Milei won against opponents already among the most liberal (the actual sense of the world, as I am frustrated to have to stress to Americans) candidates in Argentine history, including Peronist Massa. His radicalism was so tangible that even some serious news sources, with no apparent irony, compared him to Trump, whose policy stances ar…
Milei won against opponents already among the most liberal (the actual sense of the world, as I am frustrated to have to stress to Americans) candidates in Argentine history, including Peronist Massa. His radicalism was so tangible that even some serious news sources, with no apparent irony, compared him to Trump, whose policy stances are exactly the opposite in any way I can think of and who stands out because of his absolute lack of understanding of economics, whereas Milei is one of the very few who understands it in Latin American history.
What else does Argentina need less than even more of the radicalism that has haunted it for all of its existence?
Then I realised Argentina has already tried reasonable gradualist liberalism twice in three decades. The first created an unprecedented disaster, the second achieved almost nothing (Macri not to be confused with Macron). So perhaps only a rabble rouser had a chance of getting anything done.
Then I looked at what he is actually doing. Devaluing the desastrous official exchange rate stopped short of the radicalism that would cause chaos. His afuera theater started with the cases so egregiously corrupt and regressive that no sane person could oppose it save from the few dozen people making huge rents. He picked the areas where the benefits would be quick and tangible, such as much lower air fares and internet connection prices. And he doubled social spending on the poor using the savings. He courted investors for whom otherwise the risks of investing in anything creating employment would be untenable for years to come. He even stepped back from the insanity of his peremptory rejection of any links to China and Brazil.
And the most cringeworthy part of his radicalism, his reactionary social conservatism is nowhere to be seen.
In fact he is only doing what Bullrich would have done anyway had she prevailed, and now has secured the support of the whole right wing and even parts of the poor electorate which a year ago found anything but Peronist fascism (though they switched the label to socialism). He might even actually manage to win over parliament.
Was his rabble rousing just a political game? If so, that was an Oscar worthy performance. Even so keeping it up throughout years of inevitable harm until anything truly valuable becomes close to bankable and more years for those effects to take root, will require more than that. Hard to imagine, but actually imaginable…
Milei won against opponents already among the most liberal (the actual sense of the world, as I am frustrated to have to stress to Americans) candidates in Argentine history, including Peronist Massa. His radicalism was so tangible that even some serious news sources, with no apparent irony, compared him to Trump, whose policy stances are exactly the opposite in any way I can think of and who stands out because of his absolute lack of understanding of economics, whereas Milei is one of the very few who understands it in Latin American history.
What else does Argentina need less than even more of the radicalism that has haunted it for all of its existence?
Then I realised Argentina has already tried reasonable gradualist liberalism twice in three decades. The first created an unprecedented disaster, the second achieved almost nothing (Macri not to be confused with Macron). So perhaps only a rabble rouser had a chance of getting anything done.
Then I looked at what he is actually doing. Devaluing the desastrous official exchange rate stopped short of the radicalism that would cause chaos. His afuera theater started with the cases so egregiously corrupt and regressive that no sane person could oppose it save from the few dozen people making huge rents. He picked the areas where the benefits would be quick and tangible, such as much lower air fares and internet connection prices. And he doubled social spending on the poor using the savings. He courted investors for whom otherwise the risks of investing in anything creating employment would be untenable for years to come. He even stepped back from the insanity of his peremptory rejection of any links to China and Brazil.
And the most cringeworthy part of his radicalism, his reactionary social conservatism is nowhere to be seen.
In fact he is only doing what Bullrich would have done anyway had she prevailed, and now has secured the support of the whole right wing and even parts of the poor electorate which a year ago found anything but Peronist fascism (though they switched the label to socialism). He might even actually manage to win over parliament.
Was his rabble rousing just a political game? If so, that was an Oscar worthy performance. Even so keeping it up throughout years of inevitable harm until anything truly valuable becomes close to bankable and more years for those effects to take root, will require more than that. Hard to imagine, but actually imaginable…