To extrapolate events in Argentina to Mexico is a big mistake. Looking at the navel with its philias and phobias, without seeing the environment beyond the limits that can contextualize or even change our reality or the way we perceive it, reduces capabilities and increases limitations. For this reason, it is incomprehensible and inexplicable how the Frente Amplio presidential candidate, Xóchitl Gálvez, welcomed the victory of Javier Milei in the Argentine presidential elections with a decisive sentence: “The wind blows in Latin America.” Improve our countries! “The Argentine people have put an end to bad government and poor results.”
Gálvez used more words, fewer words on his way to the National Palace to question the government of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. In his Message in X She didn’t offer any nuance or try to balance her words, which she should have done unless she’s a hypocritical liar. If not, he welcomed the victory of an extreme right living in anarchism. Gálvez has at various times placed himself on the other side of López Obrador, without realizing that Milei occupies the same place in the political geometry of the Mexican president, whose similarities outweigh the differences.
Gálvez is not alone in the political prairie of Mexico, where the binary and polarized processes of both countries are mechanically analyzed. Former presidents Vicente Fox and Felipe Calderón also fell into this analytical reductionism when they signed a declaration of support for Milei and against the continuity of the official candidate Sergio Massa, for “a failed corporate economic model and institutions that make Argentina grow instead of allowing it.” at the same time as its neighboring countries, which has kept it in permanent stagnation for several decades.” López Obrador was not far behind, although he positioned himself on the other side of the divide from Milei, whom he described as an “ultra-conservative fascist” and clearly supported Massa .
They all remained in the epidermis and in the polarization. Gálvez, Fox and Calderón support a candidate from the far right because he is running against one from the left, and López Obrador supports the opposing candidate for the same reasons, but in reverse order. In the fight of the good guys against the bad guys, the Mexicans shifted the conflict and the electoral dispute to Mexico without any further depth.
Massa, who took over the Ministry of Economy last May, embodied the continuity of statism, which has maintained a budget deficit in 13 of the last 16 years, leading to liquidity problems that led governments to print banknotes, which did not solve the problem, but it caused inflation of over 140% and persistent debt. Milei, who represented change, offered to close the central bank, turn the economy into dollars, disappear ministries and public companies and put an end to the “political caste”, which, as he defined, are those who are in of politics, but are immoral. those who have harmed people with their politics and only want to protect their privileges.
López Obrador has a personality that is closer to Milei than Massa. Like the elected president, he is anti-system and destructive, he has reduced – at least in budgetary terms – the size of the government, as Milei wishes, with whom he also shares, although in this case, his contempt for the Central Bank. Of López Obrador he was able to do it not let it disappear and tried, so far unsuccessfully, to colonize it. López Obrador does not speak of a “political caste” but of “conservatives” and “neoliberals” who have developed policies that are harmful to the people, immoral and whose only goal is to regain their privileges. Milei wants education vouchers so that the money goes directly to parents and students, which is the same as what López Obrador did with his social program, both reminiscent of the proposals of Milton Friedman, the US ideologue Chicago boys.
Gálvez, Fox and Calderón view Milei positively, although his similarities with López Obrador’s project are enormous. All three want to strengthen institutions; Milei wants to destroy them. All three reject López Obrador’s beating story, which is virtually identical to Milei’s. The three have criticized López Obrador’s anti-systemic vision that the president-elect boasts of and oppose the anarchy that the Argentine exudes.
The PAN members and López Obrador are the opposite of Massa. Fox, Calderón and López Obrador ensured a balanced budget and were never tempted to print banknotes to solve the liquidity problem, which is why inflation has been kept in check except for the last three years, not because of macroeconomic policies but because of Coronavirus pandemic that affected the world. Like López Obrador, Milei won the polls because of fatigue with the old system and national demands for change. Fox, Calderón and Gálvez are similar to Massa in their continuity without being one.
Milei identifies as a libertarian, which according to the definition of the Spanish language dictionary belongs to the anarchist ideology that defends absolute freedom and the oppression of all governments and laws. Neither Gálvez nor Fox nor Calderón are represented in this direction, nor is López Obrador, who represents the same ideas and beliefs as Milei.
The president agrees with Massa on the type of corporate government that Gálvez, Fox and Calderón oppose, but the underlying analogies are more between the Mexican president and the future Argentine president, while the differences between the PAN members are more pronounced with Milei are than at Massa.
Mexicans’ confusion can be interpreted as a result of their own bitterness, which superficially identifies López Obrador with Massa, while Gálvez, Fox and Calderón support Milei for the same reasons. In Argentina they are clear about who they are and who Milei and Massa represented, who voted between change and continuity. The extrapolation in Mexico is simplistic, reductionist and wrong, on the part of everyone, to the detriment of everyone.
