La Libertad Avanza (LLA) was confident of achieving a result that could be considered a victory for the government. The reality was different. While political analysts agreed that the PBA elections were a challenge for the government due to historical results in past elections and the splitting of votes, the libertarians played an "all or nothing" game and decided to nationalize them.
Once the 47% obtained by Fuerza Patria and the 33% of La Libertad Avanza were known, the disorientation regarding the numbers was total. In hindsight, is the result really a surprise?
Many of the reasons for this result are explained by the words of the Minister of Deregulation, Federico Sturzenegger, who three months ago, in an interview with Antonio Laje, amidst the fervor surrounding the Garrahan discussion, stated that "a hospital is primarily a public expense funded by taxes".
This line simply summarizes the government's thinking. A focus on the economic aspect, on Excel numbers, with a mathematical analysis, forgetting that economics is a social science, multidisciplinary.
What would doctors, teachers, and public employees have voted for? If Garrahan is primarily a public expense, and a good part of that expense is due to the payment of salaries, then their employees are also part of the problem.
But Argentinians see value in Garrahan and so many other structures made up of trained service providers, and thanks to this, despite the economic decline that began in the 70s, society remains sane.
Not everything public is essentially a public expense, but rather a structure of containment and social security that allows for the construction of a virtuous polis.
Once again, Sturzenegger with his brilliant ability to synthesize the government's ideas, tweeted on September 3:
“In any country, a government that in less than two years lifts 12 million people out of poverty, reduces inflation from 25% per month to 1.5%, and has the economy growing at 6% and exports at 5%, would win any election easily. But this is Argentina, and that’s why we need your vote this Sunday. VLLC!”
In this case, he addresses the Argentine, characterizing them as irrational. Citing an enlightened view in which Argentinians must be educated with the correct, rational ideas, which are those of freedom and shared by billionaires but not by the poor, because they are foolish. And the methodology is cultural warfare. If Argentina does not function, it is because each individual has incorrect ideas, from which they make decisions, such as their vote. Or worse yet, perhaps they do not even carry out a rational process, but simply follow pathos, emotions, because they are irrational. From his point of view, supporters of "populism" are emotional voters, without agency.
It goes without saying that all the data provided by Sturzenegger is highly debatable, both due to the methodology behind those figures and its uselessness in showing a constant and complete reality.
If anything is clear, it is that if everything is as good as the government paints it, especially with the claim of falling poverty, LLA would have been voted for overwhelmingly across the province. It seems that all those people who came out of poverty forgot that there were elections on Sunday.
In this regard, voters of La Libertad Avanza express that they do not understand the voters of Fuerza Patria when, as the far-right says, "they shit in a bucket," "they have neither light, gas, nor water." They do not understand them because they do not consider it a rational vote.
But the libertarians not only do not propose a solution to this problem, but also exacerbate it, because they are "against public works." Why would someone who does not have access to basic services support this government? Is this government, which is against public works, going to provide sewage, asphalt, and public services in general to the PBA?
The phrase "they like to shit in a bucket," laden with racism, classism, and xenophobia, relates to a constant and long-standing thought in Argentina, aligning with that of the conquerors of America, the thesis of "civilization and barbarism" by Sarmiento, and even with the views of the English like Charles Darwin when he visited Argentina.
It seems irrational to refer in that way to an electorate that the government should conquer.
On the other hand, there are those who wish ill upon the voters of Fuerza Patria or who must be educated negatively, as in the case of Antonio Laje, who said "do not complain anymore when you have insecurity, when there are no police, when you get killed, because you just voted. It was the election to send a message to the governor who is doing a terrible job, and you sent a message that he is doing a great job".
In the same vein as Laje, businessman Milei expressed himself on X.
The disorientation of the ruling party in light of the overwhelming result of last Sunday, September 7, is also reflected in their analysis of the causes. Partly due to their blindness resulting from the simplistic and useless theoretical framework of the cultural battle they use.
Because it is not that people embraced the ideas of freedom in 2023 and then became Kirchnerists again, but rather it was a desperate vote in response to the previous political and economic failure. The result also cannot be reduced to a strategic-political or campaign error, nor is it the case that the voters of PBA are co-opted by the political apparatuses of the PBA government. A libertarian might think that for the residents of Buenos Aires Province, monetary emission is acceptable, or that they have forgotten that it is not, because in 2023 they voted for LLA.
The result is interpreted as a brake, a veto, to the policies of austerity, cruelty, and social insecurity that accompany the macroeconomic order and lack legitimacy. The people voted for Milei to stop inflation, control the dollar, and organize the economy; but did not vote for cruelty, indiscriminate austerity, and repression towards retirees and disabled people, attacks on Garrahan, mistreating public employees, underfunding culture, etc.
But the government neither controls the dollar (unless it intervenes as it has been doing for quite some time, and now officially) nor interest rates, nor does it fully control inflation. All this, combined with the fact that Milei's economic model has as one of its main victims the PBA. Milei's model harms agriculture, industry, and public works, the three pillars on which the PBA is sustained. Consequently, Fuerza Patria won in productive towns.
It's not that Kirchnerism won; Milei lost. And it seems he will do so again, because, as he said in his speech, he will double down and toughen the economic course. This shows that they understood nothing.
Just as Macri said he should have done the same but faster, now Milei thinks the best thing is to do the same but more deeply. Because for liberalism, the problem is never its economic school, economic policies, or theoretical framework; Martínez de Hoz was not a liberal, Cavallo lacked a surplus, Macri was too gradual, is Milei's problem now that he wasn't liberal enough?.
Many agree with a certain degree of austerity (to a greater or lesser extent), the problem was that in response to any "but" or demand from society due to frustration with the fierce and endless austerity, the government labeled those people as infected by the kuka virus, or as mandrills in the case of economists warning about any dangers in the government's economic policies. They even called them terrorists, like in the case of "Gordo Dan," or labeled attempts to make the adjustment fairer or less cruel as an attack or “micro coup.”
It was not just the endless adjustment that society endured for two years, but also the constant contempt, ridicule, "the piss" and being labeled as sub-human if you supported the idea of making changes in the adjustment policy.
To refer to the disabled or retirees as leftists and insult them (remember Ian Moche), and moreover, to repress them, because they “threaten the surplus," was and is a serious mistake that the people made them pay for it for the first time.
“We don't hate journalists enough,” the government kept repeating while attacking their work causing Argentina to fall in press freedom rankings.
Any form of pseudodemocracy this country had is harmed by the ruling party's way of governing. And unfortunately, many agree with Sietecase when he says "Milei is not a dictator, but he behaves like one".
But also, the scandals of corruption, the fentanyl tragedy, Gordo Dan's remarks about Luis Juez, the LIBRA case; the list is endless for a government that has only been in power for two years.
Moreover, the people have been listening for the past few months to the excuses of an infant regarding the causes of the macroeconomic destabilization and the government's scandals. If it wasn't an attempt at destabilization by Kirchnerism, it was from private banking, some market agents, retirees, disabled people, and even ex-Russian, Iranian, or Venezuelan agents, or who knows what else.
If the government already had much against it, on top of it all decided to go to the elections alongside the PRO, when the PBA had already lived the failed experience of Vidal. Macri sentenced, uselessly, the death of the PRO, which lost its strong anti-Kirchnerist significance and quickly grew politically.
The paradoxical union of the PRO with a party like LLA, which has bases almost equally antagonistic to those of Kirchnerism, requires detailed analysis.
The PBA has been, is, and will be a bastion of Peronism; just as occurs with anti-Peronist provinces. It is difficult to combat that hegemony. But knowing this, the government decided to nationalize the elections, looking ridiculous by failing to terminate Peronism (probably immortal) and violating the slogan "Never Again" - pathetic symbolism that only generates rejection.
Paraphrasing Andrés Malamud, the PBA does not fear Kirchnerism as the porteño or the market does.
There is a consensus that all politicians promise more and deliver less, but this government repeats its promises daily, which were the pillars of its discourse and victory. The voter does not buy campaign promises, but they did with Milei, especially the youth, and there lies the root of the electoral failure.
It was not just economic promises, but also promises of a political paradigm shift. But all have been momentarily unfulfilled.
The government no longer speaks of the future, of being Germany or Ireland in 35 years, but speaks of not returning to a supposedly worse past. It is no longer an optimistic speech, but rather perverse, threatening, and manipulative; the voter is left with the perverse out of fear of the alternative, like an analogy of a toxic relationship.
The loss of the elections was undoubtedly partly because the people did not see favorable changes in their personal economy. But it was also a loss for symbolic reasons. Its discursive tool and symbolic weapon that allowed for victory manifested itself as a double-edged sword.
Economic problems, corruption, the caste being part of the government, the constant insult to dissidents that has not worked for a long time, and the overall aesthetics of the government present a clear meaning and message to Argentinians.
Comments