Perot’s Debate Statements Strike Raw Nerve in Mexico : Reaction: Blunt exchange impresses many, but Texan comes under fire for what is seen as stereotypical descriptions of poverty.

For viewers here, it was an odd spectacle: A Texas billionaire, seemingly preoccupied by poverty in Mexico, sparring with a U.S. vice president boasting of bustling markets south of the border.

“The Debate of the Century,” is how the confrontation between Vice President Al Gore and Ross Perot was billed on television here.

While Gore was widely judged the winner, a central subtext emerged: condemnation of what many considered Perot’s stereotypical descriptions of Mexican poverty.

“Perot spoke from a typical protectionist perspective, spiced with doses of racism,” said Bertha Lujan, a labor leader who is one of the coordinators of the movement here opposing the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Though relatively few Mexicans watched the program--which aired only on pay television--extensive excerpts and lively analyses dominated print and broadcast coverage. The debate prompted wide-ranging discussions, particularly among lawmakers, business executives, journalists and others who follow NAFTA closely.

“Gore Defeats Ross Perot,” said the front-page headline of the daily El Universal, reflecting a widespread sentiment in both the pro- and anti-NAFTA camps.

Most seemed to judge the contest as a boost for NAFTA, the centerpiece of Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari’s economic recovery plan. Authorities here, seldom exposed to such freewheeling debates, breathed a sigh of relief at Gore’s performance.

NAFTA is generally seen here as having broad economic and political ramifications. Mexican financial markets, jittery as the pact’s fate hangs in the balance, rebounded Wednesday from earlier declines.

Though Perot stressed the plight of underpaid Mexican laborers, leftist critics here immediately disassociated themselves from his position. Their principal concerns--among them equitable treatment of Mexican immigrant laborers in the United States and improved protection for vulnerable Mexican industries--were largely unregistered Tuesday.

“For us, the debate was incomplete and false,” said Hector de la Cueva, a sociologist who also coordinates anti-NAFTA forces. “We’re against the treaty, but we’re also completely against Perot’s racist characterizations of Mexico.”

In particular, Perot’s decision to flash photographs of Mexicans living in cardboard hovels grated on nationalist nerves. Observers offered a parallel, hypothetical scenario to explain their anger: Picture a scene, they said, in which Mexican commentators opposing NAFTA displayed images of the homeless in Los Angeles or other U.S. cities to illustrate their disdain for life in north of the border.

An editorial Wednesday in the government-owned daily El Nacional began: “Last night, Mexico was the object of a long series of calumnies and lies vented by the Texas politician Ross Perot, who painted a false picture of reality in Mexico, based on an intentional distortion. . . . “

Nonetheless, observers from all perspectives seemed impressed that an opposition point of view received such prominent consideration. Many noted their contrasting predicament: In Mexico, a nation where a ruling elite dictates policy, discussion about NAFTA’s drawbacks has been largely absent from television and radio.

Columnist Rafael Moya Garcia wrote Wednesday that a debate like the Gore-Perot session would be “unthinkable” in Mexico, where “a small group . . . thinks and decides for all of us.”

The debaters’ blunt assessments of the fragile state of democracy in Mexico also hit home.

“They’re both right about that; there is no democracy in Mexico,” said Martin Longoria, a neighborhood activist who opposes NAFTA.