It is not the first time (and we will have to resign ourselves to the possibility that it will not be the last) that the second round in a presidential election leaves us Argentines with an unsatisfactory alternative for many: one candidate or another, of the two that exist. to choose from, and not because they are “the same”, they are disappointing: we disagree with their ideologies (or their claim not to have them), their proposals seem as meager as they are unreliable, they only give us hopelessness, we would not want to vote for them. It happened, for now, in 2015: from a declaredly progressive sector the candidacy of a rather conservative politician arose (but then what was left to do, with that progressivism, but to review it thoroughly); and from a sector that bastardized the notions of revolution or change through frivolous blows, a clearly conservative candidate predictably emerged (who was the one who would end up winning the election and governing the country for four years, to the dismay of many).
In instances of this nature, two criteria open up for those who must face the election desolately from the beginning. come on: the criterion of the lesser evil (since even between two calamities it is always possible to consider that one may be worse than the other) and the option of the blank vote (which is a vote and is a choice, it is not abstention nor is it dispensation; it is the manifestation expresses a voter’s discontent, or in any case what Roland Barthes assigned to the condition of “the neutral”: questioning, from its condition as such, a certain dichotomy).
The second round that awaits us on Sunday the 19th, however, is not exactly like that. It could be on the side of Sergio Massa, current Minister of Economy, in the insufficiencies that many assign to him without specifying the depths for that. But it is not on Javier Milei’s side. What Javier Milei’s nomination brings about is not only a political project with which one can disagree and which one wants to counteract with votes; Beyond that, what Javier Milei migraine They are the premises and foundations of the political order in which, despite everything, it participates. He is extremely violent, he does not control his aggression or he controls it with too much effort; He manages a monotonous economistic creed, which he nevertheless considers absolute and empowers him to denigrate any other vision one has (he shouted at a journalist during a press conference because she dared to ask him about Keynes, whose mere mention unsettles him to the point of confusion). rage).
Victoria Villarruel, who is part of the formula with him as a candidate for the vice presidency, openly vindicates the criminals who perpetrated state terrorism during the last military dictatorship, and Milei himself, in a debate between candidates, relativized those events by reproducing exactly the terms to whom the repressors themselves appealed during the trial in which, in 1985, they were tried and convicted. And Milei, suspicious of the State to the highest degree when it comes to public management or social policies (he has expressly spoken out against social justice), turns out to be a fervent supporter of the State apparatus when it comes to repressive functions. He adheres to that, and vehemently, and has surrounded himself with sinister figures, not entirely overlapping. Regarding public health and public education, two of the few things that in Argentina’s convoluted history can be a source of pride, he has also been adverse. Contrary to rights, as he declared himself, including that of access to health or access to education, he simply detests them.
It is clear that the Milei phenomenon (for a reason, when referring to it, the word phenomenon usually emerges) is part of a global trend that later includes figures like Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro: heterodox and very reactionary. Without intending to postulate some kind of Argentine specialty, I think it is pertinent to mention, within this global trend, some peculiarities that Javier Milei exhibits. From among several available, I choose to point out that this candidate for the presidency of the nation claims to talk to his dog Conan, to whom he hears and answers and to whom he takes as an advisor. I would like to add, because I think it is relevant, that Conan died several years ago, that Javier Milei cloned him and consequently considers that he is still there, always with him.
The political nomination of Javier Milei, and the considerable degree of support he has obtained, clearly exceed the frustrating scene of any runoff without greater hope, as may have happened or may happen other times, for those who disbelieve in the two candidates for office. choose. Javier Milei puts democracy itself in trouble. Disruptive, but retrograde, this is far from opening the option of a possible political transformation through an eventual discussion about the type of democracy we have or want. His intemperate violence predicts a type of destructiveness that is more likely to exhaust itself, as when in a television program they brought him a model of the Central Bank and he proceeded to break it with clean blows (he repeated the show of the lawless man on other occasions). ).
This idea of destruction, which is resolved in pure discharge, can understandably attract the many who in Argentina are long tired, overwhelmed, even desperate, overwhelmed by afflictive conditions for which Sergio Massa is largely responsible. To this form of adhesion, others may be added: that of those who are fascinated with the madness of Javier Milei, determined by the personal magnetism of a leader of a populist character, or that of those who plainly share his ostensible misogyny, his rejection of the right to abortion, his vituperation of the Pope, his attachment to state repression, his marked inclination to violence.
The tenor of violence circulating in society has risen considerably in recent times, especially if we take into account the expansion and naturalization of the practices of denigration and verbal harassment prevailing on social networks (there are insults that fuel debates , but there are insults that frustrate and impede them; they not only impede consensus and understanding, but also disputes, discussions). Visibly, this style of debasement has largely transferred into political discourse and traditional media, which increasingly admit the sewage registry that has already established itself on the networks. Verbal and gestural violence defines an entire tone of the era. Javier Milei in Argentine politics captured it and expressed it better than anyone. Within the conservative front, led by former President Macri and called Together for Change, the moderate and dialogue-oriented candidate, Horacio Rodríguez Larreta, lost to Patricia Bullrich, more violent and aggressive. But then, in the national election, won by Sergio Massa from the ruling party, Milei managed to surpass Bullrich, because in terms of aggressiveness and violence, he is more and better than her.
There are those who trust that, once he becomes President, Milei will know how to moderate himself; just as some vote for it because they trust that several of her proposals (dollarization and aggravated pauperization, closure of the Central Bank, breaking off relations with the most important countries for Argentine foreign trade, etc.) cannot be carried out. Strangely, they vote for him not for what he is, but in the hope that he will cease to be what he is; They do not vote for her to fulfill what she promises, but in the hope that she cannot fulfill it (they then function as threats, rather than as true promises).
And there are quite a few who, at length, and alarmed and emphatically, pointed out that voting for Milei was a greater danger for the country and its population, denouncing his psychological instability, his worrying stance on the sale of weapons, etc., etc., etc. . And suddenly they were ready to vote for it. As was? What happened? Did the scare go away? Nothing of that. It is that they consciously assume the danger, which they themselves denounced with fear, as long as Massa, the candidate of Peronism, does not win (the moderate wing of Peronism, to put it mildly, not to say the liberal wing, not to say the conservative wing, but Peronism finally). In Argentine political life, as is already recognized, there is a political position that is not free from fanaticism, a fanaticism that is often blinding: it is anti-Peronism. Anti-Peronism, based strictly on hatred and contempt towards broad layers of the national population, is not consistent with non-Peronism; For them (and I know it), a non-Peronist is a covert Peronist. And anti-Peronism, thus demanded, is not conceived as a form of critical overcoming of what Peronism has been or could become; For them (and I know it) it is not necessary to overcome it but rather to directly remove it, eliminate it, suppress it, reduce it to non-existence.
That hatred is very long and deep and has an important history. There are cases in which it could even be said that it is the passion of their lives, and that just as it is customary to say that there is “the love of my life”, there is a hatred of life as well, and this is the hatred of their lives. And just as in certain scenes someone asks for “proof of love”, something like a “proof of hate” could also be conceived. “What would you do for me?” asks the loved one to the person who loves them. And the person who loves her responds: “I would do anything.” Could not, as proof of hatred, an analogous question be raised: What would you do for me? Possible question for anti-Peronist hatred: “What would you do for me?” Possible response: “I would do anything.” Anything, like what? For example: vote for Milei.
I don’t think now about those who believe in him, I don’t think about those who agree with him, I don’t think about those who want to see him break everything once and for all. I think of those who consider it a danger to democracy, because time and time again they said it, and now perhaps they are going to vote for it. Will they do it, as proof of hatred? Will they be willing to do anything, knowing that it is neither more nor less than that?
Subscribe here to newsletter from EL PAÍS América and receive all the key information on current events in the region.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_