Retrace the path of decadence

I refuse to accept the idea introduced in a section of society and in every official, which leads to the justification of present mistakes by those committed in the past.

There are mistakes in assuming that Cristina Fernández could not do the same Mauricio Macri They excused themselves by those of Cristina Fernandezthose of Alberto Fernandez with those of Mauricio Macri and now with those of Javier Milea with those of Alberto Fernandez. From this vision, their efforts are defended more than for their achievements, for the failures of those who preceded them. The truth is that the successive mistakes of each government, added to this logic of resigned acceptance, hasten our downfall.

The results are dramatic. Argentina’s economy currently generates 15% less wealth per capita than 12 years ago, 53% of our compatriots have fallen into poverty and 34% of them suffer from hunger.

Faced with this indisputable reality, even with 11 points less poverty at the time of the last election, frustration and rejection of the established order fueled the forces of reaction that voted Javier Mileia into government.

He did this without the structures, equipment and programs for the new electoral coalition La Libertad Avanza, which, he stressed, Pablo Semanmonths before it was considered “little more than a fleeting curiosity” by many observers.

Has this disaffected reaction, which has engulfed the current political structures, also brought into crisis the idea of ​​justifying the mistakes of the present by those committed in the past? Without fanaticism, can we say that those who mostly support this government do so because of the successes they see in its policies? Or, as before it was Cristina’s legacy and then Macri’s, is it now Alberto’s?

Then we should prepare to highlight the decline and apologize to the next government for Milea’s mistakes.

The way not to resign to this possible course and to interrupt the path of decadence is not to look back, but to accompany those who sensibly – contrary to the spirit of confrontation that inspires division – see debate as the ideal tool for building governance. and lay the foundations for a better future. An in-depth debate without disqualifications focused on the challenges that politicians and statesmen have always faced.

It is not unknown to me that this solution may seem contrary to the winds of “liquid modernity” and when politics has been impregnated by spectacle and social networks. I don’t see any other way.

Naturally, my view is that libertarian ideas are unfit to face such a challenge, but I defend democratic debate and therefore understand and accept the controversy. Not an insult