Argentina 2023 election

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Purely in terms of level of batsh**t--not the nature or tendency of his policy proposals or personal characteristics, but their sheer degree of deviation from the real or perceived mainstream--how does this Milei character compare to, say, Pedro Castillo? Jair Bolsonaro? Late-stage Hugo Chavez?

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Purely in terms of level of batsh**t--not the nature or tendency of his policy proposals or personal characteristics, but their sheer degree of deviation from the real or perceived mainstream--how does this Milei character compare to, say, Pedro Castillo? Jair Bolsonaro? Late-stage Hugo Chavez?

I’m not 100% sure what you’re asking with this - do you mean how much is he an outsider from The System, or how he’s conceived of as relating thereto? In terms of connections and outsiderness, the degree of deviation from the perceived mainstream is massive, probably at or beyond Castillo levels (though that speaks more to the Lima political elite than anything else imo). The vibe is that he’s a fully sui generis figure that represents a similarly sui generis tendency, albeit one that has a few years of experience under its belt by now instead of coming out of literally nowhere. The degree of actual deviation from the mainstream is also high, but Milei and Bullrich have IIRC had some complimentary words for each other and (as mentioned) Milei has some connections with the old menemistas.

Bolsonaro was I think a minor figure for most of his career, but he’d been in Congress for a long time and represented a tradition (authoritarian bootlicking) that existed within Brazilian politics. Brazilian posters feel free to correct me. Castillo was less well-known than Milei at the time of his election (the networks didn’t even have photos of him!) but the rural southern left has basically always existed there (to…varying degrees of radicalness - not even going to touch on anything relating to Shining Path here). Chávez I can’t really speak to tbh.

[Babeuf]

In Buenos Aires right now (great city!) and read through today’s Clarín at a cafe to see how they were covering the race. Almost every domestic article I saw was Milei related, with a few about Massa and less for Bullrich. So, the press seems to be hyper focused on him after the primary at least.

A few Cristina related articles as well, but no sight of Alberto Fernandez lol.

[PSOL]

Somehow I think whining at Marxists and MMTers when none really applied in governing under Fernandez when opinions were continually underwater, and especially Massa. The social democratic project of Peronism is being rejected, even with the left-liberals and nominal marxists who voted for FIT-U in 2019 buying nonsense and tactical voting for a dead fish.

Atlas pundits would have done much worse than even Massa in running and campaigning.

[Edu]

Somehow I think whining at Marxists and MMTers when none really applied in governing under Fernandez when opinions were continually underwater, and especially Massa. The social democratic project of Peronism is being rejected, even with the left-liberals and nominal marxists who voted for FIT-U in 2019 buying nonsense and tactical voting for a dead fish.

Atlas pundits would have done much worse than even Massa in running and campaigning.

is this post incomprehensible or is it just me?

[Vosem]

Purely in terms of level of batsh**t--not the nature or tendency of his policy proposals or personal characteristics, but their sheer degree of deviation from the real or perceived mainstream--how does this Milei character compare to, say, Pedro Castillo? Jair Bolsonaro? Late-stage Hugo Chavez?

I think in many countries the real or perceived mainstream is quite batsh**t -- Bolsonaro was a pretty long-term right-wing leader in Brazil and late-stage Hugo Chavez was able to set the norms himself.

Castillo is a decent comparison (obviously Castillo is very fis-left to Milei's very fis-right), although it seems like Castillo was more of an example of somebody at the right place and the right time, while Milei is the product of a much larger grassroots movement.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

I wouldn’t even say Peronism is social democratic. Kirchnerism, maybe, but one could make a case that the UCR is more of a historically social democratic party than the Justicialistas.

[Aurelius2]

Dollarization makes more sense from the 1980s to 2008 when the USA had a stable monetary policy.  Since 2008 the entire USA monetary system has gone haywire.  If I were Milei which I am very sympathetic to I would advocate for an independent central bank with inflation targeting plus laws that mandate balanced budgets.

The dollar is imperfect but have you *seen* the Argentine peso? This is like if a teenager is having a heart attack and a doctor says give them an aspirin, but you refuse since giving aspirin to minors for fever and pain is discouraged due to slight risk of Reye Syndrome.

[Velasco]

I wouldn’t even say Peronism is social democratic. Kirchnerism, maybe, but one could make a case that the UCR is more of a historically social democratic party than the Justicialistas.

The socialdemocratic project in Argentina was wiped out years ago. Kirchnerism is more related to personality cults, populism and assistancialism. The Broad Progressive Front (FAP, previously FPCyS) and UNEN were failed attempts to build a centre-left alternative to the ruling kirchnerism in recent years. Historically the UCR was closer to socialdemocracy than the PJ, as you say

[Peeperkorn]

I wouldn’t even say Peronism is social democratic. Kirchnerism, maybe, but one could make a case that the UCR is more of a historically social democratic party than the Justicialistas.

Peronism is essentially a chamaleonic and massive clientelist machine with no other ideology than to remain in power. It may have had a quasi-fascist "third position" flavor (Perón), a 90s free-market liberal flavor (Menem, even when he won his first election as a center left populist), a "Pink Tide" progressive one (Kirchnerism) and a long etc... But basically, it's just one movement in the sense that the actors are mostly the same in each of its different incarnations.

Their members will justify themselves saying that Peronism is some kind of mystical metaideological position always "on the side of the People", defending them against the bourgeoisie (gorilas), the traitors (vendepatrias), the oligarchy, etc.  Obviously, this is a lot of bullsh**t.

Basically, they created the perfect populist movement. And now Milei is some kind of anti-populist populist candidate. I know that doesn't make sense but Argentine politics rarely does.

[Velasco]

Basically, they created the perfect populist movement. And now Milei is some kind of anti-populist populist candidate. I know that doesn't make sense but Argentine politics rarely does.

Milei is a far-right libertarian populist who happens to be anti-peronist, not the "anti-populist candidate". The role of anti-populist opposition to the multiple incarnations of Peronism has been traditionally played by the UCR (until the 2001 collapse), replaced by the Macri's alliance from 2015 to date. The Milei surge is totally unprecedented and could represent a turn of unpredicable consequences in Argentinian politics, economy and society. As I suggested before, economically speaking, Milei's proposals represent a radical comeback of the neoliberal policies implemented during the Menem era. Carlos Menem was considering dollarization by 1999. Milei wants to go even further in that way, obviously

[Red Velvet]

Lmao at the notion that Milei is “anti-populist” simply for being “anti-peronist”

Peronism is Populism but Populism isn’t Peronism. You guys have the mindset that every brand of populism can fit into Peronism but that isn’t true.

[Aurelius2]

I wouldn’t even say Peronism is social democratic. Kirchnerism, maybe, but one could make a case that the UCR is more of a historically social democratic party than the Justicialistas.

Peronism is essentially a chamaleonic and massive clientelist machine with no other ideology than to remain in power. It may have had a quasi-fascist "third position" flavor (Perón), a 90s free-market liberal flavor (Menem, even when he won his first election as a center left populist), a "Pink Tide" progressive one (Kirchnerism) and a long etc... But basically, it's just one movement in the sense that the actors are mostly the same in each of its different incarnations.

Their members will justify themselves saying that Peronism is some kind of mystical metaideological position always "on the side of the People", defending them against the bourgeoisie (gorilas), the traitors (vendepatrias), the oligarchy, etc.  Obviously, this is a lot of bullsh**t.

Basically, they created the perfect populist movement. And now Milei is some kind of anti-populist populist candidate. I know that doesn't make sense but Argentine politics rarely does.

Don't the Kirchners claim to be anti-Peronist nowadays? I'm so confused.

[Bilardista]

Neither radicalism nor peronism have ever identified with social democracy. Only the socialist party did , and it lost any chance of relevance when Perón won over the labour movement 80 years ago.
But i don't see how the UCR could be perceived to be more social democratic, or simply more leftist than a labour based, popular movement that advocates for workers rights, wealth redistribution and state intervention in the economy. That's certainly not the perception in this country.
Radicalism has always been more "liberal democratic", or at least it has been since the 80's, but as the party of the middle class it never positioned itself nor was never perceived as being to the left of peronism.

[Peeperkorn]

Don't the Kirchners claim to be anti-Peronist nowadays?

Most Kirchnerists (including Cristina) will say that they're the heirs of the real Peronist ideals (whatever this means, as it's more a set of symbols than an ideology). But there're some other political movements that support Kirchnerism without defining themselves as Peronists (they call this transversalidad).

I'm so confused.

Because it's really confusing. Criminology would probably be a better discipline to study the phenomenon instead of Political Science.

[Velasco]

Neither radicalism nor peronism have ever identified with social democracy. Only the socialist party did , and it lost any chance of relevance when Perón won over the labour movement 80 years ago.
But i don't see how the UCR could be perceived to be more social democratic, or simply more leftist than a labour based, popular movement that advocates for workers rights, wealth redistribution and state intervention in the economy. That's certainly not the perception in this country.
Radicalism has always been more "liberal democratic", or at least it has been since the 80's, but as the party of the middle class it never positioned itself nor was never perceived as being to the left of peronism.

You are right in saying that neither the UCR or the PJ identified themselves as socialdemocratic, as well in what concerns the co-optation of the labour movement by Juan Domingo Perón in the 1930s or 1940s

The point is, European socialdemocracy nowadays is a moderate centre-left movement that often seeks to ally with middle-class liberals. I mean, saying that UCR is closer to socialdemocracy than the PJ does not imply that it's more leftist than the left-wing populist factions within the peronist movement. The Argentinian PS identifies itself with the European socialdemocracy, which is a political tradition totally different from the labour movement alligned to peronism. In other words, not ot all the popular movements that advocate workers rights and redistributive policies adhere socialdemocracy. On the other hand, the PJ has been dominated by right-wing factions more often than left-wing factions. In what concerns electoral alliances, the PS often joined the UCR or its social-liberal splits (CC-ARI) in centre-left tickets. I'd say socialdemocrats in Argentina (Binner, Stolbizer and the like) tend to identify more with a "republican" and "liberal" tradition historically represented by the UCR

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Purely in terms of level of batsh**t--not the nature or tendency of his policy proposals or personal characteristics, but their sheer degree of deviation from the real or perceived mainstream--how does this Milei character compare to, say, Pedro Castillo? Jair Bolsonaro? Late-stage Hugo Chavez?

I think in many countries the real or perceived mainstream is quite batsh**t -- Bolsonaro was a pretty long-term right-wing leader in Brazil and late-stage Hugo Chavez was able to set the norms himself.

Castillo is a decent comparison (obviously Castillo is very fis-left to Milei's very fis-right), although it seems like Castillo was more of an example of somebody at the right place and the right time, while Milei is the product of a much larger grassroots movement.

Eh, there's a pretty clear genuine appetite for Castillo's general "type" of authleft indigenism in the Andes. You're probably right that Castillo himself was a right place/right time candidate, though.

[lfromnj]

Castillo was merely just elected coz of the runoff system allowing the best possible opponent for him to face. Something like 63% of the congress was still pretty right wing overall and then add in a smattering of liberals and his impeachment was almost certain once you just had the small social liberals on board.

Also by the way, all the anglo media keeps stating that Milei is a Trump admirer in the title, can someone actually quote what he said about Trump.

[Bilardista]

Neither radicalism nor peronism have ever identified with social democracy. Only the socialist party did , and it lost any chance of relevance when Perón won over the labour movement 80 years ago.
But i don't see how the UCR could be perceived to be more social democratic, or simply more leftist than a labour based, popular movement that advocates for workers rights, wealth redistribution and state intervention in the economy. That's certainly not the perception in this country.
Radicalism has always been more "liberal democratic", or at least it has been since the 80's, but as the party of the middle class it never positioned itself nor was never perceived as being to the left of peronism.

You are right in saying that neither the UCR or the PJ identified themselves as socialdemocratic, as well in what concerns the co-optation of the labour movement by Juan Domingo Perón in the 1930s or 1940s

The point is, European socialdemocracy nowadays is a moderate centre-left movement that often seeks to ally with middle-class liberals. I mean, saying that UCR is closer to socialdemocracy than the PJ does not imply that it's more leftist than the left-wing populist factions within the peronist movement. The Argentinian PS identifies itself with the European socialdemocracy, which is a political tradition totally different from the labour movement alligned to peronism. In other words, not ot all the popular movements that advocate workers rights and redistributive policies adhere socialdemocracy. On the other hand, the PJ has been dominated by right-wing factions more often than left-wing factions. In what concerns electoral alliances, the PS often joined the UCR or its social-liberal splits (CC-ARI) in centre-left tickets. I'd say socialdemocrats in Argentina (Binner, Stolbizer and the like) tend to identify more with a "republican" and "liberal" tradition historically represented by the UCR

Ah, so you mean closer as in allied with? If so, eh, maybe? The relationship between radicalism and other forces has always been less ideological and more "sociological". Their alliance with the PS made sense as it was never a mass party with working class support like the socialist parties of Europe, but rather a predominantly middle class party (much like the UCR itself). Especially after 1946 when their labour wing left to join the PJ and the CGT, after that they were an insignificant and confused group, unsure wether to join peronism (the labour movement they could never be) or follow their voter base and ally with other antiperonist forces. They chose the later, sometimes allying with reactionary forces like in the 1955 coup.

[Velasco]

Neither radicalism nor peronism have ever identified with social democracy. Only the socialist party did , and it lost any chance of relevance when Perón won over the labour movement 80 years ago.
But i don't see how the UCR could be perceived to be more social democratic, or simply more leftist than a labour based, popular movement that advocates for workers rights, wealth redistribution and state intervention in the economy. That's certainly not the perception in this country.
Radicalism has always been more "liberal democratic", or at least it has been since the 80's, but as the party of the middle class it never positioned itself nor was never perceived as being to the left of peronism.

You are right in saying that neither the UCR or the PJ identified themselves as socialdemocratic, as well in what concerns the co-optation of the labour movement by Juan Domingo Perón in the 1930s or 1940s

The point is, European socialdemocracy nowadays is a moderate centre-left movement that often seeks to ally with middle-class liberals. I mean, saying that UCR is closer to socialdemocracy than the PJ does not imply that it's more leftist than the left-wing populist factions within the peronist movement. The Argentinian PS identifies itself with the European socialdemocracy, which is a political tradition totally different from the labour movement alligned to peronism. In other words, not ot all the popular movements that advocate workers rights and redistributive policies adhere socialdemocracy. On the other hand, the PJ has been dominated by right-wing factions more often than left-wing factions. In what concerns electoral alliances, the PS often joined the UCR or its social-liberal splits (CC-ARI) in centre-left tickets. I'd say socialdemocrats in Argentina (Binner, Stolbizer and the like) tend to identify more with a "republican" and "liberal" tradition historically represented by the UCR

Ah, so you mean closer as in allied with? If so, eh, maybe? The relationship between radicalism and other forces has always been less ideological and more "sociological". Their alliance with the PS made sense as it was never a mass party with working class support like the socialist parties of Europe, but rather a predominantly middle class party (much like the UCR itself). Especially after 1946 when their labour wing left to join the PJ and the CGT, after that they were an insignificant and confused group, unsure wether to join peronism (the labour movement they could never be) or follow their voter base and ally with other antiperonist forces. They chose the later, sometimes allying with reactionary forces like in the 1955 coup.

I meant that the UCR is a party that allegedly advocates "liberal" and "republican" values, which place radicalism  closer to the values of the European socialdemocracy.  You are right saying that the UCR and the PS are sociologically middle class. The point is that the labour movement aligned to peronism belongs to a political tradition unrelated to socialdemocracy, regardless of whether such movement can be defined as left-wing. The history of the UCR and the PJ is complex and both parties have allied to reactionary elements  in certain moments. Furthermore, Perón himself broke with the left-wing faction of his movement after 1973 and his government turned to be increasingly reactionary. On the other hand, presidents like Hipólito Yrigoyen and Arturo Frondizi were interesting figures coming from radicalism. I wouldn't describe them as right-wing or reactionary

[Red Velvet]

Milei’s candidate Mariela Weimer relativizes military dictatorship: “With 40 years of military in power, we would be better today”

It’s always good to remind people that “Liberals” in Latin America mean the same thing in practice as a “Conservative”, only with a different branding.

“We only agree on economic matters with conservatives, we’re libertarians” yeah okay.

What’s ironic is that Milei’s party is called “La Libertad Avanza”. Yet this same guy who repeats FREEDOM in an empty manner simps for dictatorship apologist Bolsonaro and his movement openly has the same idea regarding Argentina as this Weimer woman shows.

[CumbrianLefty]

Well apart from anything else, the 1970s/80s junta were totally economically incompetent.

(indeed, that is a large part of why the Falklands were invaded)

[Peeperkorn]

It’s always good to remind people that “Liberals” in Latin America mean the same thing in practice as a “Conservative”, only with a different branding.

Not really. You'll find candidates and parties that mix economic liberalism with social conservativism and others that don't as in every other region of the Western World.

In this particular case I don't think that Milei is personally a social conservative. It is true that he has an extreme anti-abortion position, but it comes from his particular interpretation of classic liberalism and not from a religious perspective. He's also tough-on-crime but that's reasonable considering we're talking about Latin America. But he supports gay marriage ("marriage is a contract between two individuals"), legal gender change and drug legalization. And he has openly attacked the Pope and the Church ("If you want to fund social justice do it with Vatican's money"). I mean, he openly talks about how much he enjoys threesomes and tantric sex and things like that.

I suppose that it could be said that he sees everything through an extreme economic libertarian lens without thinking too much about the social stuff.

But it's also true that since his entry into politics he has been joined by some social conservatives, for example his vice-presidential candidate Victoria Villarruel. I see this as a purely situational alliance that may cause a lot of trouble if they win.

[warandwar]

Rothbard hung out with neo-confederates in the 90s. I think it is absolutely a socially conservative definition of freedom that says, for example, i can have freedom to screw around, but women don't have freedom to have bodily autonomy, and so on. It's just Salo sh**t.

Millei seems like a huckster selling snake oil - we will all get dollars and be rich. It's a symptom of the degradation, not a response to it.

EDIT: https://www.argentina.gob.ar/seguridad/estadisticascriminales - here's the link to criminal stats of Argentina - violent crime has gone down steadily for the last while.
I don't see how making the median salary 50 USD will increase economic security and social well being but maybe i need Argentinian liberal glasses to figure that one out

[Velasco]

I might be wrong and making predictions is very risky,  but I'll say it anyway. My impression is that Milei's chances of winning the presidential election are high, for the simple reason that I can't imagine peronists and anti-peronists joining the anti-Milei front. I can see the opposite, though. I mean, we will need to watch closely the legislative results and the composition of the two chambers of the Argentinian Congress. It wouldn't surprise me to see the right-wing factions of peronism and anti-peronism making deals with president Milei, in the eventuality the anarcho-capitalist wins

I know it's too early and it may sound as nonsense. I haven't been following Argentinian politics very closely, but these are my thoughts right now.