Newspaper Reader on Kate Andrews vs. The Buenos Aires Herald!

stephenkmacksd.com/

Dec 28, 2024

Editor : The Reader has to wonder at Andrews enthusiasm for Milei, after the Economic Catastprohie 2006-2008, that brought The West into Economic Crisis, and destroyed both the working class and the middle class, in Western Democrasies. Yet The Reader of this interview is confronted by Andrews enthusiasm, for a politics that didn’t just fail, but utterly collapsed and emisertated millions across The West for decades! Such is the the political fact of the Hayek/Mises/Friedman Swindle!

Editor: here are the final paragraps of this would-be hagiography freighted with the necessary Neo-Liberal political ballaist:

…

In speeches and interviews, Milei effortlessly pulls out quotations and themes from great free-market works, such as Friedrich von Hayek’s The Fatal Conceit or Ludwig von Mises’s Socialism. He talks about the ideas and philosophers that shaped his libertarian thinking. But what attracted him to those ideas in the first place?

‘I am a true libertarian,’ he says. ‘I see the state, government, as an oppressive machine which destroys rights, which destroys liberty. I see taxes as theft, I see the state as an organised criminal gang.

…

I ask Milei if Trump is a conundrum for libertarians. On the one hand, he offers domestic tax cuts and a commitment to free speech. On the other, he proposes tariffs and economic protectionism. Does Milei think the positive case outweighs the negative case, or does he think Trump – who says that ‘tariffs’ is his favourite word apart from ‘love’ and ‘religion’ – is bluffing to secure trade deals?

‘First of all, what I do commend and welcome about Trump is that he understands who the enemy is. He understands that woke-ism is the enemy, he understands that the enemy is socialism, that the enemy is the state… on the second thing, I believe all the accusations levelled against him about the tariffs vis-a-vis China are wrong, they’re incorrect, so I don’t really take that point. I think one should try to understand how the system works.’

Milei’s free-market radicalism is tempered, then, by his realism when it comes to politics and the way the world operates. He calls himself an anarcho-capitalist in ‘philosophical terms’, but in ‘real life’ he says he hovers ‘between a classical liberal or libertarian and a minarchist’. He is critical of the purists, the ‘liberal libertarians who strongly criticise me for not having lifted the currency controls on day one’ – a major move towards liberalisation that still has not happened. ‘If I had done that on the very first day, it would have caused hyperinflation and by January I would have been thrown out.’

Milei is also a fan of Boris Johnson, and the two met in Buenos Aires in October. ‘We had a wonderful conversation,’ he says. ‘[Johnson] brought me his book, and we talked about economics and we discussed the philosophical approach. Naturally, he is closer to being a more classical liberal… I really enjoy having the opportunity to talk to other leaders and I try to internalise the restrictions they face.’

Johnson is not the only former prime minister to have made an impression on Milei. He describes David Cameron as a ‘brilliant individual’ – and he’s spoken to both Johnson and Cameron about his hopes of meeting Mick Jagger when he comes to the UK. ‘I would also like to meet Keith Richards. I have the full collection not only of the Rolling Stones but also of the Beatles.’ Milei often speaks about his love for the Rolling Stones, but his Anglophilia runs much deeper than that.

‘One thing that also brought me very close to British culture was Lord Byron, especially when I read “Don Juan”. I thought it was amazing. In fact, when I bought the book, I had it in English and in Spanish, and when I read it in English I really enjoyed it much better than in Spanish.

‘Of course, Shakespeare also brought me close to British culture. There are many things I find very appealing about the UK, apart from the fact that you invented football but of course we are the best ones.’ Fighting words, I say. We won’t fight about it, he tells me reassuringly, ‘but we are better!’.

Given his enthusiasm for Britain, and presumably his classical liberal belief in the right to self-determination, I wonder how Milei defends Argentina’s position on the Falkland Islands – or what the Argentinians call Islas Malvinas. In a referendum in 2013, 99 per cent of Falklands residents voted to remain British. ‘We have a sovereignty claim,’ he says. ‘We believe that our foundations, in support of the claim, that the Malvinas are Argentine, so we will seek through diplomatic channels to recover them.

‘The people of Argentina elected me as President. In that context I recognise the Malvinas Islands as Argentine, and I will make every diplomatic effort to recover them and that’s part of my policy… you may like my proposals or not, but you won’t say that I’m not consistent.’

On trade, Milei is certainly consistent: the more, the better. He wants to ramp up relations with Beijing, for instance, just as Trump’s America seems to be decoupling from China. He had a sideline meeting with President Xi Jinping at the G20 to discuss further opportunities. How does a libertarian president deal with an authoritarian communist world leader?

‘What is my job today? President of Argentina. And I need to take care of defending the interests of the people of Argentina and improving the quality of life of the Argentine people,’ he says. ‘China is a natural partner for us. And let me tell you something, I was pleasantly surprised by the way that China works with other countries, in that it’s a very friendly partner… it is a trading partner that does not interfere, that causes no nuisance.’

It’s a glowing description of the world’s second-largest economy. ‘Honestly,’ he says, ‘I am very much surprised by the respectful way they have treated us.’ He then remembers the largest economy, and smiles. ‘And at the same time, I am really filled with joy by the way the Republican party in the United States treats us.’ There might come a point, soon, when he has to choose between the two.

Editor: What does the Buenos Aires Herald of December 15, 2024 have to say:

Tuesday marked one year since President Javier Milei took office, and he took to the airwaves to deliver a national address in which he promised to eliminate 90% of taxes, get rid of currency controls, and allow Argentines to spend dollars alongside pesos. Alongside promises of a near prosperous future thanks to policies for the “common man” was the usual “anti-caste” rhetoric. Warnings against opposing government reforms peppered the speech: “You can either get on the train or be run over by it.”

A common refrain among Milei’s supporters is that he is not a far-right government. He’s simply trying to implement policies in Argentina that are common among pro-market governments all over the world, and he values ​​liberty above all things. Sure, he says some wild things, but that’s his personal style, and we shouldn’t take it literally. What’s far-right about all that?

It’s true that many of Milei’s economic policies are relatively common elsewhere. But some mark a throwback to the 1990s in their singular belief that a free market and a small state cure all ills, despite a deluge of subsequent studies that found that these policies tend to increase inequality and concentrate wealth at the top.

In Argentina, the litmus test for whether a political figure was far right, as opposed to simply conservative, has mostly been their support — either outspoken or veiled — for the military dictatorship’s narrative about political violence in 1970s Argentina.

As democracy advanced, the Argentine political and judicial system progressively reached a popular consensus that what the military called the “Dirty War” was actually a ploy to disguise the horrific truth: that the dictatorship had run a systematic plan to disappear and murder a portion of the population that opposed the imposition of their political order. This scheme also included an ultra-liberal economic program that increased foreign debt, hindered industrialization, and left an accumulated inflation rate of more than 8,000%.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, calls for “a complete memory” were only marginal. Included in this group, essentially proponents of the denialist “Two Demons Theory” that equated state terrorism with the armed resistance groups, were a few former dictatorship officials, as well as the relatives of military officers — current VP Victoria Villarruel being one of them — who were finally being tried and sentenced for crimes against humanity.

By 2015, the consensus was so well-grounded that PRO leader Mauricio Macri, who had previously echoed some of the dictatorship’s ultra-right rhetoric, notably had to tone it down when becoming president. It was actually during his administration that the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory officially opened, following years of work under the Kirchners’ presidencies. In 2016, during Barack Obama’s official visit to Argentina, Macri even joined the former US president in honoring dictatorship victims at the Parque de la Memoria for the 40th anniversary of the coup.

But now, Milei has vindicated the sectors of the Argentine far-right that deny the dictatorship’s crimes and demonize human rights groups like Mothers and Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo. This has come in the form of rhetoric describing state terror as a “war,” disputing the number of the dictatorship’s victims, and calling human rights organizations’ work a “con” ( curro ). He has also followed the strategies of other far-right world leaders, who have turned “culture wars” into the rallying cry of their base.

The issues within this category range from reproductive rights and protection of LGBTQIA+ people to attacks on immigrants and Indigenous people. Milei has also included targets of his own, bashing groups that have historically been at the center of Argentina’s civil society and are a source of pride for the country, like public universities, film institute INCAA, and the top publicly-funded research institute CONICET.

The president has consistently sought to include these actors within the “caste” by accusing them of being privileged sectors that use public resources that do not yield any benefits for the population. By beating this drum, Milei has managed to tune in to one of the most effective strategies of the global far-right: the battle of elites versus commoners.

In Milei’s unique Argentina-centered vision of this conflict, the dilemma is between sectors or individuals that depend on the state for financing, no matter their mission, importance, or success, and the rest who have to cover it out in the wilderness of the “free market.” The president thanked such Argentines specifically for their sacrifice at the top of his December 10 speech.

His security policy has swung towards punitivism, with Security Minister Patricia Bullrich explicitly looking to Salvadoran strongman Nayib Bukele’s system of mega prisons. The government also lowered the minimum age to carry firearms legally and will also seek to reduce the age of criminal responsibility, according to Milei’s speech on December 10.

Policies have so far been regressive, in the sense that poverty exploded by 11 points and inequality, as measured by GINI coefficient, spiked. And although formal salaries may be starting to gain ground against inflation, workers in this sector have lost 6% of purchasing power since Milei came into office. It should also be noted that informal workers have lost even more.

His supporters might argue that such economic hardship is a necessary price to pay to wrestle the country into shape after what they see as years of aberrant and ruinous policies: better to rip off the band-aid than incur more suffering because nothing changes.

Relying heavily on free market principles without considering their potential social impacts can lead to negative consequences, such as increasing poverty. It’s essential to strike a balance between economic growth and the well-being of all citizens to ensure that progress doesn’t come at the expense of the most vulnerable.

These costs have moved in lockstep with deliberate attacks on the rights of women, minorities, and Argentina’s national memory about state terror. To argue that such positions are merely conservative or right-of-center rather than far-right implies normalizing that which can never be normal.

Argentina completes one year under the extreme right

Milei’s defenders dispute this category, but rejecting it implies normalizing aberrations

Tuesday marked one year since President Javier Milei took office and delivered an inaugural address in which he promised to eliminate 90% of taxes, lift the currency controls and allow Argentines to spend dollars alongside pesos. Along with promises of a prosperous future thanks to policies for the “common man” was the usual “anti-caste” rhetoric. The speech was peppered with warnings against those who oppose government reforms: “Either you get on the train or it runs you over.”

A common refrain among Milei’s supporters is that his is not a far-right government. He is simply trying to implement policies in Argentina that are common among pro-market governments around the world, and he values ​​freedom above all else. True, he says some crazy things, but that is his personal style, and we should not take him literally. What is far-right about all this?

It is true that many of Milei’s economic policies are relatively common elsewhere. But some of them date back to the 1990s, with his singular belief that a free market and a small state cure all ills, despite the avalanche of subsequent studies that found that these policies tend to increase inequality and concentrate wealth in the hands of a few.

In Argentina, the litmus test for determining whether a political figure was far-right, rather than simply conservative, has largely been his or her support, overt or veiled, for the military dictatorship’s narrative about political violence in 1970s Argentina.

As democracy advanced, the Argentine political and judicial system gradually reached a general consensus that what the military called the “dirty war” was in fact a ploy to disguise the horrible truth: that the dictatorship had carried out a systematic plan to disappear and murder a part of the population that opposed the imposition of its political order. This plan also included an ultra-liberal economic program that increased the foreign debt, slowed industrialization and left an accumulated inflation rate of more than 8,000%.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, calls for a “complete memorial” were marginal. This group, essentially supporters of the denialist “two demons theory,” which equated state terrorism with armed resistance groups, included some former officials of the dictatorship, as well as relatives of repressors (among them the current vice president Victoria Villarruel) who were finally being tried and convicted for crimes against humanity.

By 2015, that consensus was already so well cemented that PRO leader Mauricio Macri, who had previously echoed some of the dictatorship’s far-right rhetoric, had to moderate noticeably upon becoming president. Indeed, it was during his administration that the ESMA Museum and Site of Memory was officially inaugurated, after years of work during the Kirchner presidencies. In 2016, during Barack Obama’s official visit to Argentina, Macri even joined the former US president in honouring victims of the dictatorship at the Parque de la Memoria on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the coup.

But now, Milei has vindicated sectors of the Argentine far right that deny the crimes of the dictatorship and demonize human rights organizations such as the Mothers and Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo. This has happened in the form of rhetoric that describes state terrorism as a “war,” questions the number of victims of the dictatorship, and calls the work of human rights organizations “a job.” She has also followed the strategies of other far-right world leaders, who have turned “culture wars” into the rallying cry of their base.

Topics within this category range from reproductive rights and the protection of LGBTQIA+ people to attacks on immigrants and indigenous peoples. Milei has also added her own targets, attacking groups that have historically been at the center of Argentine civil society and are a source of pride for the country, such as public universities, the national film institute (INCAA) and the main publicly funded research institute (CONICET).

The president has constantly sought to include these actors within the “caste,” accusing them of being privileged sectors that use public resources and do not provide any benefit to the population. With this song, Milei has managed to tune in to one of the most effective strategies of the global extreme right: the battle of the elites against ordinary people.

In Milei’s particular view of this conflict, which is focused on Argentina, the dilemma is between the sectors or individuals that depend on the State for their financing, regardless of their mission, importance or success, and the rest who have to make do in the desert of the “free market.” The president specifically thanked those Argentines for their sacrifice in the first part of his speech on December 10.

Its security policy has veered toward punitivism, with Security Minister Patricia Bullrich explicitly resorting to Salvadoran dictator Nayib Bukele’s mega-prison system. The government has also lowered the minimum age for legally carrying firearms and will seek to lower the age of criminal responsibility.

Policies so far have been regressive, in the sense that poverty has grown by 11 points and inequality, as measured by the GINI coefficient, has soared. And while formal wages may be starting to gain ground against inflation, workers in this sector have lost 6% of their purchasing power since Milei came to power. It should also be noted that informal workers have lost even more.

Milei’s supporters might argue that such economic hardships are a necessary price to pay to get the country moving again after what they see as years of aberrant and ruinous policies: it is better to rip off the band-aid than to continue suffering because nothing changes.

Over-reliance on free market principles without considering their potential social impacts can lead to negative consequences, such as increased poverty. It is essential to strike a balance between economic growth and the well-being of all citizens to ensure that progress does not come at the expense of the most vulnerable.

These costs have come in tandem with deliberate attacks on women’s rights, minorities, and Argentina’s national memory of state terrorism. To argue that such positions are merely conservative or center-right rather than far-right is to normalize something that should never be normal.

https://buenosairesherald.com/op-ed/editorial/argentinas-first-year-under-the-far-right

Newspaper Reader.