In addition to the forces of heaven that, through the centuries, have distributed their favors in a very capricious manner among those who believed they deserved their help, Javier Milei has the support, which may turn out to be temporary, of the majority who do not want the Argentina remains tied to a “model” that has only served to generate poverty for millions and fortunes for certain members of “the caste.” His most belligerent adversaries hope that those who support him will feel so hit by the inflationary storm that is wreaking havoc on the meager family budgets, that they will soon decide to abandon him to his fate, but others, who believe themselves to be more moderate, understand that it would not be in their best interest. absolutely falling before the economy has stabilized.
Just like the populists of previous generations who did not hide the relief they felt when, as was routine in the not-so-distant past, the military appropriated power, they prefer that figures supposedly outside the established parties be in charge of the “dirty work.” that they know is necessary.
The irresponsibility that is reflected by the conviction that it will be up to a would-be savior of the country who does not belong to “the caste” to take unfriendly measures every time the country is in danger of falling into a bottomless abyss, helps us to understand the grossly myopic behavior of so many elected governments, including, of course, that of Alberto Fernández, Cristina Kirchner and Sergio Massa, who made irresponsibility a philosophy of life.
In Argentina, politicians of virtually all stripes have become accustomed to believing that they themselves will never have to face the consequences of their own mistakes because someone will always come from outside the system who will be willing to do so. They were betting that, over time, the intruder would have to pay a very high political price for having committed to putting an end to the current inflationary outbreak. This is what in fact happened with so many military dictatorships that, unlike the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, failed to get the economy back on track. It may be unpleasant to say it, but the fall of the military regime that opened the door for the restoration of democracy was not due to human rights abuses or the unfortunate war adventure that it undertook in the hope of reconciling with the population, but to its failure in the economic sphere.
The notion that only a tyrant would think of doing something as inhuman as applying an adjustment under the pretext that there is no money and that hyperinflation is around the corner is firmly rooted in the national political tradition. It seemed perfectly logical to the Kirchnerists and their allies on the Trotskyist left to shout “Macri trash, you are the dictatorship” because the engineer’s government wanted to reduce some expenses. As it could not be otherwise, some are already treating Milei the same way. If those who think this way succeed in overthrowing the libertarian, it would be more than likely that, as the President warns, the Argentina we know would share the tragic fate of Venezuela. Unfortunately, sometimes there are no alternatives to a very severe adjustment like the one that is underway, although, of course, there may be different ways to carry it out.
Milei knows that the fate of his project will depend on the evolution of the cost of living. He prays that the inflationary conflagration that was caused by the Kirchner government goes out after the flash that followed the elimination of countless controls, but for electoral reasons the arsonist Massa fueled the fire by pouring so much gasoline into it that the fire could continue for several months. further. For now, the majority attributes the inflationary chaos to the voluntarist madness of the Kirchnerists, but, no matter how unfair it may seem to the liberals, many will soon blame the current government, accusing it of putting numbers before the well-being of the people.
Needless to say, for members of “the caste” it is a major problem that the eventual fall of Milei would force them to govern a bankrupt country, without reserves or access to credit. For obvious reasons, the most realistic want the libertarian president to remain in power until the outlook for the economy has become more promising than it currently is, but they also want him to stop trying to dismantle the corporatist system on which so many depend. . They’re pressuring him to settle for some cosmetic changes that don’t affect his interests, but Milei refuses to oblige. Yours is all or nothing.
Like leftist revolutionaries, the President is an ideologue convinced that, given the circumstances, his own program is the only one worth taking into account. Although such intransigence offends those who would like the deregulatory measures that clutter the omnibus law and the DNU to be duly debated in the legislative chambers, Milei can point out that the country is not in a position to afford to waste months, perhaps years, discussing all the details in a Congress that is dominated by people who are more accustomed to exchanging insults than to rational analysis of the available options.
From the presidential point of view, the fact that there are signs that the exchange market is about to enter a new tumultuous phase is due to the growing feeling that legislators and judicial operators will manage to wreck the omnibus law and the DNU or, at At least, delay their eventual application so much that they do not serve to produce the desired changes.
For now at least, Milei benefits from the low prestige of those most determined to oppose him. Very few believe that the immovable union leaders, the so-called “fats,” are concerned about the impoverishment of the members; Forced to choose between Milei and the Moyano, an overwhelming majority would support the President. Nor do the gnocchi that have proliferated in state departments, the businessmen who are experts in regulated markets, the voracious militants of La Cámpora, the picketers and others who are perceived as leaders of the resistance have much popular sympathy.
While there are some groups whose grievances will not prompt majority repudiation, the widespread impression that the harshest opposition to the reforms the Government is trying to push comes from those with barely avowable material reasons for clinging to the status quo will continue to weaken the determined to stop them.
The awareness that, if Milei were forced to retreat and make a pact with those who defend the status quo, a sociopolitical and economic crisis would be unleashed even more phenomenal than the one that allowed him to defeat the presidential candidates of the two coalitions that for years had dominated the national political scene, it should ensure the solidarity, even if critical, of everyone except those hopelessly committed to the populist model. For the libertarian, the fear of what could happen if legislators manage to frustrate his project is a trump card that he does not hesitate to take advantage of.
Needless to say, Argentina is far from being a congenitally liberal country. Rather, it is the product of a cultural tradition linked to the counter-reform that, for half a millennium, has fought against everything that tastes of liberalism and that, with some frequency, has manifested itself through the acceptance of very authoritarian governments whose spokesmen spoke a lot. of the benefits of national unity and therefore sought to marginalize those who dared to criticize them.
Although Milei himself often seems to represent a heretical variant of this way of thinking, since he is not known for his willingness to tolerate dissent, if the changes he has proposed succeed, the country would experience a cultural revolution that could only affect in the mentality of almost all its inhabitants. Would it be positive? Since, for now at least, the most liberal countries make up a kind of global elite, a freer, not to say libertarian, Argentina would have a greater chance of prospering than one in which it is normal to ask the State to choose between winners and losers.
All in all, although Milei has never hesitated to demonize those he describes as “collectivists”, by which he means Marxists, Peronists, radicals and those members of the PRO who are convinced that the State should play a more active role than expected. Because of the Austrian economists he venerates, he does not seem to care much about the corruption that has been one of the most striking characteristics of the populist “model.” Is it because she believes so firmly in the separation of powers that he does not want the Executive to try to influence a task that in his opinion corresponds to the Judiciary, or is it that he prefers not to give the Kirchnerists more reasons to want to unsaddle him? Be that as it may, his refusal to add his voice to the chorus of those who continue to denounce Cristina and her accomplices for what they perpetrated when they imagined themselves unpunished for life, is costing him the sympathy of sectors that, otherwise, would be more than willing. to give him the support he needs in Congress.
