The analysis of the act in the Plaza could be divided into at least two parts: the assurances about the fact that it occurred, and the doubts about how the electoral process of the ruling party will continue. But the big question is whether there is any certainty around the global political course.
Cristina, as expected, confirmed that her figure and leadership in the sector are incomparable with respect to any other protagonist.
The usual sum of ignorant, resentful and haters stopped at the people “dragged in buses”, thanks to the apparatus of “those who do it with yours, not with theirs”. The insignificance of statements like these never ceases to be impressive, because if they were credible they would imply that fervor can be bought.
Leaving aside the “loose”, which were many, it is certain the key and organic presence of municipalities of the suburbs, La Cámpora, powerful unions that did not respond to the emetic official abstention of the CGT, social movements to which this time the Avoid, CTA, etc.
AND? What’s the problem? Are such sets born from a cabbage that produces automata?
With this criterion, it can be argued that “automatism” is in truth, or in addition, that of the tilinguery directed by the hegemonic media.
Entering chicana by chicana does not lead to any place other than to measure who has the longest in terms of comments in passing; of rants with pretensions of irony; to provoke to see if someone buys and (you, us) grants a few seconds with stardom of parsley, of microclimate, on the networks, in front of cameras and microphones, in a forum, wherever.
Precisely, CFK cited “the nonsense that is talked about in the media.” And he is right, although the boludómetro lends itself to subjectivity. But what no one should deny her is that she makes and refutes considerable arguments, whether to accept or reject them.
That is what he did in the Plaza, albeit placing himself more in the past to recover than in the future to erect… if it is because of the expectations that that Plaza had.
We do not avoid that, apart from Cristina President / One more and we don’t fuck around anymore / The proscription leaves the whore who gave birth to itthe crowd expected a wink, a phrase, a gesture (which was in the companions and their location order on stage, along with the powerful image of his grandchildren)capable of giving “satisfactory” clues.
It didn’t happen.
The deconcentration was so far from resembling a wake, while the rain was relentless again, as it was close to resembling a chirle party finale.
Was it Cristina’s “fault”? No. Cristina simply reiterated what she has insisted on for too long and which, in her personal opinion, is irrefutable.
As happened since December 6, when she said she would not be a candidate for anything at all, the problem would be the listeners who don’t want to be listened toas, although the magnetism produced by such a personality is understood. It is incontrovertible that no one, absolutely no one, can be passionate like her. Either to fall in love or to hate her.
Cristina remarked that there is no guardianship if you do not renegotiate with the Monetary Fund, clarified by herself that there is no talk of not paying him or drawing anti-capitalist verses. He warned again that he must “open his head” for the rebirth of a pact between the state and private sectors. He again asked for a democratic agreement to be restored; He vindicated Alfonsín in the epochal sense; He called to replace “enemies” with “adversaries”. And he returned to prevent that with this Supreme Court no republicanism can be aspired.
The drawback of this discourse is, on the one hand, that it faces contradictions and uncertainties (as if there could be a lack of them in any leader at any time and place, and in almost any circumstance).
The IMF thing is the “minor” complication, within the hanging that it means. As was known or should have been known from the outset, this tragedy that Macri left behind will be subject to permanent renegotiation.
The patriotic arrangement? with business sections it should go, unless someone continues to believe in an exclusively statist economy to apply from a peripheral country. But it is true that the attempts to achieve that peace of economic development (let’s say) collide with the refusal of the corporations. Perhaps because the attempts were not well conducted?
The ratification of the democratic agreement should be essential, when it comes to the fact that they wanted to assassinate her. And since the plump right does not intend to beat Peronism, but to exterminate it. But as a call, it sounds abstract.
And the saying that, with this Court, it is useless to attack an even less aristocratic judiciary, is as undeniable as the reading that unfortunately they managed to install: she is only concerned about her personal situation, not going to prison, that they do not touch his family.
So: neither renegotiating with the IMF, nor seeking agreements with the private sector, nor re-agreeing on a democratic pact, nor reforming the Justice or the Court, are ingredients of popular attraction. Just in case: it is not said that they are not fair claims. Yes it is said that As they are formulated, they are not enough to arouse an enthusiasm for the fight.
In order to win back popular support, it seems more effective that, now and not for when there is a government program, some measure of concrete exemplification is taken.
The Plaza, ergo, withdrew confused because of the really existing reality that CFK described, with her brilliance as an extraordinary speaker, far beyond the errors that correspond to her or that could be attributed to her.
These are the objective conditions. of the political situation. Of a present that threatens with fascistoid projections and where resisting (for which there are powerful reserves, as the Plaza demonstrated) seems more likely than building.
Between data and conjectures, there is something to make sweet.
Is Sergio Massa the candidate to wait for if he does well in China and with his plays so that the Fund disburses dollars, at the cost of devaluing or revolving it to the rostrum, and despite the fact that the inflationary index threatens to not stop uploading?
Would you persist with Axel Kicillof “sacrificing” himself in the national team with which he does not want to have anything to do with, and what if he deserves to stay in La Provincia, which shows him with commendable management?
Is Pedro’s Wado as a K candidate but towards the center, which is what Cristina is calling for while the intense and moving minority continues to demand combativeness towards the left?
And with whom would Wado, or Kicillof, articulate to express a “synthesis” of electoral competitiveness?
Possibly, it is a question that Cristina herself is in doubt and not that towards the last legal moment she reserves a surprise factor.
The impression is that a piece or bit of the coin is in the air, until it is verified how Massa will fare on the international board. Or how on the board that is resolved if they let go of Argentina’s hand, or choose to rule out another mess in a place in the region that is neither minor nor decisive.
There are other questions, regarding unknowns about who could accumulate to offer from Peronism / Kirchnerism / progressivism a winning alternative. Or consistent. Or decorous.
And if it were that, in addition to naming the candidacies, and given that it is a matter of recreating alliances with productive fringes, it is about nominating (and proceeding with) those actors?
Who are they?
Are they medium-sized companies, and even large ones, linked to the domestic market, separated from the gauchocracy of a primary economy and exporter of agricultural commodities? Are they industrialists who should be terrified with the mere prospect of Macri’s return, in larretistic, bullying ways, or as a lunatic for whom it doesn’t matter in the first place how many votes he will end up capturing, but rather the way in which he sets a delusional agenda?
Could it be that it is more precise and effective to display that arc of probable alliances, instead of notes on things already known or assumed by those who use them to adhere to or repudiate?
They are just questions. They may be incomplete and insufficient. But they are hardly invalid.
