Cristina is right: Javier Milei is a “showman”. So was Carlos Menem who, thanks largely to his showman talents, achieved changes that were almost as drastic as those proposed by the anarcho-capitalist although, unfortunately, he did not take the initial success of the Convertibility plan as the starting point. of a more ambitious program aimed at making Argentina a much more productive country and less prone to suffering sporadic devastating financial crises.
Unlike the Riojan, Milei will not be satisfied with stopping inflation and privatize some dysfunctional public companies, and then concentrate on taking personal advantage of the political benefits thus achieved. He dreams of transforming Argentina into an economic dynamo of global relevance that is driven by private initiative, one in which the State, which in his understanding is a den occupied by members of a parasitic political “caste” and their lackeys, plays a role. very limited role.
Roughly, Mauricio Macri, who is not a “showman”, shares Milei’s vision, although he understands that it would be better to reform the State so that it is more similar to those of the developed world than to fantasize about abolishing it. When he was president, he could not achieve his objectives because he felt inhibited by the political precariousness of the government he headed, which is why he opted for gradualism. Over time, the caution that characterized his management condemned it to failure. It would seem that he finally realized the need to impress others with his steadfastness when, after suffering the impact of a humiliating defeat in the PASO of August 2019, he staged a spectacular comeback that allowed him to halve the gap he had separated him from the duo Alberto Fernández and Cristina.
All in all, despite having an unexciting image and being harmed by the hostility of many who have always underestimated him for “bearing a last name” and other reasons that are not related to his location on the ideological map or what he would do as president, Macri retains the sympathy of significant sectors which, in November, helped him ensure that Milei triumphed by a wider margin than expected.
For now, this is an informal alliance. Nobody likes to talk about co-government. Not only out of pride, but also because he understands that it could be fatal for him to allow himself to be considered a somewhat heterodox Macrista willing to subordinate himself to his putative political boss, Milei is determined to defend his independence. He knows that his meteoric rise was due to the feeling that he had nothing in common with the members of the current political class and that it is therefore in the interest of him, and that of the project he embodies, to continue. distancing himself from them.
The crude insults, angry tirades and other niceties that Milei continues to fire at those allegedly linked to “the caste” may not be part of a premeditated strategy, but they serve to remind people that he represents something that is radically alien to traditional politics. . In the opinion of many, she spends too much gunpowder on chimangos, furiously criticizing figures from the pop world like the singer Lali Espositobut from their point of view doing so has its logic.
Likewise, the almost daily scandals caused by his uncontrollable loquacity help him distract, if only for a moment, the attention of those interested in the vicissitudes of the great national political drama of the pain that the adjustment that is underway is causing. Among those most affected by what is happening are many members of the middle class and, needless to say, retirees, who support in principle the reforms undertaken by Milei and that of the Prime Minister of Economy, Luis Caputo, but they do not want to continue being part of the hardest hit adjustment variable in the plan they have designed. It would seem that, when it comes to retirees, Caputo and, presumably, Milei, are guided by the same collectivist, not to say communist, principles that their Kirchnerist predecessors applied, hence their willingness to continue leveling downwards.
Since Milei became president, his supporters and enemies, as well as the financiers The rest of the planet, who have not yet reached any conclusion about the prospects for the great libertarian experiment that has begun, are asking themselves: how much adjustment can society endure without rebelling? It is a tricky question since it presumes that there are less unfriendly but equally promising alternatives, or more, that a government with different ideas could choose, which is far from the case.
The truth is that, no matter how populist or progressive it was, any government of a bankrupt Argentina with no more access to external credit than that provided by the International Monetary Fund would have had to brutally reduce public spending because, as the mileists emphasize, “there’s no money”. Thus, if a “social explosion” detonated by the Kirchnerists and their union allies put a premature end to Milei’s administration, the result would not be more well-being for those who are suffering the rigors of libertarian austerity but rather an incomparably more chaotic adjustment than would not produce lasting benefits for the bulk of the population. On the contrary, judging by the results of all the attempts to contrive so that the country could continue living beyond its genuine means, a relapse into traditional populism would have dire consequences for virtually everyone.
According to many respected economists, positive signs are already appearing that suggest that inflation is declining more quickly than predicted and the same can be said of the accumulation of reserves but, of course, it is one thing to record statistical improvements and quite another to spread the feeling that, despite the difficulties that so many are suffering, everything is going smoothly. Even if the Government continues to score what could be described as technical triumphs made possible by the liquefaction of income on which in one way or another they depend on public spending, it will have to win the psychological battle that is being fought in the collective mind; If he loses it, the rudimentary populism that reigned in the country for decades and brought it to the brink of self-destruction will return.
It is evident that Milei likes political solitude, but although until now not having to depend on anyone has given him many emotional advantages, from now on he will need to have the collaboration of like-minded people who will not be willing to act as obedient subordinates, people like engineer Macri and those who surround. Although the former president is already playing a significant role in the diffuse official tidal wave as a respected “eminence grey,” both leaders seem to understand that it would be in their best interest to gather their forces in a more coherent manner to form a parliamentary bloc and, what would be equally important, , supply the government with many technical staff.
Despite Milei’s regret, to govern with a minimum of effectiveness he will have to fill thousands of administrative positions with properly trained officials who put their professional duties before their possible political preferences. Although “State” is a bad word in its particular lexicon, it will need to form one that is more effective and, of course, much less corrupt than the one inherited from Kirchnerist populism in which militant salaries continue to be collected from The Campora and other groups that want to sabotage the management of a president who represents the antithesis of their own ideology.
Lately, many have begun to speculate about the eventual “merger” of La Libertad Avanza and the PRO to create the nucleus of what would be a great party of the center right. For this project to prosper, those linked to the two groups and others with a compatible mentality would have to overcome the antipathy that for more than a century so many have felt towards what some described as “partyocracy”, the notion that by its nature Parties divide society and therefore threaten the sacrosanct “national unity.”
First the radicals and, decades later, the Peronists insisted that what the country needed was a great movement in which virtually everyone would participate with the exception of a few despicable minorities. Although such ideas are often considered outdated today, mini-matches continue to abound in Argentina and, for most politicians, abandoning a relatively large one to make a separate ranch is not as traumatic as it would be in the most respected consolidated democracies.
It is for this reason that “internalism”, which often poses the risk of a definitive rupture, is so virulent in all groups. The evil thus assumed has already affected La Libertad Avanza, the PRO and other factions that, if their members wanted it, could combine to form a disciplined party broad enough to give the country a government capable of producing the changes it will need to recover from the damage caused by a political deficit that remains much more dangerous than the fiscal one.
