Argentina is a country of monarchical instincts in which many who had fantasized about dethroning King Javier are already trying to convince him that they are truly loyal subjects that he can trust. The failure of the rebellion against them forced not only the provincial barons and those legislators who answer to them, but also many others, to review their options.
Among them are those who did not take long to understand that, for now, it would not be in their best interest to bet on the amorphous Peronist tidal wave whose leaders have not been able to come up with an acceptable alternative to the “course” proposed by the national government, but they know that if they decide that it would be in their interest to once again be the movement that supported Carlos Menem, they could end up occupying uncomfortable places in the caboose of the new ruling party. On the other hand, if they choose to directly oppose the government’s strategy, they will be accused of wanting Argentina to remain a kleptocracy dominated by a “caste” that is as corrupt as it is inoperative.
When the Milei government seemed determined to self-destruct, obstructionism made some sense, but since the night of October 26 it has harmed those who put obstacles in the way of the government. Although the euphoria that took over Javier and, above all, Karina Milei when they found out that, far from suffering a painful defeat, they had achieved what almost everyone would take for an epic triumph, is beginning to fade, they still believe they are in a state of grace. Like many others both here and abroad, Milei blames Peronism, or, if you prefer, the attitudes it promotes, for the country’s calamitous performance since World War II. He wants to consign it to the past. Although he has not yet been able to convert the congenital Peronists of the most depressed areas of the Buenos Aires suburbs into libertarians, it would not be surprising if he had better luck with the leaders.
The thing is that, for several generations, Peronism has been an association of mutual aid in which the personal opinions of the companions were unimportant; As long as they were willing to respect the line laid down by the current leader, fascists and socialists, conservatives and progressives could coexist. Although sometimes the excesses of some unleashed bloody internal wars that left the country in mourning, for decades the different Peronist factions have managed to coexist in peace; They knew that conflicts would distance everyone from power, which for them is the only goal they have in common.
Well, it would seem that, thanks to Cristina’s tribulations, Peronism, a success-oriented movement par excellence, is shrinking rapidly. It no longer serves as a vehicle for aspirants to climb positions in the political world. It is for this reason that the most unprejudiced feel attracted to La Libertad Avanza which, in addition to having been strengthened by the results of the legislative elections, is still in formation and therefore can allow in people who have played roles in other parties without worrying too much about their ideological trajectory.
This being the case, it would not be surprising at all if in the coming months milleism grew a lot, incorporating into its ranks ideological nomads who are looking for expectant places in “the caste.” After all, both here and in the rest of the world, there is a shortage of professional politicians who put the principles to which they claim to cling before the search for power and the advantages, whether material or social, that usually accompany it.
The same as in all other democratic countries, and also in many that are not, in Argentina the old political maps have already lost validity without the new ones having yet been drawn that, it is hoped, will serve to guide us. Among those who have benefited the most from the vacuum that has occurred is Milei; Armed with forceful certainties at a time when other leaders do not know how to hide the doubts that eat away at them, the self-proclaimed anarcho-capitalist managed to jump from virtual anonymity to the presidency of the Republic in an astonishingly short period of time.
Will the socioeconomic recipe that Milei is applying work? While it is unlikely that all the measures he has in mind will deliver the positive results he envisions, the current consensus is that, broadly speaking, the reforms he is pushing are clearly necessary to clear the path to sustainable growth.
It’s not being easy for him. Over the years, in the name of social justice or the supposedly strategic interests of the national industry, politicians of various stripes dedicated themselves to building the many barriers that Federico Sturzenegger is trying to tear down. However, there is no doubt that even when the economy as a whole, the macroeconomy, benefits from official efforts, there will be many losers.
Thanks to the new makeup of both houses of Congress and the demoralization of Peronism, Mileism seems destined to be the primary political force for the next two, perhaps six years. It will generate an opposition whose eventual profile is still uncertain. Most likely, it will be based on the understandable resentment that will be felt by the many who will be dislocated in the first phases of the libertarian revolution, since there will be tens of thousands of SMEs that will not be in a position to compete in a free market in which the protectionist barriers to which they are accustomed have been torn down.
It is also inevitable that there will be more unemployment. In the past, the human costs thus assumed have mortally wounded all the liberal programs launched by governments of diverse origins, some Peronist, others radical or Pro. Unless Milei is very lucky, his could share the same fate. Although, with the exception of a handful of simple-living advocates, all swear to be in favor of economic growth, this does not mean that many are willing to make sacrifices in order to facilitate it.
Another feasible opposition will be made up of the much-maligned “republican nerds” who feel outraged by Milei’s ruffian style and the thuggery of his most bellicose supporters. Its members will share the official will to liberalize the economy and eliminate the multitude of restrictions and special arrangements that for decades have kept it virtually paralyzed, but they will refuse to accept that the measures in this sense taken by the libertarian government justify the damage that its rabid behavior is causing to the social fabric and fundamental institutions.
Milei and his admirers may not understand it, but old-fashioned thinkers are far from the only ones who are offended by the contempt for civilized ways that is one of their most striking characteristics. In the opinion of many citizens with no cultural pretensions of any kind, the outrageous and often profane rhetoric to which the president is so fond is one more symptom of the national decline that the fiery libertarian has committed to reversing.
In any case, ultimately the country’s future will depend less on its material resources, which fortunately are abundant, or the aid that the United States could provide, than on its human capital. It is no secret that currently it leaves a lot to be desired. For too long, governments that prided themselves on their willingness to privilege the most vulnerable sectors saw them only as an electoral resource and tried to curry favor with them by attributing their problems not to their own deficiencies but to the evil of others. At all levels, the education system became less demanding because it would be “unfair” or “discriminatory” to ask the poor to study harder. The result of so much progressive goodness is plain to see: a substantial proportion of the country’s inhabitants are functionally illiterate and incapable of doing rudimentary mathematical calculations.
Here is a barrier to socioeconomic development that is much more imposing than those that, with bureaucratic regulations, have been erected by politicians, union members and their friends from the great judicial family who are mainly responsible for the not good situation in which the country finds itself. At a time when, by common agreement, the success or failure of different nations will be determined by the quality of their human capital, Argentina will be left behind if it turns out that the bulk of the population is not in a position to overcome the many challenges that await it.
Although Milei and his supporters love to talk about “the cultural battle” they say they are waging against their adversaries, they have not yet expressed much interest in the most important confrontation of all, the one that will take place in the field of education. For those who, like Milei, dream of an Argentina that, free of the “socialist” chains that in their opinion have immobilized it for more than three quarters of a century, becomes one of the richest countries on the planet, it makes no sense to resign ourselves to defeat in this key area, but there are no signs that the libertarian government feels very concerned about the deficit so assumed to be the most painful of all.
