The presidential address, in front of both houses of Congress, no less, seems to have occurred in another time and place. Or years ago. Nothing new, in the country where vertigo takes place one event after another in a matter of hours or minutes.
When the world of the media and the networks was still settling in to analyze, insult, praise or detract from the extensive speech of the President, the issue disappeared because some 20 million inhabitants were left without electricity.
Shortly after, the impact and the highly suspected causes of the blackout were extinguished because they were replaced by the shooting at the supermarket belonging to Lionel Messi’s father-in-law.
Helped by some not very happy official statements, let’s say, although clipped, a countless number of specialists at work in port matters, drug trafficking, differences between retail and drug dealers on a large scale, to warn that the message or threat against the Messi’s family has the colors of Rosario Central, and if it wasn’t that Messi was billed for the photo with Macri, the blackout was settled. To something else.
And shortly before, at the beginning of the week, almost the only expectant theme was the imminent announcement of a review of the guidelines agreed with the Monetary Fund. That also disappeared from the published agenda, until it reappears in the next few hours or days to disappear again as soon as another spectacular circumstance occurs. And so on.
At some point, it should happen that, at a minimum, some plot deepens without being subject to the outbursts of the “outraged” media and journalists.
It won’t happen, of course. But that is not why the aspiration can be resigned.
Faced with episodes such as the blackout, It never ends to establish those responsible and how much there are malicious or culpable factors. Burning of pastures; the owners of those fields; the inexperience or complicity of the judges; the (in)action of the States (national and/or provincial), are spasmodic debate and denunciation.
The same is true for the problems of a city like Rosario, and the operational ramifications of its criminal gangs. There is no indication that establishes the subject with permanent characteristics. Or, worse, governs a mere attempt to take advantage of the electoral.
Provincial deputy Carlos del Frade, who knew how to exercise journalism of excellence, with enormous courage and impeccable honesty, is also recognized as one of the best researchers on the subject of drug trafficking and the Santa Fe mafias.
Del Frade alludes to the “narcosonceras”, conducive to that both Chichipío mind the absence of the State? when, strictly speaking, the State is a constitutive and essential part of the scenario. The Police, the Judiciary, officials, a considerable section of the political “class” of the province in question (which is not the only one), are part of the problem and never the solution. Excuse the exceptions.
The national authorities have their own – and what if they have it – in a demonstration of impotence. But you shouldn’t buy into the speculative filth of the opposition either. Agustín Rossi was very correct when he recalled that Patricia Bullrich, who was in charge of Security for years, “did not put a fucking radar” on the borders to combat drug trafficking. And she talks like nothing.
Having said this, and if it is for substantive reasons on issues that could outline perspectives, it is worth repeating the words of the Head of State.
After all, however he is judged, he represents the government and its image. And what could be expected of him and of the Frente de Todos, until the elections determine whether this experience anchored in Peronism will be sustained. Or if it will be replaced by the cambiemite return.
As Mario Wainfeld pointed out in his article on Thursday, in Page 12the initially conceptual aspect of the speech resided in its sonorous first person singular.
The President repeated “it was with my moderation”, when referring to achievements and gestures of national autonomy.
That insistence was addressed to his faithful, “but, especiallyto those who dispute it: left-wing critics, disenchanted progressives and, above all, fellow Peronists who do not reproach ‘moderation’ but rather lukewarmness, irresolution, feint and recoil, misuse or abandonment of the pen”.
The second part was, as the colleague also points out, the typical balance of management that usually runs into a similar obstacle in different governments.
Each area is asked for a summary of their year and the material, which should be synthetic or become that through some professional pen, becomes not a “coherent mosaic” but a a punishment that “transgresses any duration metric”.
But, after that and while Cristina watched the extension of the speech after not having delivered a single gesture of empathy, the President put rock on her and produced one of the best sections that are remembered in any Legislative Assembly.
Alberto Fernández is not adept at getting out of the role. He does not have what is called “camera eye”, nor does he seem interested in what this seduction technique means. He doesn’t look up. He does not reinforce verbs or adjectives. And, consequently, he does not make his interlocutors feel present or distant that he is speaking to everyone, but also to each one.
However, this lack of continent does not affect the brilliance of the content.
Both with respect to how the marriage between key sectors of the Judiciary and their accomplices of power, including the media, operates, as well as the scandalous conviction against Cristina and the absence of any progress in the investigation of the attempt to assassinate her, The President’s speech was impeccable and led even his most “Christian” or insistent internal questioners to celebrate or leave the forum.
It is that, formally, it is difficult to find structural reproaches against the presidential speech.
One could be that this is the Alberto who should have shown himself long before. And not when his prospects for staying in office are limited, or non-existent at all.
Another objection is that the judicial framework, and specifically Cristina’s situation, matters to an addicted, ultra-politicized and very minority segment of the population. And that, in this sense, many and more forceful enunciations were missing about the clear defeat of the great majorities in the face of the inflationary process.
In concrete numbers, the President alluded almost a hundred times to “growth” and “employment”. And in barely a dozen passages he cited “inflation.”
The speech did not have a popular crumb, then. Not because the president has not made a correct diagnosis of the inheritance received and the added dramas, but based on the fact that the escalation of prices exhibited him before as a commentator than as an executor.
However, it is not an accusation that would only correspond to Alberto Fernández.
Or perhaps the rest of the Frente de Todos demonstrated, on paper and not in the story, superior tactics and strategy (as it is worth insisting: as long as we talk about politics and leading effectiveness, and not poetry or literature)?
Or is it not Cristina herself who supported the appointment of Sergio Massa as the only and last saving grace, and who continues to solve the minister’s management grant air to reach the elections with chances?
There is no way that Peronism would have such a positive opportunity, with whatever candidates they were, if jointly It does not take care of the good and the bad that it leaves behind, his Government.
And likewise, there is no way in which he can win if, in the remainder of his mandate, he does not assume that he must even exhibit an attitude of effective confrontation against the mafias that he denounces.
