The question of whether there is news in the electoral field would sound ridiculous, because the succession of scandals and tremors calls for measuring its perhaps decisive influence. But after a little digging, we see these episodes as another set of unknowns, which will only begin to be cleared up in a couple of Sundays. Yesterday’s debate did not provide certainty in that sense either.
It remains unclear that sex pornography Martin Insaurralde; o to Julio Rigau’s chocolate shop, which reaches the entire fabric of Buenos Aires politics; or the aroma of intelligence services in the revelation of the affairs that are uncovered incessantly; or the dollar shot; or the inflation index from the city of Buenos Aires that anticipates the national number; or the tripping of Mauricio Macri to the Cambiomita candidate because Macri is not a politician, but a scorned owner; or the barracks of Javier Miley; or the operations in the cities against large caves; or a gap in the exchange rate that widened again, to very threatening bull run limits; or proactive measures Sergio Massa; or the most difficult moment of Axel Kicillof, almost without eating or drinking it; or the radicals who remain absorbed and indecisive? against the candidacy of Patricia Bullrich; or radioactive cell phones; or the incessant criminal acts that are both certainty and suffering and media handle now patented, now show, are going to substantially change what has already been established.
If it is due to sensations, it would give the impression that moving events are not necessarily synonymous with significant alterations. It will be seen on October 22, and even more so in the runoff that the entire politicized world foresees.
In a short, simple and forceful article, published in The Tecl@Eñe, The writer Martín Kohan reflects on the first presidential debate with a projection that exceeds this one, because it reaches a global atmosphere where practically any shock does not produce major effects (electoral, at least). And the second debate, last night, he ratified it.
Remember, first of all, that the inclination to say anything is nothing new. It always existed. But he warns that it could be a sign of the times that has no consequences.
“Whoever said anything, until a while ago, could later find himself refuted, denied; even mocked. The most common thing was that he had to recant, or at least rearrange his statements, or eventually resign himself to occupying that rather disgraceful place: that of the one who says anything.
As in effect no problem, and as Kohan adds, whoever takes that position and warns that it has no cost then becomes emboldened; It can become much more blunt, more arbitrary, more aggressive and even reach the intemperate register of insane violence.. Here it can be added that such violence does not require overt gestures as it can be, calmly, argumentative terrorism. Because, overall, nothing happens.
Thus, it can be unknown that crimes against humanity are only those perpetrated by the state repressive apparatus. ¡O to accuse a Trotskyist of the crimes of Stalinism! And then, as the writer concludes, in the face of another’s word, in the face of the accurate reply and the refutation, forcing an overacting disregard, staring at the camera and adopting the sinister grimace of the lost. The dark smile of the gone.
Of course, the details of discussions very priority prepared to provide spectacle, and not content whose formulation is unlikely in seconds or a couple of minutes, they lend themselves to subjectivity.
About Massa and Bullrich Aspects can be pointed out that would also do or do the resource of saying “anything” without strong consequences.
The one, in general order, because he is a participant in a management that has the title of governing, and no less than as Minister of Economy in the middle of a shocking inflation.
The other because can barely refer to its advertising slogans, he confuses the questions, he gets lost in the attempt to articulate sentences and it is not only that he does not have the slightest idea about economics, but that he is incapable of drawing up a minimum proposal even memorized. (This, last night, deepened markedly).
The spontaneity of Myriam Bregman, as the only unconventional one at the intersection, does not intend to leave the assembly consignism. AND Juan Schiaretti memes were made with his confinement in the republic of Cordoba.
Nothing would indicate that any of that was modified, in a notable way, during the second debate. But, in the end, they are questions related to a format in which, with their virtues and defects in tow, everyone manages as best they can.
On the contrary, when saying any outrageous thing involves denying the genocide of the dictatorship to the point of inventing an exact number of missing people taken from no one knows where, as if that changed the degree of horror and as if, before, it did not confirm it; when with absolute impunity it is mentioned liquidate the Central Bank; When we delusionally dollarize without having dollars, and when we deny free public education and health, we are talking about something else. besides of whatever.
We are indeed talking about what appears to be a climate of changing times, through which not only are there no popular sanctions for all types of madness but, on top of that, they can be enthusiastically endorsed.
The diagnosis is surely correct that this kind of mad, reckless frenzy, probably ready to jump into the void (Jorge Alemán calls it a “carnival of destruction”), comes from the serious deficiencies and corruption exposed by the traditional political leadership. But the distance between what is understandable and what is justifiable is also abysmal.
The latter is in response to something already said by not so many segments and alarmed personalities, regarding the need or convenience of not getting angry with the disbelievers and disappointed people who voted and will vote for the chainsaw madman.
It is understood from an electoral campaign tactic. Oneself expressed it, and ratifies it.
However, according to a certain agenda or installed perception, it would seem that the immense majority of Milei voters consists of delivery workers, extended sectors of the lower/lower-middle and impoverished middle class. This is not the case, as demonstrated by the x-ray of what happened in the Primaries. The “libertarian” – a horror of a word, we must not tire of repeating it according to his award – It is a vote that cuts across all social classes and economic stages..
Well-off people, without dramatic emergencies; professionals; young people completely unconcerned about collective luck; Consumers from this country, rich in its cultural vastness, also vote for Milei.
How far must this understanding go, otherwise the care not to anger them ends up revealing itself in catastrophic results?
Just in case: he is not proposing, not even remotely, any inversely proportional reaction to the violent dynamics of the flat earth discourse. Yes, perhaps, it could be an attempt to accentuate with better emphasis, with greater creativity, with other slogans, the danger that looms for a (very) devalued concept: democracy.
I hope it’s not too late. And let us fight for that, even if we are bruised.
