“I was expelled from Kirchnerism. They told me to go to Albertism. It hurts me to be kicked out of Kirchnerism (...) There are people who learned four or five things that were established in the brightest years of the country's history that I remember. Those years were much richer than four or five words. But with those four or five words they make up a conception of the world that does not need to find out anything, wonder anything, or suffer with anything. You say “will”, “people”, “homeland”, “nation” and that's it, you don't need to think anything else (...) Some posts in the media fight are being used to hurt each other and that really worries me and a little outrages me... We are thinking of militarizing opinion. You're either with me or you're against me. There's nothing in between. I don't think that people who drive are behind this, I don't want to believe that someone is promoting this kind of witch hunt.”
Edgardo Mocca is a sociologist who was part of the 678 table, at a time when that television program played a relevant role. In other words, it is difficult to find someone who has put his face like him to defend the government of Cristina Kirchner and to question, with the aggressiveness that he did at that table, any dissent. A few days ago, however, Mocca complained that way in a radio interview. His frankness reflects a phenomenon that transcends him.
Ricardo Forster was one of the leaders of the Open Letter group, which invented the word “dismissal” to disqualify most of the critical issues that were raised against various aspects of Cristina Kirchner's government. Jorge Alemán, is an Argentinean psychologist based in Spain, with close ties to some leaders of Podemos, and highly respected in Kirchnerist intellectual circles. Alicia Castro, as is known, is a leader who is very close to Vice-President Cristina Kirchner, of whom she was ambassador to Caracas and later to London. Until recently all of them belonged, so to speak, to the same “political family”.
But a few days ago, Castro accused the others of being “rented” intellectuals.
Alemán replied: “Like the Argentine right wing, which assumes that behind any gesture there is money at stake, Mrs. Alicia Castro says that I have signed the letter for the Unit because it is' rented '. I'm not rented by anyone...”
This type of anecdotes was reproduced this week after the dissemination of a long text signed by dozens of Kirchner intellectuals, which proclaimed the need for unity of the All Front.
The pronouncement included some paragraphs that, for Christianity, are quite difficult to accept:
“The memory of what has been experienced, its teachings, are an asset in our political tradition. They cannot and should not become exemplary and absolute forms as if nothing had happened between them and us. A few years ago there were epic moments and today there is no epic situation. That is why, here and now, there is a situation that should be better understood, even to detect tactical and technical errors.”
“There have been those who believe that it is a matter of planting flags with the will, although that leads to enormous defeats, believing that this will build a victory in another stage”.
“There are decisions that a leader must make because they are necessary for the country and the welfare of the population, although sometimes they may not be convenient for their political capital or their electoral future. The story is full of examples.”
“There are times in history when moderation can be transformative and radicalization powerless.”
Among the signatories of this text, which confronts the proposals of the Patria Institute, in addition to Mocca, Alemán and Forster, there are many names that are very close to the heart of Kirchnerism: Eduardo Aliverti, María Seoane, Dora Barrancos, among many others. Christianity was never characterized by engaging in a cordial dialogue with dissidents. His first reaction, in general, was to point the finger at them and treat them as traitors. For this reason, Alicia Castro quickly accused them of being “organic” or “rented” intellectuals: “Alberto Fernández's rented advisors and organic intellectuals of the group Possibility or Death, among others Alejandro Grimson, Ricardo Forster and Jorge Alemán, theorizing in support of the unity of the Fund's Single Party. Trying to silence those we resist.”
Journalist Sandra Russo, another former member of 678, called the text “slimy.” “I like to speak clearly. There's no reason for the viscosity. Viscosity is a characteristic that somewhat disgusts me.” Marcelo Figueras, the journalist who accompanied Cristina Kirchner during the presentation tour of her best seller, wrote: “Suddenly we returned to the eighties, when the Alfonsín government could not be questioned at all because it was 'destabilizing'. Do I need to remember how that experience ended?” Horacio Verbitsky, for his part, mocked those who dare to question the vice-president's strategies: “To teach Cristina Kirchner on how to beat Macri is a curiosity of these times. The Academy is not afraid of ridicule.”
All of this has a familiar context. In the last two weeks, as is known, the Argentine Parliament overwhelmingly approved Argentina's agreement with the IMF. This process exposed as never before the fracture between President Alberto Fernández and his vice-president Cristina Kirchner. The Frente de Todos voted divided: the sector that was left in the minority decided to break the discipline according to which the ruling blocs support the Government and, if there were differences, they applied the majority criterion. Thus, Argentina did not fall into default just because the opposition voted united in favor of the agreement.
Although no one dares to say it in those terms, those who support the government argue that there was an attempt, by the sector led by the vice-president, to push the country to default, and thereby jeopardize Alberto Fernández's continuity in Casa Rosada. On the contrary, from the other side, they accuse the Government of bringing the country to its knees, and of consummating an alliance with the worst of the right. Some accuse the others of fleeing in order not to pay the costs of governing. The others respond that their principles have been betrayed and do not have to accompany that betrayal. These are very difficult accusations to settle, in which they resonate with the way in which traditional parties of the left have historically resolved their differences.
The break between the members of the presidential formula is being expressed these days on all fronts. It appears in small, but very revealing anecdotes, such as the public admission that Cristina does not respond to Alberto's messages — months after Cristina wrote that Alberto was not answering her calls. But also in more serious episodes. Cristina reported this week that she was the victim of an attack, which the Government did not repudiate and to which she suspiciously delayed reacting. Underneath, leaders around it directly accuse a sector of the ruling party of having planned it. The Government, on the other hand, maintains that it is not clear that she, and not Congress in general, was the target of the attack. For Christianity, this hesitation is a demonstration of complicity with those who threw the stones.
This rupture shakes the entire Kirchner universe with a power that is difficult to measure from the outside. Christianity — that system by which an enlightened mind commanded all others — no longer exists. It has been transformed into a faction. But there is nothing to replace it. In the transition to another system, personal quarrels, insults and suspicions flourish between people who previously closed ranks against alleged common enemies. Much of the Government is consumed by this self-destructive dynamic.
At first glance, it seems like a rather exotic method of governing such a battered society.
KEEP READING: