Javier Milei is a politician who, to reach the summit, spoke ill of those who were already his fellow men, a strategy that assured him the support of millions who felt betrayed by the characters they had chosen to represent them. Before becoming a politician, Milei was a successful television journalist who specialized in crudely insulting those who dared to disagree with his strong opinions. He continues to behave like the exalted debater of those days who made contempt a deadly weapon. In his new role, he uses it not only against the other politicians of “the caste” of which he himself is a member, but also against the majority of journalists.
Among the favorite targets of his anger are those who write in newspapers and magazines. He says he is convinced that, with very few exceptions, they are venal subjects, miserable “envelopes” who sell themselves to the highest bidder. He does not hesitate to name those supposedly guilty of behaving as, among other things, “serial torturers” who do not even leave their four-legged canine children alone.
As it could not be otherwise, Milei is motivated by the difficulties that the very rapid evolution of the available media is causing for professional journalists as the possibilities offered by technological progress multiply. Like many others, Milei believes that a tradition dating back to pre-Christian antiquity in which an exclusive “elite” of intellectuals directly influences those in power, dialoguing with them and seeking to interpret what they are saying, is approaching its end. doing and that, to make matters worse, they are usually in charge of writing history, thereby building the collective memory of the times in which they live.
Needless to say, it has always been difficult for the powerful to coexist in a mutually respectful manner with independent writers. Since the beginning of the 19th century when, thanks to the rapid technological advances that accompanied the Industrial Revolution, it became possible to increase the circulation of the most influential newspapers and magazines dozens of times, the most prominent politicians in power have been prone to believing themselves to be innocent victims. of journalists who, in their opinion, operate as an evil pack that responds to spurious interests.
Such an attitude can be understood. No one likes to be criticized for what they do by people who in their opinion do not understand how tremendously difficult their job is or, what seems even worse, want to delve into matters that one would prefer to keep secret. However, in societies with democratic pretensions where censorship, not to mention the imprisonment of those who allude to abuses of power, is frowned upon, politicians felt obliged to try to ingratiate themselves with journalists until, very recently, A new wave of technological progress shook the model that had been formed by depriving all companies in the sector of a substantial proportion of their income and allowing the creation of countless alleged alternatives: social networks.
For some, the chaotic profusion of digital media in which anyone, be they a respected thinker or a raging semi-illiterate shouting obscenities, can express their particular “truth,” communicating with others of similar attitudes without having to gain approval from someone like them. A news manager who strives to maintain the editorial line of the newspaper he works for is very, very healthy, since it serves to break down hierarchies and thus democratize public conversation. For a free market enthusiast, the new scenario that has been created is much better than that of other times.
However, for others what is happening is not healthy at all. From their point of view, the resulting situation is already too fluid and confusing. They point out that, no matter how strong the temptation has always been to pass news and opinions through a political filter, we must distinguish between what is actually happening and what is clearly fictitious. For the rest, although it has always been quite easy to ideologically locate traditional newspapers and their television equivalents, the same cannot be said of the so-called social media. While the former made up a landscape that was relatively orderly, the latter constitute a thick jungle with large swampy areas, one in which it is very difficult to distinguish between what is valuable and what is sewage.
Among those who feel at ease in this jungle is Milei. He celebrates what he considers to be the death sentence of journalism in the pre-digital age and bets that, soon, people will depend exclusively on the networks for information. The president may have been wrong. Judging by the North American and European experience, at least some traditional media will manage to adapt to the circumstances well enough to retain much of their influence, so it would be premature to assume that all of them are moribund. At the end of the day, some opinions will continue to matter more than others, so dreaming of a public space so democratic that that of an improviser incapable of expressing himself lucidly is worth as much as any other, is a fantasy.
For Milei, it would be a mistake that could cost him dearly to trust excessively in the loyalty of those who are behaving as picketers of libertarian thought. It is not easy to handle indignation. A single episode, such as the fall from grace of an ex-Kirchnerist senator who had been useful to him, or an alleged official attack on national universities, could be more than enough to decimate the ranks of digital propagandists.
If something characterizes the media that Milei’s fans take advantage of, it is immediacy. Those who act in them usually react emotionally, without giving themselves a moment to reflect, in the face of the news of the day in the hope of deserving a presidential “like.” Even if what such characters produce survives in cyberspace, very little will be remembered for long.
It is a question of abundance. By its nature, the written press is selective, but networks cannot be. For those trying to understand what is happening in the world, the excess of information available is as overwhelming as its absence would be. Since Milei hopes that “the story” he has created will influence the behavior of the majority for several decades, he will have to provide it with a basis that is somewhat more solid than the one he has chosen.
Likewise, at this point Milei should understand that his attempts to blend in with the most scandalous YouTubers are harming him by showing off his mastery of extremely coarse language that offends many who support his economic strategy but feel personally attacked by the rabid style. punk that has contributed so much to its international reputation among those unfamiliar with the linguistic modalities of the Buenos Aires suburbs.
Since 1753, the Comte de Buffon’s aphorism that “style is the man himself” has been repeated countless times. For reasons that the great French thinker and scientist understood very well, the forms adopted by individuals have a profound impact on their behavior and work. It is therefore necessary to take seriously the risks posed by the extravagant style that the President of the Republic has patented. While it would be unrealistic to assume that libertarians and their friends could win “the cultural battle” by simply stressing over and over again the validity of certain fundamental economic principles in a country where a substantial part of the population continues to cling to the creed of the Kirchnerists and their traveling companions, this does not mean that it would be enough to replace it with another one that is as irrational and conflictive. Despite the most vehement milleistas notwithstanding, when it comes to public culture, quality is not unimportant.
The fact that Milei has become accustomed to speaking as someone obsessed with degrading sexual practices confronts others with the same dilemma that troubles allies like Mauricio Macri who approve of the economic “course” but find the personal behavior of whoever is promoting it unbearable. They do not want to oppose him because they are reluctant to collaborate with those determined to dynamite the government and, with it, the possibility that Argentina will finally wake up from the prolonged lethargy that still poses an existential threat, but they repudiate the extreme vulgarity that is has become so characteristic of the presidential speech. It is not just the reaction of a handful of old-fashioned nostalgists but the feelings of the many who, in addition to wanting the economy to work better and for the State to put itself at the service of the national community, would like Argentina to It is also one of the most civilized countries on Earth and they fear that libertarian barbarism will turn out to be as degrading as the Kirchnerist barbarism to which it is related.
