It is like if Vladimir Putin had to appoint warlord Yevgeny Prigoshin as prime minister and regime propagandists will try to make you think that the riot that nearly sparked civil war in Russia was actually a genius move by the boss. Cristina cannot help but know that, of all her many enemies, Sergio Massa is by far the most dangerous. In the personal project of the ruling party candidate there is no place for her or for “the gnocchi from La Cámpora”, as he called them when he was on the sidewalk across the street.
Nor is there for the economic primitivism of the most bellicose Kirchnerists; even if his own ideas are somewhat diffuse, Massa is as convinced as the Chinese communist leaders that capitalism works decidedly better than any alternative. Is he, as Juan Grabois and company shout, a bloody “neoliberal”? From the point of view of the most passionate Kirchnerists, there is no doubt that it is.
As strange as it may seem in a cracked country where political inmates tend to be extraordinarily spiteful, the three characters belong to the same ideological space, one of which -as long as Javier Milei does not surprise us in the coming months- will end the year decked out with the presidential band. They are all center-right pragmatists. Patricia Bullrich is quite similar to the English iron lady, Margaret Thatcher, Horacio Rodríguez Larreta to the lukewarm conservatives who believed her too tough and Massa could be an American Republican of the type of those who were in charge of the party of this name before the irruption of the phenomenally disruptive narcissist Donald Trump, the idol of losers who has a lot in common with Cristina.
The leaders of Juntos por el Cambio pray that the anthological failure of the Economy Minister’s management turns out to be more than enough to guarantee him a resounding defeat in the PASO and the real elections. For his part, Massa will strive to shift the blame for his inability to curb inflation to the Kirchnerists whose proximity he has been forced to endure to survive in office. Without being overly explicit until he feels fully released, sooner or later the Tigrense will do it in order to weaken them for understanding that it is in their interest to completely disassociate themselves from those responsible for bringing Argentina to the edge of a steep precipice through which it could slide.
Will his well-deserved reputation as an exceptionally devious politician, a born unreliable “pancake” often sold to the highest bidder only to be stabbed in the back when he is no longer useful, will Massa work against him? Up to a point, but the uninhibited shrewdness that is his trademark for many may help him by providing the illusion that he will be in a position to profit from troubled world circumstances.
After all, it would seem that Massa has managed to cajole the icy technicians of the International Monetary Fund into not abandoning a country governed by people who do not hesitate to treat them with contempt. Had it not been for the willingness of the women who today dominate the Fund to give it the benefit of all conceivable doubts, the economic crisis that is bleeding Argentina dry would be even more destructive than it already has been.
The political promiscuity that has always characterized Massa is already causing problems in Together for Change; counts among his “friends” Rodríguez Larreta and Gerardo Morales. It will not be so easy for them to treat it with the extreme disdain that they would show if it were a matter of another member of the official cast. When Cristina tried her luck with the greyish duo made up of Wado de Pedro and Jorge Manzur, those of Together for Change believed they had already won the presidential election, but the successful rebellion of Massa, who was accompanied by a series of provincial governors and mayors extremely concerned about what would happen if Wado turned out to be as big of a voter as Leopoldo Moreau in 2003, has forced them to recapitulate. Whereas last week they had good reason to suppose that Peronism was dying, now they have good reason to fear that it will be able to revive after undergoing a new ideological mutation. There are many who assume that a Peronist adjustment would be less cruel than one implemented by others.
After giving priority to the cohesion of her own internal faction, Cristina had to beat a retreat. Although he continues to cling to the alleged original plan to make life impossible for his successor, attacking him from day one, sending large columns of piqueteros to the center of the Federal Capital and mobilizing the militants, these sons of the “decimated generation” who remain loyal to the thought of their biological or spiritual montonero progenitors, in addition to contingents of street lumpens, as the Kirchnerists did in Jujuy, according to opposition spokesmen, it would be surprising that such an aggressive strategy would have the support of the bulk of the Peronists.
Unlike the most fanatical Kirchnerists who would be perfectly willing to sacrifice the country, with its inhabitants inside, for the sake of a supposedly revolutionary “story”, many Peronists would prefer to contribute to an eventual national recovery. Needless to say, Massa shares such sentiments; for a man accustomed to rubbing shoulders with the cream of American business and other international dignitaries, he wouldn’t be interested in being taken for the would-be leader of a horde of beggars who depend on the charity of others.
Same as Christina Massa will have his plan B. He will hope that, if he loses this time, he will receive a very valuable consolation prize: the leadership of Peronism. Despite the optimism that is congenital to him, he could even believe that it would not really be convenient for him to take charge of the disaster caused by the Kirchnerists since, whatever happens, the next government will necessarily have to implement an unpleasant adjustment that will entail a cost. significant political. So, Peronists would be faced with the option of behaving in a strikingly irresponsible manner, as Christian loyalists would request, and emulating the leaders of Together for Change who, as their representatives insist on reminding us, in recent years have stood out for their constructive moderation. While those who, like Cristina, favor the short term will be determined to tear apart as soon as possible a non-Kirchnerist government that dares to make serious adjustments, others will want to ensure that the inheritance received by those to come is at least manageable. after.
From the point of view of those who refuse to abandon the old and outmoded custom of interpreting everything that happens in geometric terms, the center of gravity of national politics has just shifted sharply to the right. Same as in many other countries, most are not impressed by the slogans of those who would like to hand over the economy to cohorts of militant bureaucrats, unionists and others that they would be advised by like-minded intellectuals.
In Greece last week, a pro-market government that vows to continue pushing through the IMF-backed reform program that was initially repudiated by the majority, won a sweeping victory at the expense of left-populist parties. Something similar it is happening in other parts of Europe like Spain and Italy where “the right” is advancing rapidly thanks to its ability to mobilize young people harmed by the failure of governments of progressive or merely centrist inspiration.
Milei’s pro-anarcho-capitalist preaching may have contributed little to his popularity in polls, but it’s clear that his passionate defense of the free market and furious tirades against those linked to the established order have done a lot to him. political debates. Until quite recently, in Argentina, pro-capitalist militancy was characteristic of a handful of eccentrics; thanks in no small part to Milei, it’s catching on. It is no longer necessary to clarify that it is an unfortunate necessity imposed by circumstances, thereby implying that one shares the “human” sentiments of those committed to the vaguely progressive rhetorical populism that has caused so much damage.
Thus, it would not be entirely surprising if, to get away from the calamitous failure of Kirchnerism, those who continue to consider themselves loyal to the gospel of Perón and his satellites return to the “space” they occupied when Carlos Menem and Domingo Cavallo gave the country a decade of monetary stability. that, despite the eventual collapse of convertibility, bequeathed to the governments of Eduardo Duhalde and Néstor Kirchner an economy that, well managed, could have grown as much as those of other Latin American countries. Unfortunately, first Néstor and, in the following years, his widow, chose to “invest” a good part of what they inherited in politics and in their family businesses.Hence the catastrophic state of the country that his successors will have to try to govern.
