Milei has been having a “success” that is not one of those discussed today in the “public conversation” (as the Macristas called it at the time). That is: in the media, in social networks, in what is rescued from the debate and that, ultimately, helps shape what we call “public opinion.”
That “success” is not even in the economic results (which are a disaster throughout the line, I will refer to that later); nor in politics, in the sense of strengthening his coalition or his references (in fact, he is now at war with his vice: Victoria Villarruel); nor in the “cultural battle”: the issues that stirred up last week at the launch of Fundación Faro, an event at which Milei spoke, or later—on the weekend—at the event with presumptuous façade aesthetics that they held in San Miguel and which generated a lot of scandal, for me they remain reduced to minorities (almost to sects) that are part of the system of confusion and agitation in the libertarian device.
The “success” I am referring to is linked to the imposition of the terms of the debate and basically to two operations:
Firstly, a more basic one, which is to stir up ghosts and storms that were supposedly stalking the country in general and the economy, in particular (that inflation was “traveling” to 17,000%, that poverty was almost 100%, that the recession was already a fact), and then present the terrible results of their economic program as a “success” that avoided all those disasters and, what’s more, brought benefits.
Now, the worst thing is not the trick that the ruling party constructs to try to show the bad as good or the failures of economic policy as if they were successes, but rather that some political or communicational leaders believe it.
And that is linked to a second operation, I don’t know if it is as thought out or typed by the Government (I don’t think they are as communication “geniuses” as they perceive themselves to be), but it achieves a certain effectiveness.
This is dismembering or fragmenting the debate on the results of the Government’s economic policy. Separate each item and evaluate it on its own. So what do they tell you? They tell you: “Well, but don’t you recognize Milei’s success in slowing down inflation?” or put in an even more perverse way: “Doesn’t it seem good to you that inflation goes down?
And of course, it is a question that, formulated like this, does not accept “no” as an answer. Because the correct way to ask the question would be: Do you think it’s okay to lower inflation after having taken it through the roof in December of last year and dynamiting everyone’s income (salaries, savings and retirements)? Or by imposing a historic drop in activity that collapsed consumption and investment? Obviously, that question cannot accept a “yes” as an answer.
Something similar happens with what they call the “fiscal system.” The question arises: Don’t you think that the fiscal accounts had to be put in order and the deficit ended? When the precise form should be: Are you in favor of organizing the fiscal accounts by lowering taxes on the rich and that the bulk of the adjustment falls on retirees?
The same could be formulated with the decline of the dollar. Regarding this, the latest broadcast of #FallaDeMercado, the program hosted by Jairo Straccia on C+ (Cenital’s YouTube channel) is very illustrative of the contradictions that “ironing” the dollar brings as the Government does in terms of risk of a new devaluation or the departure of dollars from the country when the financial drunkenness ends as all financial summers end.
So, here a more global problem arises: it is de-politicizing, that is, it is non-political, to transform the balance of the management of a Government (of any Government) into a contest of additions and subtractions in which some items have a thumb. up and others thumbs down, as in social networks: the decline in inflation “I like it”, I like it, approved, but the recession “I don’t like it”, I disapprove. Exactly no, inflation basically slowed down due to recession. Or, I like the fiscal balance, but I don’t like the adjustment to retirees, when fiscal balance was achieved (for now), essentially at the expense of the adjustment to retirement benefits (and other adjustments).
The economic-political orientation has to be taken as a whole, as a whole. And Milei’s roadmap for resetting the country, taken as a whole, is reactionary through and through. Separating the discussion, dismembering it, is a conceptual concession to the Government’s narrative.
Now why is it important to make this distinction? Well, first because it helps to clarify in the general discussion a strategy – which we already know about this Government – which is to always contribute to the general confusion and hyperbole, to the exaggerations of its alleged “successes.”
But, on the other hand, because it can determine, guide a political position towards the Government. That is, those who have the logic of “addition and subtraction” will be more prone to different forms of collaboration, to “recognize” that in some items they are doing “things well.” This even has good press: you are not intransigent, you recognize things. It is all very nice, but it is false because you are not recognizing truths, but rather you are entering the trap of hiding the means through which that “good result” was achieved. A large part of the opposition falls into this: either because it collaborates directly in Congress or because it conceptually “recognizes” some central ideas that hide others.
I had the opportunity to spy on some results of a public opinion work (a broad work of about 10 thousand cases) whose general conclusions are still in the process of being drawn up and one of the questions asked about the conformity of the runoff voters with respect to to what they had voted for: Milei lost some points, but there was agreement; However, among Sergio Massa’s voters, there were many (but many) dissatisfied with the practice, attitude and positions of Peronism. And I think it has to do with this: that the “grassroots” opponents, “ordinary” so to speak, are increasingly more opponents and the opposition superstructure is, at minimum, a limbo.
So, part of the “cultural battle” (so fashionable these days) is political and economic (that is another artificial separation: culture is not independent of the political economy) and is based on evaluating the overall orientation that In the case of Milei it is a reaction throughout the line.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
