Notes on the Argentine right wing during election time

By Esteban Torres (*)

How do the right-wing projects vying for power in the national elections fit into Argentine culture and political history? Amidst the current debates in Argentina, Esteban Torres offers a historical perspective while remaining mindful of the immediate and urgent issues. His insights contribute to understanding a critical reality in the process of transformation.

I.

Javier Milei embodies the aesthetic renewal of a faction of Argentine politics that historically defined its right-wing identity against independence projects. When we assume that the core of national political identity is redefined by Peronism in the 20th century, we must recognize that the popular movement led by Perón was the bearer of an ideology of national liberation that ignited throughout Latin America with the formal political independences from Spain at the beginning of the 19th century. Thus, the European ideologies that arrived with the waves of immigration in the 19th and 20th centuries, including the antagonistic imaginary between right and left, became embedded in a political culture that was being formed in the struggle between independence forces and colonizing forces. In the realm of economic ideas, the former carried industrialist programs and protectionist measures, while the colonizing movements sought to impose free trade doctrines and open-market measures. Associated with this, the pro-independence powers promoted public goods for autonomous national development, in contrast to the colonizing agents who pursued privatization and foreign ownership of the economy. From the 19th century to the present day, national political power has been divided between these two groups, under the historical predominance of the open-minded right. That is why when Milei points to leftists, communists, socialists, and neo-Marxists as enemies, he is not primarily targeting those who define themselves as leftists, but rather those who hold nationalist convictions. Here I am not referring to a dominant, supremacist nationalism, but to an independentist version, referenced in a rebellious, competent, and protective state rather than an oppressive one. This is a type of egalitarian nationalism, based on the principle of self-determination of peoples, which proliferated in Latin America, Asia and Africa with the advancement of the decolonization process. In its most basic aspect, the claim of sovereignty of the Global South aimed at ending the plundering of natural resources. Contemporary vassal currents, which today define themselves as liberals, usually refer to this autonomist democratic ideology as "populism". The aforementioned historical antagonism helps explain why, in the current situation, the main enemy of Milei and the entire Argentine right wing is Kirchnerism, and by extension, Peronism. In the first third of the 19th century, it was the continental unionism of San Martín and the federalism of Artigas, and at the beginning of the 20th century, it was Yrigoyenism. Today, well into the 21st century, hatred is focused on the figure of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner because, if she continues to be influential in politics, the possibility of realizing that old anti-colonial dream of a liberated homeland will remain latent. It is for the same reason that Bolsonarism directs its hatred towards Lula's Workers' Party (PT) rather than towards minority left-wing parties. You don't need to be an outstanding historian - although you do need to be honest - to recognize that from the first independences of the 19th century until today, the few successful experiences of egalitarian transformation of national and Latin American realities were committed to an idea of ​​homeland and to a sovereignist policy. And there is no doubt that this will continue to be the case in Argentina in the near future. For the presidential elections in October, Sergio Massa will represent the democratic and independentist forces, with the pronounced limitations imposed by the current situation.

II.

There are not and will not be programmatic differences between La Libertad Avanza and the dominant core of Juntos por el Cambio because both groups clearly represent, in the first instance, the historical vassal currents of national politics. It is because of this sad coincidence that both political forces will have no major problems forging close alliances from now on, whether they win or lose the next elections. Moreover, if any of these groups emerges victorious, it is likely that several well-known leaders from the losing side will directly join the ranks of the winner. Not all right-wing blocs are vassals, but the Argentinian one is. Throughout history, all vassal politics has essentially been a policy of voluntary servitude to foreign powers. In return, this political faction received substantial economic benefits, or simply handouts. Being a dependent right wing, the usual squabbles between factions tend to be deactivated when they are not convenient for the external powers that promote them. That is why it does not make much sense to emphasize the difference between a new and an old right in Argentina, a moderate one and a radical one, an institutional one and a disruptive one. The current speeches of the candidates speak more by what they leave unsaid than by what they explicitly state. I am not suggesting here that there are no differences between Milei and Macri, Milei and Bullrich, Milei and Menem, Milei and the dictatorship. I simply believe that they will not be decisive in the future behavior of each of the political factions. In any case, the current novelty, if there is one, is the incredible persistence of the integration movement that is generated between two right-wing groups when they share the same vassal disposition. For many analysts, the public rapprochement between Milei and Macri occurred faster than expected, and hinted at a more organic future unity of action than was imaginable a priori. However, this happened mainly because the approach between them was not determined by them. Without resorting to psychologisms, we must recognize that all servility is a behavior devoid of self-esteem. Throughout history, Argentine vassal politicians, by virtue of considering themselves inferior to their dominant Western counterparts, sought to gain their recognition by submitting to a bond of unconditional subordination. Generation after generation, the Argentine people watched impassively as these figures willingly knelt before anyone even asked them to. From the 1970s to the present day, the military dictatorships, the presidencies of Carlos Menem, and the government of Mauricio Macri were all vassal governments in every sense of the word. All of them serial debtors of the country. In addition to great tragedies, they gave us a collection of unforgettable postcards of national prostration. Vassal men and political parties, with powers granted from above, who chose to vent the impotence generated by this bond of human capitulation by lashing out against everything that could fuel a hopeful process of autonomy and national well-being. We are facing robust puppets, subject to powerful external interests, fattened with a lot of money, but also willing to act on their own in the little bit of freedom they are given. There is nothing worse for the promoters of national vassalage than an autonomist movement willing to safeguard public assets and achieve sovereign development for its people. I believe this is the true background to the threat to exterminate CONICET. Milei's main problem is not the work culture of scientists as state employees, nor even the volume of economic resources that this organization consumes from the meager national budget. I suspect that those references are exhausted in his hate speech. The real obstacle that Milei, Macri, and those who give them orders see is that fully realized scientific activity has been the engine of the comprehensive autonomous development of nations since the 20th century. Currently, there is not a single developed country on the planet that does not have a leading public scientific system. It is no accident that committed, state-funded science has always generated a visceral rejection from the Argentine right. That represents the main antidote to all the poverty we suffer, starting with the ignorance manufactured by politics, and the vassal culture that has been shaping the dependent fabric of our modernity for centuries.

Article originally published in: https://cdc.sociales.unc.edu.ar/apuntes-sobre-la-derecha-argentina-en-tiempo-de-elecciones/

(*) Professor in charge of the Chair “Theories and Processes of Social Change” in the Sociology Department of the Faculty of Social Sciences (FCS) of the National University of Córdoba (UNC). Researcher at the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) in the Center for Research and Studies on Culture and Society (CIECS). Permanent researcher at the Institute for Social Research (IfS) of the Goethe-Universität Frankfurt.