How the world is reacting to Obama's reelection

7. Mexico

Leading up to the United States presidential election, Latin Americans, like Latinos in the United States, widely favored the reelection of President Obama. But Monitor writer Sara Miller Llana reports the results themselves were generally met with a collective shrug. 

Of all Latin Americans, Mexicans are perhaps most affected by US policy. The country shares a 2,000-mile border, a drug and weapons problem, and booming trade with its northern neighbor.

According to a poll before Tuesday’s election by the firm Mitofsky in Mexico City, 1 in 3 Mexicans said the election in the US was important. And they, like Latinos in the US who helped clinch Obama’s victory with record turnout, say they favor Obama. Thirty six percent of those surveyed said they wanted Obama to win, compared to just 6 percent who said they supported Romney. 

“Mexicans favor Democrats, they believe Mexico will be better with a Democrat in power,” says Analicia Ruiz, an expert on US-Mexican relations at Anahuac University in Mexico City. “There is a fear that Republicans will take a harder line on foreign affairs, such as more vigilance at the border.”

...

But belief that Democrats will be better on migration is not based on evidence, Ms. Ruiz says. With the exception of the temporary reprieve that Obama granted this summer to young undocumented migrants brought to the US as children, Obama has been unable to push through any meaningful reform on immigration. His administration has also been behind record deportations of undocumented immigrants.

“In reality Obama hasn’t done anything for Mexico,” Ruiz says.

7 of 11

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.