Now that about half the world’s population has access to a smartphone, laptop or some other mobile device, more people than ever before can tell us what they are thinking, if that is the appropriate word for most of what appears on social media. Though many, especially those who live in countries like China where the authorities take a dim view of dissidents who deviate from the officially approved narrative, prefer to keep their opinions to themselves, in less closely controlled societies large numbers are more than happy to take advantage of the opportunity they have been given to insult anyone that for some reason they dislike without having to reveal their own identity.
Once upon a time such individuals would have limited themselves to sending letters, often written in green ink, to the local newspaper which would be unlikely to publish any of them, but that was then. Attempts to reinstate “gatekeepers” capable of dissuading what those in power say are purveyors of “hate speech” or “false information” who ought to be vetted by supposedly incorruptible “fact-checkers,” have legitimately annoyed advocates of freedom of expression who point out that giving government censors free rein to police the Internet would make the situation even worse.
As was bound to happen, the communications revolution soon attracted the attention of politicians, some of whom set up “troll farms” in which hired propagandists did their utmost to blacken the names and reputations of their boss’s rivals. Allegedly, Vladimir Putin’s are the masters of this particular game. If Donald Trump’s fiercest foes are to be taken seriously, his rise to power was due almost entirely to the Kremlin’s interference in the US electoral process; according to the Democrats who wanted to impeach him during his first term as president because they regarded him as a Russian stooge, by investing a tiny amount of money in spreading misinformation, trolls in the pay of Putin had managed to outwit their own extravagantly funded campaigners.
Few politicians think social media have completely replaced the channels of communication through which, until barely a couple of years ago, they relied on in their attempts to create a bond between themselves and those who they thought could be induced to support them. Almost all still attend public gatherings, appear frequently on television and even let themselves be interviewed by journalists who work for antiquated “legacy” artefacts such as newspapers or magazines. However, some, among them Javier Milei, seem to have convinced themselves that the Internet is the only place where the action is and have shaped their public personae in accordance with the criteria that they see prevailing in cyberspace. It would appear that Milei feels at home in an environment that believers in the old ways are prone to describe as a rat-infested sewer. Instead of deleting expletives when he goes public, he delights in coining colourful new ones, the more scatological the better, a penchant which, needless to say, raises questions about his mental state. Does he think this sort of stuff helps him win the approval, and therefore the votes, of the semi-literate youngsters who abound in the rundown municipalities of Greater Buenos Aires and who, for demographic reasons, hold the key to political success in the country as a whole? Perhaps he does. If the opinion polls have it right, Milei’s “libertarian” movement is steadily making inroads in places that were once assumed to be unassailably Peronist, so it would not be at all surprising if he attributed this to his ability to persuade their inhabitants that, unlike other politicians, deep down he is one of them.
Is Milei an astute operator who is merely playing the role of a foul-mouthed cyberpunk or is he simply showing the world the kind of person he really is? Many people would like to think that the president is a clever economist who likes Italian opera as much as the less reputable versions of rock and roll who, for electoral reasons, simply has to pretend to be a tough-talking streetwise character because he thinks it will help him win the adherence of young people who otherwise would vote for a gender-fluid Kirchnerite addicted to deficit spending.
Such ambiguity lets Milei have it both ways by appealing both to traditionally minded middle-class folk who once backed Mauricio Macri and to the many poverty-stricken youngsters who are rebelling against their parents’ generation that, by obediently supporting Peronist politicians, helped destroy the economy and, with it, the personal prospects of their offspring. However, if too many people come to the conclusion that at heart Milei is a nasty piece of work who enjoys treating like dirt all those who dare disagree with him, they will think twice before voting for him in future even if they approve of his economic strategy.
While Milei’s “chainsaw” approach to government squandermania and bureaucratic bloat has greatly impressed many businessmen and technocrats both here and abroad, his personal behaviour has most of them worried. They may like what he has done so far, but fear that at any moment he could go off on a tangent and infuriate important parts of the electorate and by doing so make it impossible for him to continue ramming through necessary reforms. Milei and the people surrounding him may think that losing the support of Macri’s dwindling base would be a small price to pay if it helps him win over millions of shantytown dwellers, but if it cost him the support not just of legislators at home but also that of the international business community, it would become far harder for him to reach his ambitious objectives.
Like the rest of us, politicians are swayed not just by ideas but also by their personal likes and dislikes. If Milei continues to make a habit of offending those who support most of what he is doing but on occasion quibble over details, as did Domingo Cavallo a few days ago when he suggested the peso was overvalued, thereby earning himself a savage presidential dressing down and costing his daughter her job, legislators will concentrate on looking for excuses to vote against measures he proposes not because they think them wrongheaded but because they are sick of running the risk of being made the target of diatribes couched in the language of the gutter by a man who evidently thinks he is infallible.
Comments