphasizes specialization as the most efficient

way to optimize a nation’s comparative advantage (Trentmann). By

applying the appeal of the golden rule to comparative advantage,

free trade further promotes reciprocity. Goyal and Joshi (2006)

further contribute to the implications of reciprocity within

bilateral free trade agreements. By signing bilateral free trade

agreements, countries facilitate trade by lowering import

tariffs, and even eliminating them altogether. In doing so,

automatic benefits come to domestic firms as they gain greater

access to foreign markets and individual consumers benefit from

lower prices. Goyal and Johsi’s article argues that because there

is an assumed assumption of optimizing social welfare, small and

low-cost countries have a higher incentive to form bilateral free

trade agreements with high cost countries. The assumption of

bilateralism in global free trade agreements serves as a

consistent building bloc in the creation of NAFTA and GATT.

Hakim (1993) argues the benefits of free trade in the

context of Latin America’s participation in the Western

hemisphere free trade arena. Hakim argued that in the inability

to predict gains and losses within the time frame that free trade

agreements have been negotiated; the primary gain is a

psychological boost. Expected benefits consists of an increase in

exports and export-oriented manufacturing, insurance effects,

greater foreign investment flows inward, improved economic

coordination, as well as greater political cooperation. According

to Hakim, the interest in a Western Hemispheric free trade system

could not have had better timing. The post-Cold War era had the

US fixated on security while Latin America countries benefitted

from the internal restructuring that came out of free trade. The

security interest the US could fulfill through free trade

policies can be explained by McDonald’s (2004), exploration of

how commercial peace literature emphasizes that free trade

promotes peace. The removal of protective barriers to

international commerce creates a state of economic

interdependence between states, which makes conflict less likely.

The article credits this phenomenon to free trade’s practice of

specialization for creating a dependable state of resources due

to the international division of labor.

According to Hakim’s argument, Latin America sought to take

full advantage of the offer the US presented them. The rapid

trend toward neoliberalism was forming regional trading blocs,

such as the European Union. Latin America lacked confidence in

export-led growth and its geopolitical location was of interest

to US security, hence the identity nations, beyond Mexico,

benefitted substantially from joining the US led Western

hemispheric trading bloc. Hakim’s article further explores how

the US did not conceive free trade as an economic recovery plan

for Latin America, but rather a step to self-help. This form of

self-help came from the national economic reform domestic

policies were required to take if they were to enter into free

trade agreements with the US. domestic restructuring of economic

policies within Latin American countries strived to build self-

sustaining open markets that could attract foreign direct

investment in order to compete on a global level.

METHODOLOGY

In order to fully comprehend the relationship between

rhetoric and a nations transition into a neoliberal free trade

regime, my paper will examine the specific case of Mexico’s

neoliberal transition. First I will be looking at Mexico’s

historical context beginning with the country’s post-

revolutionary socioeconomic reforms applied the first half of the

20th century. I will also be looking at the economic and

political reforms implemented between 1950 up until Mexico’s

economic crisis in 1982. By understanding Mexico’s chronological

shift in economic policy, my analysis of rhetorical trends can

better understand the context under which the discourse is

happening. Furthermore, my awareness of the historical context of

the presidential rhetoric will allow my analysis to be inclusive

and critical of all contributing factors to Mexico’s neoliberal

transition; ultimately ruling rhetorical trends as the greatest

indicator.

The concern for rhetorical trends will come from my analysis

of ten Mexican presidential inauguration speeches between 1940

and 1994. The electronic database “500 anos de Mexico en

documentos” (i.e. 500 Years of Mexico in Documents) will serve as

the primary source for the ten presidential speeches, having

translated the documents from Spanish to English myself.

Beginning in 1940 there is a solid post-revolutionary discourse

that will serve as the foundation for contrasting the neoliberal

transition seen in the latter. By 1994 Mexico had implemented the

core agreement for their neoliberal transformation, The National

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), ratified in 1994, which created the

second largest trading bloc in the world, a righteous competitor

to the European Union (Harris, 2005). Mexico’s partnership with

its rich northern neighbors, the USA and Canada, allowed their

developing state to receive for international recognition that

can be immediately analyzed in President Ernesto Zedilla Ponce’s

inauguration of 1994, following the neoliberal campaign of

President Salinas.

After identifying the general pattern of language choice

across these layers of discourse, my paper will identify

consistent themes within free trade rhetoric. As discussed in my

literature review, globalization and free trade literature

emphasize key concepts such as new global order, reciprocity,

modernity, comparative advantage, and so forth. By using such a

method, we will begin to see the consistent trend that frames

neoliberal free trade regimes as the preferred policy reform for

lower income states.

CASE STUDY

Modern Mexico experienced a period of rapid economic growth

between 1940 and 1970 known as the “Mexican Miracle” (Hamnett,

1999, p. 178). During this period, political economic reform was

heavily influenced by the Mexican Revolution and even considered

a post-revolutionary product where the state had a larger role to

play. The turn into the 20th century saw an increase in external

pressures toward industrialization and integration into the

international system due to the outbreak of World War II, the

Cold War, economic deficits, and neoliberalism all over the

world. In the case of Mexico, inadequate infrastructure required

domestic political stabilization before such progress could

happen.

Source: Kehoe, T. J.,Meza, F. (2011). Catch-up growth followed by

stagnation: Mexico, 1950-2010. Latin American Journal of Economics, 48(2),

227-268.

Figure 3 above shows Mexico’s annual GDP growth between 1875

and 2010 within the historical context of the country. Between

1905 and 1920 we see a gap that represents a lost decade and a

half for the economic growth for Mexico due to the expansion and

outbreak of the Mexican Revolution. Although significant reform

had taken place in Mexico in the late 19th century, in the year

1910 Mexico saw the revolution transform into an armed movement

(Knight & Rodriguez, 2011). Such a rebellion following Porfirio

Diaz’s dictatorship (1876-1911), gained mobility because of the

opposition against the rise of capitalism, as it contributed to

the marginalization of peasant populations. Even upon the

Mexico’s independence and ratification of their constitution in

1917, the country experienced massive food shortages that further

distressed the rural populations who could not reap from the

countries industrial sector. To further exasperate the Mexican

government’s economic struggle, the country lost access to

international credit because of the internal revolutionary

warfare. Nevertheless by 1940 the Mexican Revolution can be, more

or less, considered to be over (Knight et. al). After a 30-year

span, the remainder of the revolutionary generation was aging,

the Great Depression impacted political shifts, and the Cold War

encouraged cooperation with the United States.

Post-revolutionary economic reform began with the election

of the former revolutionary general, Lazaro Cardenas, for the

presidency in 1934. Having been part of the revolutionary-era and

with about a fourth of the Mexican working population dependent

on the agricultural sector at the time (Henry, 19980), his

campaign took a socialist approach by empowering labor and

peasant organizations, land re-distribution to the peasantry,

“ejidos”, and took an overall agrarian reform as the country’s

backbone for economic progress (Hamnett, p. 181). These “ejidos”

were Mexico’s agrarian economic systems where federal land

distribution, expropriated from private owners, provided communal

land available to peasants for cultivation. Furthermore, ejido

farmers were given substantial financing through federal credit

systems. President Cardenas allowed for an overwhelming amount of

land distribution to peasants, twice as much as any of his

predecessors combined (Knight et al.). The amount ejidos

available to the rural population went from 1.6 million in 1940

to 2.5 million in 1960 (Hamnett). In 1938, Cardenas seized all

foreign owned oil companies and nationalized Mexico’s petroleum

industry so the country’s oil resources could be invested back

into the domestic economy through the increase in wages. Mexico’s

reconstruction through Cardenas’s credit based socioeconomic

reconstruction required a long process, as we see President

Cardenas’s influence across three decades of Mexican presidential

campaigns.

Cardenas’s following three successors delivered individual

inauguration speeches on within a time span of 12 years. During

this three-decade post-revolutionary period we can see a solid

period of rhetorical trends that emphasize similar concepts such

as credit, the rural population, and the development of the

agriculture sector as the source for socioeconomic reform. The

end of Cardenas’s term did represent the conclusion of a

revolutionary era of social programs for the country, but also a

newfound Mexican identity. Through the use of rhetorical strategy

that reiterates key political concepts and policy, individual

Presidents have served as the Mexican entrepreneurs for the

evolution in economic, political, and social development (Camp,

1989).

1940- President Manuel Avila Camacho

On July 7, 1940 the general presidential elections declared

Manuel Avila Camacho the winner and successor for presidential

seat regardless of the electoral fraudulent accusations.

President Camacho, like his predecessor Cardenas, was member of

the PRI political party. Cardenas agrarian reform empowered the

rural or farmer faction of the population and gained their

electoral support, thus paving the road for Camacho as the PRI

party candidate. The post-revolutionary period left very little

room for oppositional political parties to coordinate, therefore

there was few rejection seen at the federal level with policy

reform decisions.

His inaugural speech acknowledged matters from domestic

duty, concern for international human rights, domestic economy,

Mexican moral, the working class, the youth, education, military,

and U.S. relations. Among his many declarations, President

Camacho said the following concerning Mexico’s economic

development:

“Investors and entrepreneurs know beforehand that no

business arising from starvation wages or violence of

the fundamental rights of workers, may be supported by

a public authority such as ours, that is the cause of

national claims… I therefore turn to the farmers to

have faith in the land and work. The agrarian problem

will require the most attention of the Government to

comply faithfully with the purposes of the Revolution.

We will extend the protection to small property, not

only to defend what already exists, but so that out of

the vast uncultivated tracts transform new small farms…

One of the driving forces behind this expansion be

credit; an accessible and cheap credit, the

organization and promotion deserve our immediate and

strong support. The people of Mexico need the lever and

we will give credit. All these rules shall further the

purchasing power of the agricultural community, promote

the development of industries, increase job

opportunities and will be a time of plenty and

prosperity…The nation wants prosperity; but not

prosperity all on its own. Our government cannot be a

docile instrument managed by privileged interests nor

one nor other.

We want prosperity with justice on which the spiritual

values of Mexico exalt. We therefore need to strengthen

public morals; Governments of the States and my

collaborators will make the nation feel that only

equity can serve the common interests; We endeavor to

ensure that the characteristic virtues of the Mexican

family of, honor, filial devotion, fraternal, remain

intact, we will make every household subsists feeling

of goodwill as an expression of true democratic spirit…

that's why we are all Mexicans…” (500 Anos de Mexico en

Docuemntos).

During the Mexican Revolution, the peasant farmers were the

largest mass with a voice. In his speech, President Camacho makes

it clear that Mexico is not a country full of privileged people,

but one that overflows with hard working farmers. The rhetoric in

this excerpt of his speech empowers the agrarian sector to be the

core of Mexico’s potential for development. The use of the word

“credit” in his speech is a significant indicator of the economic

and political trend Mexico practiced throughout the 20th century.

Credit given to the agricultural sector in hopes it would

stimulate larger production, but such credit became available by

acquiring debt at the federal level.

President Camacho follows political actions with morality.

The use of values, morality, and tradition serve to reassure the

country that the economic reforms taking place reinforce Mexican

ideals. By making the connection to Mexican cultural values such

as family, policy discourse leaves room to incorporate the

average working class man, that otherwise, would not be concerned

in the conversation.

During President Manuel Avila Camacho’s presidency, the

world witnessed the expansion of World War II. Although allies,

Mexico exercised its independence from the United States by

initially attempting to remain neutral during WWII. Entering his

term, President Camacho had no ability to predict the following

course for Mexico, regardless he goes on in the same speech to

speak on national security and World War II:

“It is a great fortune that the Americas are united in

the resolve to defend against all attacks our

continental doctrine of equality of law, mutual respect

and decorum… Nothing divides us in our America… Whole

continent united for the same cause, keeping under

cover all vulnerable site will be invincible. Never

mind that many of our nations small or weak; the cause

is common. Our large or small economies placed next to

each other, strengthen, give the continent an

unassailable economic power…” (500 Anos de Mexico en

Docuemntos).

Here Camacho speaks on behalf of the foreign relations

Mexico has with the United States and their role as an ally

during WWII. By building solidarity by choosing to acknowledge

regionalism and a mutual support for humanitarian values, Camacho

is able to frame Mexico’s support for the cause of WWII without

committing to military action. Furthermore, President Cardenas

recognized Mexico’s position as a smaller and lower-income

country in comparison to the United States, to do otherwise would

simply be unreasonable, but in doing so he restores the country’s

value. Regardless of economic power or military strength,

Mexico’s geopolitical location gives the country the political

capital needed to be considered a valuable player during

international warfare.

President Avila Camacho’s inauguration speech obviously

could not have predicted the expansion of WWII. By 1941, however,

WWII had profoundly impacted Mexico politically, economically,

and socially. In order to serve and support their northern

neighbor, Mexico’s wartime efforts were reflected in their

domestic push for industrialization and urbanization in order to

replenish wartime shortages. Regardless of the country’s appeal

to neutrality during the second global war, Mexico formally

entered by declaring war on the Axis Powers in 1942 after a

German submarine sank two of their tankers in 1941 (History.com

Staff, 2010). Even more importantly, the wartime demand for raw

materials and Mexico’s valuable role as a supplier allowed the

country to secure its first international since the Mexican

Revolution lost years (Hamnett).

Mexico’s rhetorical shift towards industrialization and

urbanization in the mid 20th century undeniably benefitted from

the global wartime. Mexico’s road towards industrialization

during wartimes is one that is reflected by President Avila

Camacho’s successor’s, Miguel Aleman, rhetoric. In President

Aleman Valdes’s inauguration speech, we can see similar

rhetorical trends that emphasize and implore economic reforms

parallel to Avila Camacho’s administration, and ultimately that

of Cardenas’s.

1946- President Miguel Aleman Valdes

Miguel Aleman Valdes became the 46th president of the United

Mexican States on December 1, 1946. The election of Aleman, a

lawyer by profession, marked a new turn for Mexico’s presidency

as the torch was passed from revolution-era candidates to

civilian politicians. During his presidency he focused less on

agrarian reform, unlike his predecessors, and excelled Mexico’s

industrial development. Although the country’s population

continued to see a growing discrepancy between the rich and the

poor, Mexico’s economic and industrial sectors saw positive

growth. Aleman’s administration promoted economic growth and

encouraged the industry sector through infrastructure

improvements that would then allow the social sector to reap the

benefits.

The following excerpt from President Miguel Aleman Valdes’

oath into presidency concern agricultural production and the

peasant population:

“The overall progress of Mexico requires solving urgent

problems in the form of the middle peasant… and

increased human element and increased agricultural

production. The welfare of the Nation requires the

increase of agricultural production… Agricultural

production requires more vigorous competition and

better credit conditions, which provide not only

governmental institutions but also the private

capital…” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

Once again we see a similar trend of rhetoric that focuses

Mexico’s economic strengths around domestic agrarian reform.

President Valdes continues to be influenced by Lazaro Cardenas

revolutionary reforms just as Camacho was before him. The nations

economic stability is centered on its domestic capability to

produce and fend for itself. Mexico’s new found access to

international credit now provided the financial resources for a

budget that could deliver the post-revolutionary promise as well

as a new potential. President Aleman Valdes was not quick to

discontinue a strong concern for the faction that farmed the

land, but he was enthusiastic about tapping into a new source of

economic progress.

In the same speech, President Aleman Valdes went on to speak

on the opportunity Mexico had for industrialization at the time.

He said the following:

“We must realize the industrialization that we have

proposed. During warfare effort we could create new

industries… National industries enjoy prudent tariff

protection... Industrialization requires credit in

greater volume and with reasonable interest, so that

companies are not victims of the inordinate

speculation…” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

The text above tells how WWII had affected Mexico directly

during Aleman’s presidency and his administration’s duty to

exploit the opportunity. Aleman’s use of rhetoric which calls on

the patriotic duty of the country to support industry growth

during a justified time of war provides his speech with a boost

of morality in a political decision that would otherwise repel

the overwhelming rural masses. Furthermore, the mention of

sensible tariff protection is an indicator of anti-neoliberal

policy efforts to apply protectionist means to the country’s

export-led production.

The following excerpt from President Miguel Aleman Valdes’

oath into presidency concerns worker salaries, and consumerism:

“Moreover, companies must understand that the hand of

well-paid and better social conditions and cultural

work is the best factor for the success of the

production and a fair return on capital… Low-wage

workers are not suitable for industrial progress,

because we must not forget that the labor sector is

both important factor of production and part of what

the consumer mass produced; There is, then, that enable

him to play with his work in the fitness industry and

remunerate them adequately to be a good consumer… we

will make loans to companies that are in distressed

situations, in order to increase production are

applied.” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

President Aleman Valdes’s inaugural speech excerpt above

reflects an economic philosophy similar to that of Fordism.

Industry expansion in Mexico was not favorable at the end of the

19th century, and possibly faced the same fate mid 20th century

due to the interpreted threat by the agriculture labor sector.

The concept of Fordism reflected in Aleman Valdes’s speech above

appeals to empower the Mexico’s workforce towards adopting a new

sector of labor. Workers are addressed as consumers, further

reiterating their active role in the domestic economy. Export led

economic growth simultaneously triggers the fear for the

exportation of profit. By speaking on the vitality of a worker’s

consumer power for a successful domestic economy, industrial

growth is a reinvestment into the worker’s pocket rather than the

funneling of private capital.

The excerpt below also pertains to the same

presidential oath by Miguel Aleman Valdes, in which he

demonized a capitalistic system. He says the following:

“The greatness of the motherland, the people's welfare

and respectability of the Republic should be above any

other interests and prevail against selfishness bad

that Mexicans do not understand that the dignity of

human life is opposed to enrichment at the expense of

hunger of the people. Excessive profits for its lack of

fairness, are put outside the law they create in the

minds of those with a selfishness that prevents them

calmly see the process of economics, commerce or

industry unduly benefited, and correspondingly,

encourage feelings of hatred and impulses of violence

which, if realized, would also be illegal in the

consumer class.” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

The above excerpt from President Aleman Valdes’s speech

captures the rhetorical strategy that places industry and capital

as a second priority to that of a worker. This part of the speech

reinforces the dismissal of any paranoia to the country’s new

industrial agenda by framing profit and capitalism as almost

sinful. By demonizing the appropriation of a capitalist system,

President Aleman Valdes’s rhetoric grants bestows before the

Mexican identity a neglect and intolerance for excessive profit

at the expense of the people’s livelihoods. Such rhetorical

choices above condition greed and profit with hateful and violent

tendencies in order to further assure a distrustful country that

what they fear is not a Mexican norm, thus not a concern.

Rhetorical appeal for industry pushed forward industrial

production during President Aleman Valdes’s term. As we can see

in the graph shown below, Mexico’s general population began a

significant and consistent increase in their general population.

The graph further outlines the rise within the urban population,

and for the first in 1951 Mexico’s manufacturing sector overtook

agricultural production.

Source: Henry, N. S. (1998). Chapter 5 A nation in transition:

The Mexican government as a cause and cure

Wartime demands thus far had sustained Mexico’s growing

economy even with the application of import substitutions. Their

exportation profits gave the country access to reasonable

interest on loans, and payment arrangements on their external

debt. The country had a virtual capacity to sustain their

domestic economy on a credit-based system, for the time. The

annual GDP growth rate of 6% since 1940 generated further

optimism in the PRI political party and the opportunity to expand

their political influence into other federal sectors.

Unfortunately for Mexico, the stagnation of the agricultural

population and production, discussed above, could not sustain the

rapid growth of the population and industrial sector overall. In

1948, Mexico’s peso began to experience a consistent devaluation

with annual inflation rates reaching 8.4% between 1948 and 1954,

compare this to the U.S.’ s 2%. As a result, Aleman Valde’s

administration applied import quotas, higher tariffs, and

licenses to further apply import substitution and protect the

domestic industry. This protectionist approach taken by the

Mexican government at the turn of the 1950s paved the way for

Adolfo Ruiz Cortines administration.

1952- President Adolfo Ruiz Cortines

On December 1, 1952 Adolfo Ruiz Cortines, another PRI

candidate, became Miguel Aleman Valdes’ successor and the new

President of the United Mexican States. WWII had been over for

about 7 years by now but there was still a consistent demand for

cheap Mexican goods worldwide because of the Korean War in the

early 1950s. The economic nationalist policies that had been

placed by Valdes further encouraged the state to finance

industrial and agricultural growth by increased dependence on

external credit. The country’s masked debt also concealed the

inability or inefficiency for long term growth, thus Cardenas

rhetorical influence began to shift with President Ruiz Cortinez

to emphasize the urban and industry rather than the rural

(Hamnett, p. 265). His campaign slogan, “austerity and

moralization” gained the people’s support in the polls. During

his presidency, Ruiz Cortines applied strict control of the

country’s funding in the public sector and is also well known for

amending women’s suffrage rights. He supported the renovation of

public facilities as well as welfare projects for the

overwhelming peasant population. In his presidential oath,

President Ruiz Cortines re-frames the country’s priorities to

reinvest the same efforts put forth in the industry faction

toward development into public administration:

“Like any country in the process of economic

development, Mexico has been faced with a serious

dilemma because of the shortage of capital available

for investment… If you apply its resources to the

production of consumer goods, without caring to

replenish and increase machinery and equipment

requiring the agriculture, industry and transport, may

slow down economic development.” (500 Anos de Mexico en

Docuemntos).

President Ruiz Cortines’s discourse above serves to

correlate the success of the agricultural sector with that of the

industrial sector. With the majority of the population dependent

on agricultural labor just a decade earlier, very few could

actually reap the benefits of industrializing from the

countryside. Instead of allowing the obvious instability of the

rural versus urban populations to result in yet another

revolution, making the two interdependent let Ruiz Cortines avoid

prioritizing either social group as being the primary focus for

federal investment. His administration sought to invest in

mediums that could benefit all social sectors such as fixing

roads, housing, and general public infrastructures. The following

excerpt from his speech further addresses the poverty problem

developing at the time:

“The modesty of our resources requires us to get

maximum productivity with minimum investment; and

displacement of rural labor to industry, advises a

prudent and gradual mechanization of agriculture… Most

distressing of all current issues, as it affects the

majority of the population is without a doubt the

scarcity and high prices of food items. With the firm

support of the whole nation and a plan that will begin

in the 1953-1954 cycle, we will use the moral and

material resources that are necessary to cut and make

available to the people corn, beans, sugar or brown

sugar, edible fats, blanket, denim and calico.” (500

Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

By 1952, Mexico was experiencing overwhelming food shortages

as a result of the stagnation in the rural population and farm

labor force (Hamnett). Just as his speech promised, the

government distributed beans, corn, and other basic essentials to

alleviate food shortages between 1952 and 1954. The consistent

rhetoric emphasizing long term economic progress by credit,

investment, production, and industrialization had not benefitted

the rural population thus far. Mexico’s government was facing

strong and consistent critique and opposition by the people, but

President Ruiz Cortines excerpt above placed the people as the

sector for federal investment. By applying direct alleviation to

poverty in morality and material goods as stated above, Ruiz

Cortines campaign of “austerity and morality” delivers a direct

rhetorical appeal and an impact.

1958- President Adolfo Lopez Mateos

Adolfo Lopez Mateos’ presidential speech directly

acknowledges Mexico’s role in the international community through

its membership in the United Nations in 1945 (United Nations

Member States). Following Ruiz Cortines’s term the Cold War era

continued to have an impact on Mexico’s socioeconomic policies.

Mexico had their fair share of domestic communist groups fueled

by the growing inequality between the rich and the poor. The

great divide in the world at the time served to strengthen

continental alliances politically, economically, and morally. The

following excerpt from Lopez Mateos’s speech strategically frames

the Cold War era between two forces, thus creating a space for

Mexico to righteously choose to join international organizations

regardless of its previous nationalist stance.

“Our foreign policy has fallen to our internal

development; the repeat and reaffirm that will become

auxiliary instrument of our overall development, and

aware that we do not live isolated and could live

isolated, declare that exist in civilization principles

to keep: in the world, people who must help each other,

and rights in human society to be achieved in full

force… The world has since been moving between two

dangers… Hence our decision to participate ever more

deeply in the work of the institutions created to

establish, maintain and promote the rule of law and

collective progress: the United Nations, and with

regard to our hemisphere, the Organization of American

States… who have long tended a helping hand and who

sincerely reiterate that friendship. Our international

conduct are set, therefore, two fundamental rules: do

not accept anything that violates our sovereignty, and

not deny our contest to any effort that may actually

serve to improve the harmony of the country and the

living conditions of men…” (500 Anos de Mexico en

Docuemntos).

As shown above, such use of discourse pushed Mexico toward a

righteous duty to support organizations that aid humanitarian

concerns. Although my paper discussed the use of binaries in the

context of neoliberalism, this excerpt also utilizes the

rhetorical strategy of binaries. During the Cold War the world

was framed by a fight between democracy versus communism, the

latter being greater evil. Framing the world between two

polarized regimes allowed for the democratic nature of Mexico to

pursue international organization membership as a patriotic and

moral duty. Nevertheless, President Mateos felt the need to

address that the country’s UN membership would not jeopardize

their domestic agenda for development or even their sovereignty.

“We produce and export more, reinvigorating our foreign

trade, our imports adjust, balance our budget and the

strength of our credit and our ability to strengthen

external payment. We have to fight for progress to be

comprehensive and balanced, ensuring that wealth is not

concentrated in few hands, in certain activities and in

limited geographic regions... We have to ensure that

the substantial profits are reinvested in Mexico for

national benefit… Demand in this collaboration of all

and especially for those who have resources to invest,

have an imperative patriotic duty to do so… Patriotism

is love the land where we were born, not discouraged

because we were not granted any better; always seek

greatness, which encourages the vigor of the mind,

nobility of heart and work efficiency of their

children… Industry will strengthen our systems to add

value to Mexican labor and incorporate more work in the

transformation of our raw materials.” (500 Anos de

Mexico en Docuemntos).

President Lopez Mateos further encouraged the faith in

Mexico’s import substitution, export-led, and credit based

economic growth in the excerpt above. The steady annual GDP

growth and increased industrial production allowed for the masked

debt to be accepted as part of the reform, as long as the country

had a steady growth in GDP and access to international credit the

country could expect a prosperous future. This prosperous future,

of course, would happen on a nationalist and socialist playing

field, as we see President Lopez Mateos demonize a capitalistic

system where owning the majority of wealth while others go hungry

simply are not values he Mexican government identify with.

1964- President Gustavo Diaz Ordaz

In 1964, Gustavo Diaz Ordaz became the new elected Mexican

president. By this time, the country faced significant peso

devaluation, an increase in output by almost double, while

agriculture increased less than a percent, and an overall

unemployment crisis. The rapid population growth of the country

was inadequately supported by the credit necessary to finance

accelerated roles of production and payments. In the 1960s, it

became clear that Mexico’s wartime production opportunities were

over and that the Mexican economy could no longer afford to

finance itself. In his inauguration speech, President Diaz Ordaz

explains the country’s economic deficit as a phase in the

transitioning process and begins to introduce foreign investment

as a valuable new source for Mexico’s economy. His speech went as

follows:

“We are on the threshold of development that

stands on its own, because it generates development. It

is the difficult stage of transition, which is

suffering at the same time, both the problems of

underdevelopment as the initiation of development. To

reach the next step, we need to coordinate actions,

complete and integrate embodiments, and indicate other

to achieve new goals…The key to Mexico's problems is

the lack of capital in relation to the use of natural

and human resources…The capital of Mexico should not be

formed with sacrifice of the just social benefits or

reducing the consumption of the lower income classes.

It would be unfair to the disadvantaged will support

the full weight of our development.” (500 Anos de

Mexico en Docuemntos).

In the excerpt above, Diaz Ordaz’s speech builds solidarity

with the number of other countries who have also experienced

similar distress in order to pose the problem as a step along the

process of development. The sacrifices made in large by the

peasant population are framed as important indicators, almost as

martyrs for the rest of the country’s economic progress. The

speech goes on to defend the sacrifice of human resources by

stating that the rural population should not be the only ones

having to bare the burden of hunger and poverty for the sake of

greater economic prosperity. The following excerpt introduces

foreign direct investment, a neoliberal concept I might add, as a

potential solution for the country’s financial shortcomings. Diaz

Ordaz stated the following:

“Without a market, no production. And without

purchasing power of the masses, no market. We reiterate

that, surrounded by misery, no company prospers.

Economic growth achieved so far is the result of

policies over three decades began in Mexico: investment

in infrastructure… Direct investment from abroad can

play an important role in accelerating economic

progress, and is welcome as long as they hold our law,

operate as a complement to national efforts and

contributes to the achievement of social objectives

that the country.” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

The excerpt above first explains the power structure of a

country’s market relevant to productivity, and consumerism. The

relationship and success rate is obviously not sustainable using

this market power relationship, thus making room for the

discussion of a new source of finance. Foreign direct investment

is a concept attached to various other concerns of foreign

invisible hands in the industry, and the extraction of profit

from the domestic economy. By following up the discussion of FDI

as a newfound potential for Mexico’s economy with clear

intentions for regulations, Diaz Ordaz strategically removes

immediate conspiracy and paranoia attached to the idea. His

speech continued to reassure the protection of domestic markets

with the addition of a new foreign investing agent in the

following excerpt:

“You have to keep balance between agricultural and

industrial activities; between exploitation and

conservation of natural resources; between the

development of the different regions of the country,

the various types of industry, the various economic and

social investments, effect, performance and recovery;

balance, in short, between capital formation and its

proper distribution.” (500 Anos de Mexico en

Docuemntos).

Once again, Mexico’s moral values of equal wealth

distribution are referenced in order to reiterate that the

introduction of foreign investment will not result in the

capitalistic nature assumed and witnessed in several other cases.

It is important to note that regardless of Mexico’s economic

struggles between the 1940s and 1970s, their socioeconomic reform

and development was spearheading Latin America (Hamnett).

President Diaz Ordaz’s term was a significant determining period

for the development of Mexico’s relationship with the rest of the

Latin American community as the Cold War conflict placed Mexico

at the threshold of domestic and neighboring opposition. The

Western influence on the Soviet Union is said to have been the

determining factor in dismantling the cause for communist forces,

thus Mexico’s economic leadership in the Latin American community

gave the country hegemonic influence in the region. The speech

discusses Mexico’s brotherhood with Latin America as follows:

“The outstanding fact is that in international affairs

has ended the war. The world is on the threshold of a

new historical stage yet whose characteristics can be

set as accurately; but we can guess that will be

different from the immediate past… Within the Latin

American context, Mexico may go, circumstantially, to

the head or behind, or in an intermediate position, in

any aspect of our life; but aspires only to be a member

of the group adds its efforts to the common

improvement... Mexico so dearly wants to be brother to

all his brothers in Latin America.” (500 Anos de Mexico

en Docuemntos).

It was important for Diaz Ordaz to not overstep the

influence and soft power Mexico employed as the Latin American

hegemon. The country’s alliance to their Latin American identity

served to re-establish faith in the country’s sovereignty as

their alliances to their northern neighbor challenged such

independence. Any faith in his presidential administration was

unfortunately lost because of the Tlatelolco Massacre of 1968.

Mexico City was chosen to host the 1968 Olympic Games

because of the country’s boosting economy and growing

international recognition. Thousands of student protesters

had utilized the international spotlight to protest the lack

of social justice they felt in the country. On October 2,

1968, only ten days before the opening games, Mexican armed

forces opened fire on a protest that took place on he

historic Tlatelolco Plaza de las Tres Culturas. To this day

the actual number of deaths and the origin of the direct

order to open fire on civilians is concealed by the Mexican

government and its allies (History.com Staff, 2010).

Regardless of the lack of knowledge for direct

responsibility, Diaz Ordaz and the PRI political party as a

whole never truly recuperated from the backlash and loss of

political faith from the Mexican people. This significant

tragedy in Mexican history is addressed in following

presidential speeches, such as in Jose Lopez Portillo’s

inauguration speech.

1970- President Luis Echeverria Alvarez

Following Diaz Ordaz’s term, Luis Echeverria Alvarez was

voted into presidency in 1970. During this period of Mexico’s

economic journey, the country was still experiencing strong

oppositions as a result of the Tlatelolco Massacre. The cause for

the protestors was a just one as the country had now lost a

significant agriculture sector jobs to service and manufacturing

sector jobs, as shown in the graph below.

Source: Henry, N. S. (1998). Chapter 5 A nation in transition: The Mexican government as a cause and cure

The rural to urban population ration had almost evened out

by 1970 going from 66.5% to 33.5% in 1930 to 49.3% to 50.7% by

1960 (Hamnett). The food shortages and the gap between the poor

and the rich grew substantially by 1970. President Alvarez’s

inauguration speech facilitated the similar rhetorical strategy

as his predecessors. His speech stated the following:

“Revolutionary is now the worthy public servant, a

loyal soldier and the full leader… So is the

nationalist vision and social entrepreneur… It is true

that there is an inevitable trade-off between economic

growth and income redistribution… For this it is

necessary to share the income with equity and expand

the domestic consumer market… Mexico does not accept

that the means of production are handled exclusively by

public bodies; but has also surpassed the theories that

left entirely to private forces, promoting the economy,

experience has taught us that there is sufficient

capital increase if we do not seek their proper

application. Investments should get to where they are

most needed: the countryside, infrastructure, obtaining

capital to companies that occupy required abundant

workforce. We will encourage domestic savings, both

private institutions that capture, as that state

agencies must obtain...” (500 Anos de Mexico en

Docuemntos).

The excerpt above further demonizes the profitability of

capitalism, as discussed earlier in Valdes’s and Mateos’s

inauguration speeches. With the access to foreign direct

investment as a financial source for industry, Mexico was

experiencing further uncertainty for the direction of this new

private sector of investment. Mexican government played an

important in regulating between public and private investment,

but the majority of the population was not concerned with

economic jargon. Mexico’s rural population simply knew they were

not benefiting from the country’s stead GDP growth and President

Alvarez’s rhetorical strategy was to ensure that Mexico’s values

would not embrace profit at the expense of the poor. This

argument is facilitated further in the following excerpt of his

speech:

“Foreign investment should not displace the Mexican

capital, but to complement it by partnering it where

useful… We will keep fighting for fairer terms of

trade, mainly between countries linked by geography and

mutual friendship; but explore new markets in all

regions of the world and generalize the system of rules

to encourage the manufacture of items whose quality and

price are competitive abroad… Just advertised identity

purposes we act and with the impulses to transform

outdated structures within our countries and in our

relations with the outside… We must create an economy

of scale that back the most affordable and make complex

industries globally competitive… Propose the

establishment of multinational companies that link the

initiative of our investors, using raw materials from

different countries and utilize advanced techniques and

institutional sources of international credit.” (500

Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

This part of the speech serves to remind Mexico of its

initial source of Mexican capital, credit, in order to

reassure that the sovereignty of Mexico will be preserved

through careful balance of foreign investment and

international credit. In this part of Alvarez’s speech we

also begin to see room for a discourse around international

sources of trade. In the context of 1970s Mexico,

international trade did not mean the neoliberal open market

system we would assume today, but rather a source for

further export led economies with import substitution

domestic policy. During Alarez’s presidency we see a global

boom in the oil industry and with the discovery of huge oil

reserves in the Gulf of Mexico in 1976, Mexico’s economic

game begins new economic and political reform.

1976- President Jose Lopez Portillo

The newfound oil reserves in Mexico opened up economic

potential for Mexico as a whole. Mexico’s potential for inflow of

capital from oil exports opens up their access to an increase in

foreign loans. 1976 also saw a new Presidential term filled by

Jose Lopez Portillo. President Lopez Portillo’s campaign promised

to used the oil profits to reinvest in the domestic industry,

social welfare, and improve agriculture production. Although

their federal debt had reached $19.6 billion by 1976, having

increased from $4.5 billion only 6 years prior, the promising oil

industry provided a platform of good faith in the credit system.

His inauguration speech pursues the exploitation of the oil

reserves by stating the following:

“The country has been demanding a change in procedures

and attitudes will surely have an impact beyond the

six-year period that begins today to shape Mexican

society at the end of this century… it is important to

restore confidence in a country that has oil, land,

water and minerals of all kinds; coastal and marine

areas full of resources and nutrients; varied climates;

production plant; precursor and current revolutionary

institutions, national pride; origin and destination;

men and women who love and must cultivate. Mexico needs

to reaffirm its values, strength and security that

their fate does not depend on monetary whims or some

magic number to establish parity between the peso and

foreign currencies. It is essential to reiterate that

our development depends on the productive efforts of

the Mexicans; that our natural resources are not

depleted by our currency devaluation; the creativity of

its people, we are not at the mercy of financial panics

and, consequently, prices, wages and living standards

deteriorate only to the extent that, through ignorance,

fear or bad faith, be unable to understand that the

only thing affected is the value of what we buy abroad.

I wish we understood so soon to avoid the worst of

alienating dependencies, psychological, that we lose

identity and address…”(500 Anos de Mexico en

Docuemntos).

President Portillo’s speech calls for the salvation of the

people’s faith in the Mexican government. With the oil industry’s

promise lingering over his term, Mexico sees the potential to

generate the inflow of capital necessary to sustain a domestic

economy built on the principles of import substitution. The

concept of import substitution as policy can only be grasped by

very few through economic means. Portillo’s speech is able to

strategically frame social consequences and the loss of Mexican

values if the country were to steer away from such policy and

become dependent on foreign imports.

In the exceprt from Portillo’s inauguration speech shown

below, we see a new rhetorical trend emerge, one flagged by the

first solid emntion of the concept of globalization.

Globalization, from Portillo’s rhetorical interpretation, is the

global balance of economic capacity. Portillo stated the

following:

“So the tax rules should not rely on the easy

expedient of increasing rates, but globalization and

the idea of handling income for those who have more, as

accepted by everyone contribute more; so in other end

will allow us to release those who have less and who

have nominally Signed by inflation and devaluations to

categories problems strongly loaded by the income tax;

to reduce low rates allow many workers and members of

the middle class to increase their savings capacity and

consumption...” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

To further showcase a new rhetorical trend in the late 20th

century within presidential inaugural campaigns, the excerpt

below later in Portillo’s speech addresses trade to be a crucial

component of Mexico’s economic progress. He stated the following:

“Trade can be one of the master keys to convert our

social needs in real demand, to stimulate and guide the

production to ensure the timely provision of necessary

social goods and nationally to combat conspicuous

consumption and waste, to bring the producers and

consumers through fair and transparent operations,

reducing costs and adjusting utilities to real services

rendered; for everyone to sell and buy better, know

what and how to do it and abuse and speculation is

eradicated.” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

Trade was an enthusiastic goal with the oil industry

promising larger capital to reinvest in domestic industry.

Unfortunately for Portillo and Mexico, the country’s oil

reserve was of low quality and could not deliver the profits

expected. At this point in Mexico’s economy, their inability

to repay loans acquired because of the expected success in

the petroleum industry left Mexico with the world’s largest

foreign debt (History.com Staff, 2010).

1982- President Miguel de la Madrid Hurtado

1982 brought about a new president, Miguel de la Madrid

Hurtado, as well rock bottom for Mexico’s economic state. The

increased loan packages into the country during the 1976

discovery of oil reserves and the collapse of oil prices in 1981

brought Mexico into a full blown economic crisis by 1982. The oil

expansion resulted in the overvaluation of the peso, reaching 60%

inflation rates by April 1982 and 100% by the fall; by the end of

the year the U.S. dollar cost 144 pesos. President de la Madrid

Hurtado nationalized he banks in an attempt to expropriate any

capital, regardless of his attempts Mexico formally declared

bankruptcy in 1982.Once again, Mexico lost their access to

credit, with an estimated debt of $89 billion by 1983.

“Mexico is in a serious crisis. We suffer inflation

that reached this year nearly one hundred percent; an

unprecedented deficit of the public sector and is fed

acutely lacks his own savings to finance investment;

the lag in rates and public prices set to state

enterprises in a precarious situation, and subsidizing

inefficiencies covers high-income groups; weakening in

the dynamics of the productive sectors has placed us in

zero growth… We have a public and private external debt

reached an excessive proportion whose service imposes

an undue burden on the budget and the balance of

payments and shifts resources from productive

investment and social spending...” (500 Anos de Mexico

en Docuemntos).

President Hurtado’s speech does not hesitate to stress the

economic crisis Mexico is experiencing as he enters into office.

Listed are various internal external factors that contributed to

the debt crisis. In the following excerpt later inhis speech,

Hurtado frames the crisis within an international arena of trade

competition. He stated the following:

“The crisis lies in an international context of

uncertainty and fear; a deep recession is looming.

There are trade wars, even among allies; disguised

protectionism free cambism. High interest rates, the

collapse in commodity prices and rising industrial

products, produce the insolvency of many countries. The

global economic turmoil political instability, the arms

race, the struggle of powers to expand areas of

influence is added. Never in recent times have we seen

so far international understanding.” (500 Anos de

Mexico en Docuemntos).

By framing an international arena of trade wars,

Hurtado’s rhetoric begins to place Mexico’s position within

the international trade wars. If the economic crisis is a

result of Mexico’s inability to respond and adapt to global

competition, then the future of economic reform for the

country will have to hose between integrating into the

international arena and competing, or choosing to maintain a

failing economic system. Mexico’s integration of

international market politics begin with the country’s entry

into GATT, where they are provided with a $500 million trade

adjustment loan. By 1988, the accumulated Mexican debt

reached $101.8 billion.

1988- President Carlos Salinas de Gortari

The election of Carlos Salinas de Gortari for persiden in

1988 started the “Salinisation” of Mexico (Hamnett), the opening

of Mexican markets. Entering his term, Salinas spoke on behalf of

a great potential for the country based on a new global order of

economic. Salinas used bankruptcy to justify his campaigns

extreme response to economic reform with privatization. In the

following excerpt from President Salinas’s inauguration speech,

there is a consistent neoliberal rhetorical strategy that

emphasizes key concepts such as modernization and inevitability.

Salinas stated the following:

“I took office as President in a complex time between

collective hope and the weight of accumulated

sacrifices, including the need to build for the future

and the urgency of immediate outputs; this is a unique

time in our history, full of risks but rich in

opportunities… the modernization of Mexico is

essential… the modernization of Mexico is inevitable,

therefore, most nation states are changing regardless

of location, ideology, political practices or

industrial level achieved; the global trend is that

states are restructured” (500 Anos de Mexico en

Docuemntos).

The framing of Mexico’s economic restructuring as essential

and inevitable simply allows no other alternative for policy than

to conform. Salinas dismisses Mexico’s diverse inability to adapt

by acknowledging that they are not alone in their quest for the

1st world and their ability to succeed is within their grasp.

Salinas inauguration speech goes on to implement neoliberal

jargon across his entire inauguration speech. The following part

of his inauguration speech forecasts the privatization of the

banks nationalized in 1982. The privatization of banks opened up

access to greater foreign investment for both the private and

public sector. HE stated the following:

“Change to be at the forefront of global

transformation… I postulate a new era of growth… public

investment will be key… private sector investment will

play a key role… this negotiation must be done in a

reasonably short time with international banks, with

multilateral agencies and governments of industrialized

countries.” (500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

Salinas attempts to define the concept of globalization

and growing international interdependence in his speech by

saying the following:

“We must understand it undiminished, that in the

contemporary world distances and times are almost

nonexistent; economic, social and cultural relations

become increasingly interdependent, more

interdependence between rich and poor, powerful and

weak, between north and south, east and west.” (500

Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

By compressing time and space as we know it, the world

becomes more integrated, and with the integration of space

and time, economies will “inevitably” come to lean on one

another. Salinas goes on in hisinauguration speech to

foretell the country’s crusade for trade partners around the

world in the following excerpts:

“Seek a new balance with the United States of America,

an area of opportunity and delicate differences; attend

bilateral acute debt problems and trade, relentless

combat drug trafficking and the protection of human and

labor rights of our migrant workers…In Canada, we will

strengthen our relationship further. The similarity of

our difficulties and the new world demanding a strong

political relationship with Latin America and the

Caribbean, to strengthen our regional identity and open

spaces to development and effective democracy…. We will

strengthen our relationship with dynamically integrate

the European community; open new and wider channels of

communication and relationship with the Pacific Rim,

especially Japan, a country with which we sister effort

and cultural depth; with the Union of Soviet Republics

maintain our friendship, as with India; with the PRC

will seek to further expand the cooperation and the

countries of Asia and Africa… States, there is little

we can not achieve; divided, there is much that we will

not achieve…”(500 Anos de Mexico en Docuemntos).

By 1991, Presdient Salinas ‘s administration had pitched

talks about a free trade agreement with the U.S. By 1992, NAFTA

was signed and went into full effect at the beginning of 1994.

The quick journey for the North America Free Trade Agreement

paved the way for Mexico to pursue several other free trade

agreements with Latin America in the 1990s, and across the world

at the turn of the 21st century. The economic benefits of the

neoliberal policies advocated by President Salinas rhetorical

campaign, and applied by his administration would not serve as

the immediate determining factor for success, rather his

successors inauguration speech served that purpose.

1994- President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce

In 1994, President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce entered his

presidential term facing new economic reform and overall foreign

policy restructuring for Mexico. The very first of NAFTA’s

ratification cannot provide solid growth rates for the country,

interestingly enough however, Ponce’s inauguration speech’s

rhetoric portrays a new found psychological boost for Mexico’s

place in the world. He says the following:

“Mexico is a respected nation in the world. This is

attested by the honorable presence of leaders and

representatives of people with whom we are linked to by

endearing ties. To all of them, our gratitude and our

friendship. Self-determination of peoples, the peaceful

settlement of disputes, the legal equality of States

and equitable trade between countries, are principles

that have guided our foreign policy and give us moral

authority in the world.”

After the country’s economic and political regional

free trade contract, the Mexican president was able to speak

on behalf of a new national identity that recognized on a

global scale. Such an immediate response by rhetorical

trends indicate neoliberal free trade regime conformation

due factors beyond economic gains or losses that will be

further analyzed in my Analysis.

ANALYSIS

After looking at 5 solid decades of Mexico’s economic

history and presidential inauguration speeches, I have found

solid rhetorical trends within specific time periods.

1940-1952

The presidential speeches given by Manuel Avila Camacho,

Miguel Aleman Valdes, and Adolfo Ruiz Cortines all reflected

similar rhetorical trends pertaining to agrarian reform, a credit

based economic based, and overall empowerment of the peasant and

farmer populations. The post-revolutionary years these speeches

happened in were still very fragile to an overwhelming

“campesino” (i.e. peasant farmer) population in the country. The

Cardenas era mobilized such a strong socioeconomic reform through

his rhetoric by emphasizing land-distribution and nationalist

industry; his predecessors also applied similar strategies in

order to gain voter support. The historical context of this time

experienced wartime opportunities to industrialize their domestic

economy, leading to consistent campaigns supporting import

substitution and nationalism. Mexican identity is directly

correlated with the country’s ability to preserve Mexican values

by being self-dependent and not allowing foreign imports to

invade their market, ultimately leading to the loss of

sovereignty. Furthermore, forward movement and economic reform is

referred to as progress, a more or less neutral term for future

success.

1958-1976

The four inaugural speeches given y Adolfo Lopez Mateos,

Gustavo Diaz Ordas, Luis Echeverria Alvarez, and Jose Lopez

Portillo, from my papers analysis, represent another solid

pattern in rhetorical trends. During this 20 year period it is

important to recall the fall in wartime industrialization and

begin to see a shift in the emphasis over “export more” and

“Mexican capital” being at the forefront of an import substation

and protectionist era for Mexico. In 19664 For the first time in

1964, Gustavo Diaz Ordaz, opens up the discussion for “direct

investment from abroad” to serve as a source of capital. This is

important because following his term, Luis Echeverria Alvarez

does not lack to mention that foreign investment shall not

displace Mexico’s domestic capable source of capital. Another

consistent rhetorical trend in these four presidential speeches

is the demonization of capitalism, or the private ownership of

overwhelming profit. It is interesting to see that a consistent

period of nationalist, socialist, and protectionist measures

followed by the introduction of foreign investment would deem it

necessary to demonize capitalism. The mention of the concept of

globalization happened for the first time in 1976, in Jose Lopez

Padilla’s inauguration speech. My analysis of such rhetoric

during this period is explained by the domestic economic turmoil.

The rural populations were going hungry, the government could not

sustain economic growth solely on international credit, but

foreign investment simply contradicted everything hard Mexican

work ethics had established thus far. By creating a dialogue that

would make the profitability of an industry at the cost of

another’s livelihood sinful, the introduction of foreign direct

investment into the domestic industry of Mexico was no longer the

same blood-sucking concept people once feared.

1982-1994

The remainder of the three speeches I analyzed happened

at the turn of a nationwide financial deficit in Mexico.

The rhetorical trends I analyzed during this period showed

significant transformation form that of the first time

period, and even the second. In Miguel de la Madrid

Hurtado’s speech in 1982 the shift begins from using the

word “progress” for economic success and reform, to suing

the word “modernize” to suggest economic and political

progress. The concept of modernization belongs to thr

rhetorical strategy framed by the use of binaries when

talking about globalization and/or neoliberalism. President

Salinas speech in 1988 blatantly uses the greatest weapons

of neoliberal rhetoric throughout his speech such as

inevitability, global transformations, and so forth. By

1994, we can see a clear psychological boost in Mexico’s

identity as an internationally recognized economic power

after the ratification of NAFTA. This rhetorical period

overall reflects clear uses of binaries and a shift

patriotic duties from public welfare in the post-

revolutionary period, to international integration at the

end of the 20th century.

CONCLUSION

The rhetorical trends I analyzed throughout

presidential inauguration speeches in the 20th century,

support my thesis in that the dialogue and discussions

built around economic and political reform frame their

justification, resulting in the encouragement for state’s

to be part of neoliberal transitions regardless of the

unpredictable economic gains or losses. Although a realist

might credit the desperate state of economic deficit in

Mexico for the success of NAFTA, after my analysis and this

project overall, I believe that the rhetorical evolution

allowed for the country to build a consensus based on the

framing of moral, legal, and patriotic justifications that

either allowed Mexico to have a first class ticket toward a

developing world or be left at the train station.

Further suggestions and improvements for my project and

research would be in the inclusion of public support for

neoliberal reform. Although it is clear that Mexico faced a

lot of opposition after NAFTA, it is hard to generate

public opinion polls that can consistently correlate public

support for government policy directly to presidential

rhetoric. My project contributes to the discipline of

international relations as it attempts to explain a

country’s economic transformation through rhetoric and

discourse. Such a rhetorical analysis can be taken out of

the context of economics and used to analyze conflict

resolutions, war strategy, and the overall mechanisms of

international affairs.

References

500 anos de Mexico en documentos.

http://www.biblioteca.tv/artman2/publish/ index.shtml

Atkins, G. P. (1993). Institutional arrangements for hemispheric

free trade. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 526,

183-194.

Asitotle. Rhetoric. **

Bar-Tura, A. (2011). Economic policy and World Organization.

Perspectives On Global Development & Technology, 10(1), 194-212.

Bergsten, C. F. (1996). Globalizing free trade. Foreign Affairs,

75(3), 105-120.

Bhagwati, J. (2001). After Seattle: Free trade and the WTO.

International Affairs,

77(1), 15-29.

Bhagwati, J. (2001). After Seattle: Free trade and the WTO.

International Affairs,

77(1), 15-29.

Carlisle, C. R. (1996). Is the world ready for free trade? Foreign

Affairs, 75(6), 113-

126.

Clarke, J. (1995). Rhetoric before reality: Loose lips sink

ships. Foreign Affairs, 74(5),

2-7.

Clarke, J. (2003). Turning inside out? Globalization, neo-

liberalism and welfare states. Anthropologica, 45(2), 201-214.

Connell, R. (2007). The northern theory of globalization.

Sociological Theory, 25(4),

368-385.

Dryzek, J. S. (2010). Rhetoric in democracy: A systematic

appreciation. Political

Theory, 38(3), 319-339.

Goldsmith, J. L., Posner, E. A. (2000). Moral and legal rhetoric

in international relations: A rational choice

perspective. University of Chicago Law School:John M. Olin Law & Economics

Working Paper No. 108

Goyal, S., & Joshi, S. (2006). Bilateralism and free trade.

International Economic Review, 47(3), 748-778.

History.com Staff. (2010). Mexico timeline. History.com.

http://www.history.com/topics/mexico/mexico-timeline

Hakim, P. (1993). Western hemisphere free trade: Why should Latin

America be interested?. Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science, 526, 121- 134.

Hamnett, B. (1999). Concise history of Mexico. Cambridge University

Press.

Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). U.S. Library of

Congress. http://countrystudies.us/mexico/84.htm

Kehoe, T. J., & Meza, F. (2011). Catch-up growth followed by

stagnation: Mexico, 1950- 2010. Latin American Journal of Economics,

48(2), 227-268.

Knight, A., & Rodriguez, J. (2011). The Mexican Revolution, 1910–

1940. Oxford Bibliographies Online: Latin American Studies. doi:

10.1093/obo/9780199766581- 0033

Lustig, N. C. (1998). NAFTA: Setting the record straight. Brooking

Institute. http://0- www.ciaonet.org.opac.sfsu.edu/wps/lun01/

McDonald, P. J. (2004). Peace through trade or free trade? The

Journal of Conflict

Resolution, 48(4), 547-572.

Milne, H. V., Kubota, K. (2005). Why the move to free trade?:

Democracy and trade

policy in the developing countries. International Organization,

59(1), 107-

143.

Mittleman, J. H. (2000). Globalization: Captors and Captive. Third

World Quarterly, 21(6), 917-929.

Morici, P. (1992). Free trade with Mexico. Foreign Policy, 87, 88-104.

Naim, M. (2009). Globalization. Foreign Policy, (171), 28-30, 32, 34.

NAFTA at 10: Press, Potental, and Precedents. (2002). Woodrow

Wilson international Center for Scholars.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/NAFT

A_short.pdf

Nichol’s, M. P. (1987). Aristotle’s defense of rhetoric. The

Journal of Politics, 49(3), 657-677.

Skonieczny, A. (2010). Interpreting inevitability: Globalization

and resistance. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 35(1), 1-27.

World Trade Organization. GATT and the Goods Council.

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/gatt_e/gatt_e.htm

World Trade Organization. GATT Members: The 128 countries that had signed

GATT by 1994. http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/gattmem_e.htm