Blab Politics
Eve Ottenbergs CounterPunch Defense of AMLO and Sheinbaum Faces Data-Driven Critique
Eve Ottenberg’s recent piece in CounterPunch argues that former Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) and his successor, President Claudia Sheinbaum, represent a “socialist with Mexican characteristics” and dismisses earlier CounterPunch criticism of the administration’s cash‑transfer and minimum‑wage programs as “silly.” The article insists that lifting 13.4 million people out of poverty is a positive achievement that should not be questioned.
Ottenberg’s defense rests on the idea that AMLO’s social programs are “unmitigated good.” She cites the 2018–2022 period in which the share of the Mexican population living in poverty fell from 41.9 % to 36.3 %, celebrating the decline. However, the same period saw the absolute number of people in extreme poverty rise by roughly 400 000, and the proportion of Mexicans unable to access health services double from 16 % to 39 %—about 30 million people—according to the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI). A study by the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) found that cash transfers played a minimal role in the modest poverty reductions, attributing most gains to post‑COVID income recovery.
Ottenberg also references a 2026 Oxfam Mexico report titled “Oligarchy or Democracy.” The report notes that the richest 1 % of Mexicans hold 35 % of the country’s total income and 40 % of its private wealth. It records that Carlos Slim’s fortune increased by 66 % since 2020, reaching $107.1 billion. The report further reports that the Mexican state allocates less than 4 pesos of national wealth to public investment, while the private sector invests less than 8 pesos. Ottenberg’s article does not address these findings.
In 2018, AMLO created a Business Advisory Council composed of Mexico’s wealthiest men, headed by millionaire Alfonso Romo, who served as chief of the Presidential Office. The council’s existence is cited by Ottenberg as evidence of a “socialist paradise” built on elite cooperation.
The economic context has deteriorated since AMLO’s presidency ended in September 2024. U.S. tariffs, the war against Iran, and a depreciating currency have produced recessionary pressures, with growth projected below 1 %. Mexico’s credit rating has been downgraded and public debt is rising. In April 2026, President Sheinbaum announced spending cuts to maintain fuel subsidies, a move that coincided with a decline in her approval rating.
Ottenberg’s framing extends beyond AMLO. She has previously described other “pink tide” governments—such as Venezuela’s Chavistas and Bolivia’s Morales—as socialist, while acknowledging that social welfare programs alone do not constitute socialism. She argues that capitalism is acceptable so long as it presents a polite face that suppresses class struggle.
The article also references Sheinbaum’s deployment of thousands of military personnel at the U.S. border, the detention of migrants, and the acceptance of deportations of non‑Mexicans. Ottenberg characterizes these actions as “handling matters as diplomatically as possible.” The piece omits discussion of Sheinbaum’s broader regional policies, including her stance on Cuba’s fuel embargo.
Critics of Ottenberg’s piece argue that it reduces complex socioeconomic dynamics to a narrative of benevolent rulers, downplays class struggle, and ignores the concentration of wealth and limited impact of social programs. The article’s presentation of AMLO and Sheinbaum as “socialism with Mexican characteristics” is not supported by the data cited in INEGI, UNAM, or Oxfam reports.
The current situation in Mexico remains contested. Social programs continue to be evaluated against economic performance, while the government faces pressure to balance spending cuts with the need to maintain social safety nets. Upcoming legislative actions and policy decisions by President Sheinbaum will shape the trajectory of Mexico’s social and economic landscape. The debate over the nature of Mexico’s social policies—whether they represent genuine socialist transformation or merely regulated capitalism—continues to be a focal point for scholars, activists, and policymakers alike.
Ottenberg’s defense rests on the idea that AMLO’s social programs are “unmitigated good.” She cites the 2018–2022 period in which the share of the Mexican population living in poverty fell from 41.9 % to 36.3 %, celebrating the decline. However, the same period saw the absolute number of people in extreme poverty rise by roughly 400 000, and the proportion of Mexicans unable to access health services double from 16 % to 39 %—about 30 million people—according to the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI). A study by the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) found that cash transfers played a minimal role in the modest poverty reductions, attributing most gains to post‑COVID income recovery.
Ottenberg also references a 2026 Oxfam Mexico report titled “Oligarchy or Democracy.” The report notes that the richest 1 % of Mexicans hold 35 % of the country’s total income and 40 % of its private wealth. It records that Carlos Slim’s fortune increased by 66 % since 2020, reaching $107.1 billion. The report further reports that the Mexican state allocates less than 4 pesos of national wealth to public investment, while the private sector invests less than 8 pesos. Ottenberg’s article does not address these findings.
In 2018, AMLO created a Business Advisory Council composed of Mexico’s wealthiest men, headed by millionaire Alfonso Romo, who served as chief of the Presidential Office. The council’s existence is cited by Ottenberg as evidence of a “socialist paradise” built on elite cooperation.
The economic context has deteriorated since AMLO’s presidency ended in September 2024. U.S. tariffs, the war against Iran, and a depreciating currency have produced recessionary pressures, with growth projected below 1 %. Mexico’s credit rating has been downgraded and public debt is rising. In April 2026, President Sheinbaum announced spending cuts to maintain fuel subsidies, a move that coincided with a decline in her approval rating.
Ottenberg’s framing extends beyond AMLO. She has previously described other “pink tide” governments—such as Venezuela’s Chavistas and Bolivia’s Morales—as socialist, while acknowledging that social welfare programs alone do not constitute socialism. She argues that capitalism is acceptable so long as it presents a polite face that suppresses class struggle.
The article also references Sheinbaum’s deployment of thousands of military personnel at the U.S. border, the detention of migrants, and the acceptance of deportations of non‑Mexicans. Ottenberg characterizes these actions as “handling matters as diplomatically as possible.” The piece omits discussion of Sheinbaum’s broader regional policies, including her stance on Cuba’s fuel embargo.
Critics of Ottenberg’s piece argue that it reduces complex socioeconomic dynamics to a narrative of benevolent rulers, downplays class struggle, and ignores the concentration of wealth and limited impact of social programs. The article’s presentation of AMLO and Sheinbaum as “socialism with Mexican characteristics” is not supported by the data cited in INEGI, UNAM, or Oxfam reports.
The current situation in Mexico remains contested. Social programs continue to be evaluated against economic performance, while the government faces pressure to balance spending cuts with the need to maintain social safety nets. Upcoming legislative actions and policy decisions by President Sheinbaum will shape the trajectory of Mexico’s social and economic landscape. The debate over the nature of Mexico’s social policies—whether they represent genuine socialist transformation or merely regulated capitalism—continues to be a focal point for scholars, activists, and policymakers alike.
