Thursday, November 08, 2007

An interesting bit of opinion...

...from a fellow that calls himself Justice Little (whom I dangerously haven't googled to find out what sort of writings he has published in the past):
"And what of Hillary, our third mujer who would no doubt love to emulate Cristina’s path? If Hillary becomes the next POTUS (President of the United States), she may well take a page from the Peronistas… and possibly enact her own version of Peronism, with an American twist.

Peronism—the political movement Cristina and Nestor Kirchner are aligned with—is a bit of a strange brew. It has a strong whiff of populism to it, but a slight tinge of fascism too. (Juan Perón, husband of Evita and eponymous founder of the movement, was a fan of Mussolini.) Upon describing the various flavors of Peronism, Wikipedia offers the following general characteristics:


* Strong authoritarian centralized government, with strict control of opposition forces.
* Freedom from foreign influences.
* A third-way approach to economics which purported to be neither socialist nor capitalist, but to incorporate elements of both in a corporativist manner.
* The combination of nationalism and social democracy.

That sounds a bit like what the US may be in for. As America’s social fabric is rent asunder by economic hardship, calls for political action will only grow louder. “Freedom from foreign influences” could translate into protectionist sentiment. And as free market criticism grows—look what Wall Street has done to us! etcetera—the fuzzy notion of a “third way” could grow more appealing. And if things get hairy enough, the general populace could start baying for blood… or treasure… or both.

An increase in “authoritarian centralized government” thus seems practically guaranteed for the United States, as evidenced by the fascistic tendencies of the frontrunners in both parties. What’s worse, the average American seems to like all the iron-fist talk… explaining why said front runners are so happy to deliver it."

I used to see too many parallels between Buenos Aires Argentina and the old country. Now, I just see lots of them.

The Cristina/Hillary coincidence has and will inspire any hack with a blog to tap away at a "parallels" story many undoubtedly would never have otherwise written. That shouldn't, however, keep us from seeing them where they really exist.

2 comments:

yanqui mike said...

HEY! Suave, Suavecitos...

I, of course, include myself in "any hack with a blog" and I take issue with several points in the article.

Nerd Progre said...

The trouble with peronism is that it divided people in pro and against.

The rich and some in the middle class didn't like it, basically because of a "class and image association" thing. IE... the peronists were more often than not poor, and lived in poor neighbourhoods. Peronist demonstrations were full of them, so the rich white elites resented them... nobody from Barrio Norte or Recoleta wanted to be associated with a bunch of poor people not well dressed.

Also, peronism carried the seeds of its own hell within itself. By allowing "anybody in as long as he's for Peron" there were a bunch of right wing peronists as well, co-existing with left-wing peronists.

Thus, peronism never was a party with a clear, given right or left leaning ideology... left and right were "contained" within peronism with the voice of "El General" acting as the final arbitro (sp?) between the two factions. As you can imagine, things got hairy when El General died.

In the '90s, Carlos Saul M#nem -the one who should not be named- used the facade of peronism and the party's slogans and images to ally with the far right, the Rural Society (SRA) and the worst of the neoliberal elite (UCeDe, the party from Alvaro Alzogaray, look him up on the Wackypedia).

I think only now is peronism returning to its roots.

Disclaimer: I come from an anti-peronist family. We all used to vote for the UCR (socialdemocrats but also carrying rightwingers inside), but in the last two elections, all my family members voted for K.

In short: Peron was for industry, public transportation, public education, public health, and the general well being of the middle and low classes, he advocated for a fair distribution of wealth.

M*nem on the contrary privatized, applied IMF policies, cut education budgets, sold out State run companies in horrible privatizations (what, can't you choose between Telecom and Telefonica depending on where you live? There's no local loop competition? thank Mr. M#nem).

That's why so many peronists consider Mr. M#nem "a traitor" of Peronism.

If you see the hard-core anti-K forces today, it's almost the same line-up as the anti-Peron forces... the rural society, the far right, the military, the Catholic Churc, the neoliberal church (followers of the CATO institute and the like), etc.

Following your observation, there's also parallels between the Democratic Party and peronism.

The DEMS also have right wingers infiltrated inside, the so-called "blue dog" democrats, or conservatives in Dems clothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition

Enough modern history for today. :)

FC