Governments Are Mirrors of Societies; Why societies produce the leaders they produce — and why North America cannot afford another generation of pretending.
Great essay! I think the lesson for today is how both countries can reward the hard work and brilliance of its people. Rather than, in the case of the United States, being extractive of the middle class, and in Mexico getting the government out of wealth distribution to enable their own people to have agency in building wealth.
You've put your finger on the asymmetry that makes this comparison so instructive. The two failures run in opposite directions: one system extracts from people who already built something, the other prevents people from building in the first place.
Both arrive at the same destination — a shrinking middle class — but through entirely different routes.
What strikes me is that in both cases, the state has positioned itself between the citizen and their potential.
In the U.S., through regulatory and financial structures that increasingly favor existing capital over new entrants. Although we all know that the US has already given its people the platform, it just need to re-adjust.
In Mexico, There is just no excuse to continue in this system that clearly does not work. Through a political economy where access to markets, contracts, and legal protection has historically depended on proximity to power rather than merit or effort.
This has taken a toll on our nations economic potential, limited the capacity and probabilities for Mexicans to be wealthy and been the cause of massive migration.
The shared lesson you identify is real: the measure of a healthy society is whether it compounds the talent and work of ordinary people — or slowly bleeds it.
Neither country is doing that well enough right now. Two highly different scenarios but worth putting together because of all that we share in one continent. That tension is exactly what the North American conversation needs to be about.
More on this when we get to the economic architecture of the continent.
This thread is already shaping what that piece needs to say.
The strongest insight here is that the real border is not only geographic but institutional: two societies separated by different expectations about whether rules will be applied, whether public order will be maintained, and whether authority can be trusted.
I would only sharpen the mirror metaphor. Governments do not merely reflect societies; they also train them. Over time, institutions teach citizens what to expect. If rules are applied consistently, people organize themselves around law. If rules are negotiable, people organize themselves around negotiation, favor, avoidance, or survival.
That is why the comparison between the United States and Mexico is so useful. The question is not whether one people is more civic than another. It is how each system produced different expectations — and how those expectations then reproduced the system. The hard work of renewal is not just choosing better leaders, but rebuilding the civic expectations that make better leadership possible.
You've named something essential that the piece left implicit — institutions don't just reflect civic culture, they manufacture it. The feedback loop you describe is the real mechanism: consistent enforcement teaches people to organize around law; inconsistent enforcement teaches them to organize around relationships, leverage, and survival.
After enough generations, the behavior looks like culture when it is actually a rational adaptation to the system that was built.
That distinction matters enormously for reform.
It shifts the question from "how do we change the people?" to "how do we change what the system makes rational?" And that is a harder, slower, more honest project than most political movements are willing to admit.
On Canada I promise to deliver on this assessment.
You'll find a third mirror, and in some ways the most uncomfortable one for the United States.
Canada shares the Anglo/European legal tradition, the federal structure, and the continental geography, yet it has made systematically different choices about public institutions, social trust, and the relationship between the individual and the state.
The comparison forces a question the U.S. often avoids: if the differences with Mexico can be explained by history and development, what explains the differences with Canada?
That analysis is coming. I'm glad you're here for it.
Great essay! I think the lesson for today is how both countries can reward the hard work and brilliance of its people. Rather than, in the case of the United States, being extractive of the middle class, and in Mexico getting the government out of wealth distribution to enable their own people to have agency in building wealth.
Fernando,
Thank you!!
You've put your finger on the asymmetry that makes this comparison so instructive. The two failures run in opposite directions: one system extracts from people who already built something, the other prevents people from building in the first place.
Both arrive at the same destination — a shrinking middle class — but through entirely different routes.
What strikes me is that in both cases, the state has positioned itself between the citizen and their potential.
In the U.S., through regulatory and financial structures that increasingly favor existing capital over new entrants. Although we all know that the US has already given its people the platform, it just need to re-adjust.
In Mexico, There is just no excuse to continue in this system that clearly does not work. Through a political economy where access to markets, contracts, and legal protection has historically depended on proximity to power rather than merit or effort.
This has taken a toll on our nations economic potential, limited the capacity and probabilities for Mexicans to be wealthy and been the cause of massive migration.
The shared lesson you identify is real: the measure of a healthy society is whether it compounds the talent and work of ordinary people — or slowly bleeds it.
Neither country is doing that well enough right now. Two highly different scenarios but worth putting together because of all that we share in one continent. That tension is exactly what the North American conversation needs to be about.
More on this when we get to the economic architecture of the continent.
This thread is already shaping what that piece needs to say.
I appreciate your comments and time!
Thank you so much for your detailed reply!
Your comments are very important to us. It helps us understand where people are at in their thinking about our continent.
Eduardo Joffroy
The strongest insight here is that the real border is not only geographic but institutional: two societies separated by different expectations about whether rules will be applied, whether public order will be maintained, and whether authority can be trusted.
I would only sharpen the mirror metaphor. Governments do not merely reflect societies; they also train them. Over time, institutions teach citizens what to expect. If rules are applied consistently, people organize themselves around law. If rules are negotiable, people organize themselves around negotiation, favor, avoidance, or survival.
That is why the comparison between the United States and Mexico is so useful. The question is not whether one people is more civic than another. It is how each system produced different expectations — and how those expectations then reproduced the system. The hard work of renewal is not just choosing better leaders, but rebuilding the civic expectations that make better leadership possible.
I look forward to your analysis of Canada.
Allen,
You've named something essential that the piece left implicit — institutions don't just reflect civic culture, they manufacture it. The feedback loop you describe is the real mechanism: consistent enforcement teaches people to organize around law; inconsistent enforcement teaches them to organize around relationships, leverage, and survival.
After enough generations, the behavior looks like culture when it is actually a rational adaptation to the system that was built.
That distinction matters enormously for reform.
It shifts the question from "how do we change the people?" to "how do we change what the system makes rational?" And that is a harder, slower, more honest project than most political movements are willing to admit.
On Canada I promise to deliver on this assessment.
You'll find a third mirror, and in some ways the most uncomfortable one for the United States.
Canada shares the Anglo/European legal tradition, the federal structure, and the continental geography, yet it has made systematically different choices about public institutions, social trust, and the relationship between the individual and the state.
The comparison forces a question the U.S. often avoids: if the differences with Mexico can be explained by history and development, what explains the differences with Canada?
That analysis is coming. I'm glad you're here for it.