Editor, Jewishsightseeing

I am a history teacher at the Bishop's School in La Jolla. Currently I am reading Enrique Krauze's Mexico: Biography of Power (1997). When I saw that Calles lived for five years here in San Diego I googled the info and found your August 2006 article on his house. With all due respect, I think your source material (Tuck) is more than a little biased.

Calles was no doubt the most anti-clerical of Mexican leaders and deserves much criticism for his violent and autocratic ways. Yet, he was also the person that built the Partido Revolucionario Institucional out of the ruins of a Revolution that was seemingly incapable of establishing stable
government. This is no small accomplishment given the extraordinary chaos of the period 1910-1934. While the PRI was not democratic, it was liberal and nationalist in nature. It attempted to modernize Mexico through state leadership by the party. Public schools, the Bank of Mexico, rural credit societies, transportation projects, labor unions and the interests of capital all fell under the patronizing umbrella of the party led by Calles. The most important legacy though was Calles devised a way to transfer power peacefully and for the revolutionary generals to realize that rebellions against the state were doomed to failure. 

The source material you cite proclaims that Lazaro Cardenas was the true reformer. This is a distinction that is overstated. I think if you consider the Cardenas was appointed by Calles, implemented his program through the party created by Calles and did so without major opposition
(due to Calles having ended the major rebellions) that his legacy as a reformer is largely shaped by his moral and political decisions regarding agricultural reform and the nationalization of the oil companies. Neither of these decisions turned out so well for the future economic development
of Mexico. Furthermore, Cardenas, if held to the same standard as Calles, was also anti-clerical. As the governor of Michoacan he implemented Calles' anti-clerical programs.

The dispute between Calles and Cardenas in 1936 was a necessary one. Ultimately the President of Mexico could not simply report to his predecessor or the head of the party. The dispute was only secondarily about the issue of whether socialism was the best path for Mexico's development. The anecdote about Calles being found with Mein Kampf just shows that too many people in 1936 had surrendered their belief in liberal democracy and capitalism due to the Depression. Some made mistakes to the right (Calles), some to the left (Cardenas). The extent of Hitler's and Stalin's crimes were not yet apparent.

As an interesting aside, Krauze's book makes clear that Calles traveled to Europe as president-elect in 1924 and welcomed immigrants to Mexico. While the US was closing its doors to immigrants from central and eastern Europe, Calles explicitly welcomed immigrants, including Jews. The origins of Mexico's Ashkenazi community is tied to this modernizing initiative.


Richard del Rio
San Diego