Actually, None of Them Should Shut Up

You can tell we’re moving into an election season by how quickly recorded gaffes by public figures go viral. 

One of the more entertaining recent episodes involved Elena Poniatowska, the revered journalist and author who almost single-handedly exposed the truth behind the 1968 government massacre of university students. She was chatting two weeks ago with a gathering of locals in the indigenous Oaxaca city of Juchitán, which was hit hard by the Sept. 7 8.2 quake.

Elena is much admired in Juchitán and feels comfortably at home there. Which may be why she thought nothing of observing that when Tina Modotti (the 20th century photographer of whom Poniatowska has written) was shooting in that area, the women were generally thin. Now, however, after the beverage of choice shifted from pulque to beer, they’re more large-bellied.

This wasn’t meant as an insult. Physical characteristics serve as neutral nicknames; if El Chapo was ever offended at being called Shorty, we’d know about it. But the phrase Elena used for immensely pot-bellied — “panzonas inmensas” — could also be heard as “panzonas y mensas.” Which means paunchy and slow-witted.

The ensuing flood of internet commentary, almost all of it from outside Juchitán, offers an interesting data point for social researchers. Curiously, those who admire Elena heard panzonas inmensas. Those who despise her heard panzonas y mensas. 

The latter communicated their feelings in the accepted style of internet comments, favoring invective over explanation: “The old pendeja has no respect. “She’s wrinkled, senile and conceited.” “Pinche polaca.”

So let’s amend the above adjective “revered” to “revered by most.” Elena has some strikes against her in the minds of the bigots — she’s foreign-born, on in years, and female. But the root of the opprobrium is what it’s been for more than a dozen years: She’s an unwavering supporter of Andrés Manuel López Obrador for president.

Which makes her a target for personal insults, though not as much as AMLO himself. He’s the frontrunner now, so despite plenty of legitimate political arguments against him (Palling around with the CNTE thugs? Come on.) expect more of the strategy of personal attacks that worked so well over the last two election cycles. 

My favorite from 2006 was the faux indignation we were supposed to feel after AMLO suggested that the incumbent, Vicente Fox, who had been overtly (and illegally) campaigning against him, should shush. His actual words were “Cállate, chachalaca,” a homespun avian reference at once alliterative and rhythmic.

But also disrespectful to a sitting president, which his opponents reminded us of right up to election day. So given the minuscule margin of victory that year, a man who had been called a danger to the nation, a clone of Hugo Chávez, a promoter of violence, a false messiah and a traitor may have lost the presidency for being so rude as to evoke a squawking bird. 

Wonder what’s in store for us this time around?