by William Lady

I used to dwell on the differences among people until I understood what Jonathan Russell, a Honduran radio commentator back in the 1960s, meant by coyotes from the same hill. Annoyed by the endless mutual accusations between the local political parties, he would cry out, “nationalists, liberals… but senores, they are all coyotes from the hill!”

Jonathan Russell was a short, skinny man with a big black drooping moustache, piercing eyes, and plenty valor. To be a frank critic of politics in those parts was not good for your health and, as could be expected, his days as a radio commentator were cut short. It was too bad that he called the American ambassador a liar one day. His journalist license was pulled, and he had to find other means of livelihood.

I don’t know what became of Jonathan Russell, or where his name came from originally. The last time I saw him, he was piloting a Cessna 180 out of Coxen Hole in the Bay Islands. Mind you, we did not pronounce his name as it sounds in English but, rather, in the Spanish version with the accent in the last syllable of both names: Jonatan Roosel. Perhaps he was a descendant of American immigrants, like the Williams family that descended from a confederate soldier who emigrated from the United States after the Civil War.

There are many such descendants in Honduras. An exception is the case of William Walker, the filibuster from Tennessee who died there without issue. The British Navy handed Walker to the Honduran authorities a few years after his defeat in the Nicaraguan civil wars of the 1850s. Alas, he was placed before a firing squad all too quickly. Had he been given the time to ask a proper lady for marriage, I have no doubt that he would have lived to old age. His name, though, still lives on as part of the Honduran elementary school history curriculum and on his tomb in the old port of Trujillo.

The perennial fisticuffs between the democrats and republicans here in the States remind me of Jonatan Roosel and his nationalist and liberal coyotes. How right he was, politicians indeed are all coyotes from the same hill. With the passage of years, however, I have come to understand that this assertion does not apply only to politicians. It is just that, as people, politicians are not exempt from the weaknesses and shortcomings of human nature. In the final analysis we are all coyotes from the same hill, and the ruckus of politics merely reflects this condition.

Problems often appear to be different because people look at things through their own cultural prisms. But the problems that beset humanity are surprisingly similar once you realize that the differences are ones of style or expression, and not of substance. I used to wonder, for instance, about differences among the forms of social expression. In Latin America, people are generally trained to be gracious and polite when dealing with peers, and Americans are considered to be brusque and rude.

There are good reasons why these cultural forms of expression are different. In the United States, one reason is that we have an adversarial legal system, which requires a vigorous, direct, and in your face approach to things. I could go on with a list of explanations, but it is not necessary to dwell on the subject. It is more important to understand the substance of human actions rather than the forms or styles of expression. If you are not careful about your business, you can get politely screwed in Latin America or you can get rudely screwed in the United States. While we can argue that it is nicer to get screwed politely, the truth is that you are just as screwed either way.

The same reasoning applies to democrats and republicans, liberals and conservatives, capitalists and communists, Sandinistas and Contras, and the like. As regular folks, we need to be mindful of our personal business and well being, and we need to understand the differences between style and substance. Ultimately, it makes no difference whether we get liberally or conservatively screwed.

The fact that we are a great nation is not based on ideology or political doctrine. Rather, it is based on a simple but brilliant institutional scheme that does not allow anyone or any one group to acquire too much power. Freedom itself is so often idealized in intellectual or political terms. But freedom is, at its root, a plain concept. Freedom exists only in those parts where no one can acquire a preponderance of power.

For many years, I have seen the same mistake repeated again and again in Latin America. You hear about young army officers upending the old, corrupt guard; or the Sandinista robin hoods dispatching the Somocistas; or the liberals, conservatives, socialists, social democrats, Christian democrats, Leninists, Trotskyites, Maoists, or Bolivarians heralding new eras of justice and prosperity. It never happens, of course, because they have failed to build the proper foundation of all free and stable nations. That is, to build an institutional framework where no one can grab hold of too much power.

The same problem exists in some local areas in the United States, although perhaps not to the same extreme. When I first arrived in New Orleans from Honduras, fresh out of high school, I was given some advice by an older and experienced man. Whatever you do, he recommended, do not, I repeat, do not register to vote as a republican in this town. If you do, you will never accomplish anything here. You can vote republican if you want, but make sure to register as a democrat.

Thirty five years later, New Orleans still has a form of government that can only be described as a party dictatorship, similar to the Institutional Revolutionary Party that held near absolute political power in Mexico for generations. The results are most predictable. Similarly to Mexico, New Orleans has been mired in a corrupt and unjust condition for many years and its regular people have suffered greatly.

Yet, we cannot conclude that the results would be any different if the republicans had held unchecked power over New Orleans for so many years. The results would have been the same, because it does not matter who or what holds power. The crux of the matter is that no one, or no one group, should hold excessive power. In the case of New Orleans, the bulk of its problems will be resolved only when it allows the democratic and republican forces to clash in heated battle, giving honest choices to the people, and forcing each other to toe the line.

Would things be any better if Southerners held a preponderance of power in this country? This question reminds me of a story about my great grandfather. One day, he walked into the house after having an argument with a man, muttering, “I hate them narrow eyed, narrow hipped sons of bitches.” To which my great grandmother responded, “Paw, your hips look none too wide from where I sit.”

We live in interesting times today. Should we be democrats, or should we be republicans? It is a tough question to answer because we are at war. At this time, we can’t help but to vote for the party that knows how to deal with the uncertainties, the mistakes, and the sacrifices of real warfare. How can we vote for a party whose notion of warfare is to wallop Christmas trees and boy scouts with stacks of legal papers?

Beyond that, things are not so clear. The Democratic Party, once the party of the people, has been taken over by those who have forgotten where they come from. The sons and daughters of sturdy workers, soldiers and farmers, went off to New York City and became flimsy, senseless, and prone to the vapors. Over in La California, the descendants of jugglers, songsters, and belly dancers, now wealthy beyond word and reason, petulantly instruct us on how to handle our business.

Democrats no longer know what the American Revolution was about. The European nobilities, English, French, and Spanish, viewed us as a collection of dunces and peasants. They were so highly educated and refined, so blinded by their own brilliance, that they could not grasp what a nation of commoners was destined to accomplish with its new form of government.

We have no high classes in the United States. A republic, such as ours, is the form of government of the middle class. To have a high class as defined by its economic, social, and political meanings, in other words a noble class, we would need to have a different form of government such as a monarchy or an aristocracy.

Thus far, we have not become a monarchy or an aristocracy. Yet, it is easy to acquire airs of privilege and superiority when we come across a bit of money or professional success, even in a nation of commoners such as ours. We have rich folks around Boston, Connecticut, and New York who fancy funny hats and English riding saddles. Coming from solid American stock, however, they comprise a middle class with lots of money and not a high class in the proper sense of the word.

That is precisely the problem with the democratic leadership of our day. They have made some money and a name for themselves, and are now acting like delicate counts and baronesses. God forbid they come down to the provinces, lest they swoon at the sight of common folk.

Jest aside, the present condition of the Democratic Party is a serious problem for the country. It is often argued that the Republican Party is the party of the rich and powerful, and in many ways it is. The real question is, if the Republican Party is the party of the rich, and the Democratic Party has become the party of intellectual nobles, who is looking after the interests of the regular people?

It is not an idle question, but one that portends ugly consequences for our nation. On the republican side, what does it mean if we completely do away with the estate tax, for example? Will this lead to economic progress for the nation? Or will it lead us to become a quasi feudal nation peopled largely by serfs? There are varied reasons why estate taxation developed the way it did, including a need to prevent the concentration of unreasonable personal power in the process of dynastic wealth building.

These kinds of questions get thorough consideration only when true and representative political forces square into battle. In the course of politics, there is nothing wrong with a party representing the interests of the rich and powerful, because the powerful are part of the body politic and they are entitled to representation like everyone else. On the other hand, the regular people must also be well represented in the political process, for reasons that are obvious. Good politics is not a matter of the powerful abusing the people, or of a mob descending on the rich. It is a matter of maintaining a reasonable amount of fairness, justice, and freedom for all.

Which of the two is the party of the people? Judging from the assortment of distinguished coyotes in these here hills, it is hard to tell. The only logical conclusion may be that neither party presently represents the regular people. Mr. Bush cuts a fine figure in war, but are he and his backers really looking after our interests in the long run? The democrats, on the other hand, have gone AWOL down a cerebral deep end. Awash in half-baked existential anguish, utopian fevers, and double talk, it is impossible to tell what they stand for.

And, so, again, we do live in interesting times today. We have the son of a fine Eastern family, from the land of funny riding hats no less, who acts and walks like a good Texas hombre. Then we have the bewildered descendants of workers and farmers who now frolic in the perfumed salons of Manhattan and academia. What will become of us? Who knows, but like my great grandmother would have said, things look none too good from where I sit.