Clearly, she is not wanted. She probably knows that. But she has very thick skin and does her best to ignore the opposition. She has a job to do—which is to sell vaccines—one that was assigned to her. However implausible her views and position are, she has no choice but to stick with it.
It’s hardly the first time in history. In every age, we find leaders who are placed in positions of power that they gradually come to discover are untenable.
I was blessed to spend most of the day yesterday at Chapultepec Castle in Mexico City, surely one of the most spectacular experiences available in the New World. The mighty structure began being built in 1790 to serve as the home of the Viceroy of the Spanish Empire that had conquered this land three hundred years earlier. The conquerors had only then come around to displacing the ruins of the home of the previous conqueror, the head of the Aztec Empire, which had previously displaced the Mayan Empire.
My personal draw to the place relates to what happened 170 years later. The Spanish Empire was in decline. Mexico had just experienced a revolution that brought to power populist native leader Benito Juarez, who was the favorite. No question that he was head of state, having inherited a social, cultural, architectural infrastructure that had been profoundly impacted by Spanish influence.
Among his first actions as head of state was to completely ignore the debts that had piled up under Spanish rule, mostly owed to the European banking establishment which had become decisively influential in political affairs, more so than even the Pope. Indeed the world was changing. Not everyone was happy about it.
The question in European circles concerned whether and to what extent they would tolerate this kind of democratic populism in Mexico and the old empire generally. Their answer (very much influenced by Napoleon III) was a transfer of power to the replacement, the Austro-Hungarian court under the control of the Habsburg family.
Vienna was the center, probably the most civilized city ruled by the most civilized dynasty on planet earth. The sheer arrogance of power is revealed in the thought that it could alone regain control of a post-revolution Mexico.
The question concerned whom they would send to gain control over Mexico. The answer came in the form of a perfectly groomed and highly educated relative of Franz Joseph, a descendant of Charles V, and arguably the pretender to head the Holy Roman Empire. He was Maximilian I (Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph Maria von Habsburg-Lothringen), married to the beautiful Charlotte of Belgium. Together they set sail with their entire court to the Americas. He arrived in Mexico City and was astonished at this castle. There he set up shop and went about not only restarting debt payments but also improving the sanitation of the city.
However, Maximilian I was no reactionary, much less a reliable servant of the ruling class. He developed a romantic attachment to local and native culture. He became a patron of local artists, and sponsored events and festivals celebrating the greatness of the land. He issued edicts that guaranteed Mexicans’ equality before the law and freedom of speech. He defended the rights of natives.
He and his wonderful wife had no reason to think their rule was unstable.
Two problems were developing. The old Spanish-heritage ruling class began to despise his deference to the people and his liberalism generally. From the other side, there was an even more serious problem. He was not actually the ruler of the country. Bonito Juarez was. Everyone knew it, everyone but Maximilian himself.
Juarez had watched the unfolding of the Civil War and its end in the United States and was said to be a great admirer of Lincoln, thus eliciting support from the U.S. Pressed between two factions of opposition, Maximilian’s rule became profoundly untenable after only two years. He ended up being arrested and ultimately executed. He did not go willingly.
He was a tragic figure in many ways, likely unaware that the great monarchical forces of Europe no longer had the power or influence they once had, and began to operate mainly as a propaganda cover for more powerful banking families.
After his death, the castle was later taken over by democratic forces, and improved further. Today it stands as a remarkable museum with much of it refurbished to show what life was like in the court of the great emperor, including a carriage straight out of Cinderella that carried Maximilian and the Empress to balls on special occasions.
I’ve rarely been in a physical structure that brought such a rich history to life in such prescient and deeply emotional ways. We must also admire the way its current caretakers have perfectly maintained the gardens and the entire infrastructure. As with most such monuments and museums in Mexico, visitors are permitted liberal access to all rooms and treasures, providing the experience of a lifetime.
Clearly, the death of Maximilian was a terrible tragedy of history but it is hard to see how it could have ended otherwise. Statecraft in all times is a dangerous game that must be played to win. The losers do not fare well, not in those times or our own. He was a completely different sort of ruler than, for example, Ceausescu of Romania but they both met the same fate, death at the hands of the successor government.
All of which gives rise to reflection on what it means to exercise power without the people’s consent in ways that defy all plausibility. Let’s just be honest: most of Washington operates exactly this way today. It is not as easy now as it was then to displace untenable rulers because these days, they all enjoy the vague cover of democratic legitimacy. But does this really make them more legitimate than a foreign monarch assigned as a matter of birth to collect debts from the people that the people themselves never contracted?
Mandy Cohen—serving not banking but pharma—and her cohorts in many agencies can put on smiling faces and speak in populist and compassionate language. But everyone today sees through every bit of it. The solution will not be as dramatic as it was in times past. The erosion of public support for any government leader can still be just as decisive over the long term. The power and prestige of these people is not long for this world.
