The danger of freedom not advancing
Javier Milei boasts in the last hours that “We’re already growing like a diver’s fart and you can see the bubbles.” . Also, that "with everything we've done so far, we're already the best government in history" and that his image "is at its highest level because the adjustment is popular." This isn't exactly what the latest public opinion polls indicate, which show that the President's best moment was near the end of the year and, since then, his image has suffered a decline coinciding with a series of events. Among them, his unfortunate speech in Davos , with confusing statements about homosexuality and pedophilia; cryptogate ; the return of street protests, where a photographer was seriously injured, and the slowdown in consumer price declines. Still, Presidential approval ratings, around 40% according to the average of several consulting firms, are reasonable for the ruling party's electoral objectives. The truth is that the truly decisive elections for the government will be held on October 26, when half of the Chamber of Deputies and a third of the Senate will be renewed. This 180-day window should allow the economic team to achieve monthly inflation levels close to 1%, which would boost the governing party's electoral chances.
"He's going to do well because there's no one in front of him," "there's no opposition: no visible faces or new names." These phrases, extracted from focus groups , are part of a qualitative study that concludes that, in line with the data obtained through surveys, The decline in the image of the national government does not translate into a reduction in voting intentions in favor of the ruling party. , or at least not significantly. In this context, the paper indicates, the absence of a perceived consistent alternative from the opposition side contributes in this direction.
Radicalization can be a one-way street and a danger to the advancement of freedom.
The study was carried out by public opinion consultant Sebastián Halperin on April 14 and 15 among four mixed focus groups made up exclusively of citizens residing in the AMBA ( Mexico City) (50% in the Federal Capital and 50% in Greater Buenos Aires) who voted for Milei in the November 2023 runoff. Its general objective was to analyze the prevailing climate of opinion among those who constitute the base of support for the national government, and some of its specific purposes aimed to investigate the reasons for the hypothetical deterioration of the government's image, analyze the level of fulfillment of initial expectations regarding the Government and explore possible mutations in terms of voting intention for this year's elections.
According to the report, the fear of a possible return of Kirchnerism to power operates as additional factor for the renewal of credit to the Milei government .
The main reasons for the decline in the government's image are more directly associated with issues that directly impact the daily lives of average citizens, rather than with the more high-profile episodes that have occurred since the beginning of this year, such as the presidential speech in Davos, the crypto scandal, or the appointment of Supreme Court justices by decree. The testimonies of those interviewed reveal a certain tension between perceived reality and initial expectations on the economic front, along with concerns about the loss of purchasing power ("money isn't enough"). Questions also arise regarding what are presented as "failed campaign promises"; for example, complaints were heard such as "the elite is better than ever," "it can't be that a senator or representative is earning almost ten million pesos," "Milei said she would cut off her hands before raising taxes, and now I see them there," or "she said retirees would earn a more decent salary." Similarly, among those who voted for Milei in the second round of 2023, there is a certain disappointment regarding the Government's handling of alliances and the articulation of consensus, as well as the “neglect of its partners” to promote the government agenda: “He made an alliance with Pro and then ended up separated when Pro voted for the laws so he could govern” or “if he has a minority, he should negotiate with other political parties,” was pointed out in the focus groups .
Within the axis of positive comments are mentioned inflation control (“it is less than that of previous governments”); the reduction of public spending and the state apparatus (“they removed the gnocchi”, “now the employees work”, “the Ministry of Women closed”); the modification of the rental law (“I see more offers now than before”); the elimination of social programs and subsidies (“they launched plans with which they gave away money”); the correction of the agenda (“he is addressing the real priorities”, “he dared to do something different and with unpopular measures”, “what we need to do is being done”); the break with the paradigm of the traditional politician (“Milei is not a politician”, “he broke all the molds”); the response speed (“chainsaw from the first minute”) and keeping one's word, firmness and conviction (“he is doing the things he said he was going to do”, “he is the opposite of Menem , who said that if he said what he was going to do no one would vote for him”, “he is bold”, “he follows his plan to the letter”).
What do Milei's voters say about the President's style and manners? Opinions here seem divided. Some negative comments: "I think the ideas he says he has are good, but they're not the way to get things done"; "He argues with everyone, he lacks political acumen"; "I voted for him because of his way of thinking, not because he's a shill"; "Milei uses social media a lot; it seems like he's still campaigning"; "He's still playing the crazy guy, like when he was a TV panelist"; "He's not a politician, he's an economist, and he's living his presidency like any other citizen"; "He doesn't weigh the weight of everything he tweets or where he interferes"; "It would be good if he would tone things down a bit"; "He's very contemptuous when he talks about his rivals; he needs to tone it down a bit"; "He often behaves more like a panelist than a president"; "He shouldn't mess with people in the entertainment and art world" (referring to his attacks on Lali Espósito ).
On the other hand, among his former voters there are also those who receive closeness and identification with a president who “shows himself authentic” and breaks with the logic of traditional politics, something that shaped his advantage as a vote- getter . This vision is related to the idea that he would be acting within the framework of a roadmap with clear and achievable objectives, assuming the difficulties of a long-term process not without obstacles.
* * *
On Saturday, April 19, on the eve of Easter , Milei once again lashed out at journalists. But this time, her post on the social network X was more than just a personal attack. "I think people don't hate these hitmen with so-called journalist credentials enough. If they knew them better, they would hate them even more than politicians." , he wrote. Less than 48 hours later, two particularly serious incidents occurred. The first was the insults and boos suffered by Vice President Victoria Villarruel , whom the most recalcitrant Millenism has declared its enemy, upon leaving a church. The second episode was a violent attack on the journalist Roberto Navarro , who received a blow to the back of the head that forced him to be hospitalized. Neither of the two events can be unrelated to the "culture of grievance" that is exercised from the highest levels of political power and that extends to the digital lynching practices , with worrying frequency endorsed by the President of the Nation himself on social networks.
"The President answers those who lie; don't lie and no one will answer you," said presidential spokesman Manuel Adorni . No one can deny the president his right to respond to any public question. What an official of his rank cannot do is equate any criticism with a lie. Nor can he consider himself entitled to insult anyone who questions him. Milei is not content with imposing his arguments and winning—so to speak—the cultural battle. He believes it is necessary to denigrate his critics, considering himself entitled to insult and humiliate them in public. "Baboons," "enveloping," "imbeciles," and "poisoners" are some of his favorite adjectives when referring to journalists or economists who are not inclined to flattery or servility. He sometimes resorts to childish allusions to the names or surnames of his opponents to ridicule them in public. It is, at its core, nothing more than a miserable tactic aimed at intimidating and silencing dissident voices, hoping that, through fear and self-censorship, they will withdraw from public conversation. .
Mileísta leaders are convinced that neither the most questionable features of the presidential style nor his repeated acts of bullying against those who dare to criticize him will influence the electorate's voting intentions. They see the leader of their political movement as the expression of a climate of the times marked by the end of moderation, where respect for forms is equated with hypocrisy. They do not understand that revaluing the quarrelsome style characteristic of some social networks from the highest levels of political power can only further damage the social fabric, nor that Many times radicalization can be a one-way street with no return and a danger to the advancement of freedom. .
After the death of Pope Francis , the President took pains to highlight the Supreme Pontiff's "goodness and wisdom," "despite differences that seem minor today." For Milei, Jorge Bergoglio went from being "the representative of evil on Earth" and "an imbecile who defends social justice" and "promotes communism" to becoming "the most important Argentine in history." A similar shift occurred with Cristina Kirchner , who went so far as to ignore Bergoglio just minutes after he was appointed pope. However, over time, she did not shy away from parading through the Vatican , and after the Holy Father's death, she did not hesitate to affirm that Francis "was the face of a more humane Church, with its feet on the ground, never taking its eyes off the sky."
In Argentina, Pope Francis has been questioned on many issues: from his reluctance to visit his country to his encounters with figures like Juan Grabois or his sending a rosary to the condemned Milagro Sala . In contrast, the late pontiff taught us that forgiveness sterilizes the soul and that we must accept our own mistakes and imperfections, just as we do those of others. With his virtues and his shortcomings, with his gestures and his silences, he leaves us a legacy that can urge us to be more understanding and open, and less prone to divisions and polarization, while still denouncing and combating corruption. This is a message we should all take note of.
lanacion
