All social orders, including those devised by individuals who make much of their egalitarian sentiments, are elitist by nature. People at the top invariably justify their good fortune by alluding to their own personal merits or to those of the group they belong to. Often enough, they succeed in persuading the rest that they are fully entitled to be where they are.
For several decades, many people in the “developed world” have profited from their alleged moral superiority; the “woke” movement concocted by grievance-mongering academics in US universities led to a proliferation of well-paid jobs for those on board, but it would seem that, thanks largely to Donald Trump, their moment in the sun is coming to an end. People at or near the top of the pecking order can get away with that sort of stuff as long as those outside the elite take their pretentions seriously. When most cease to do so, they are in trouble.
In Argentina, professional politicians did well until very recently by insisting that they and they alone embodied democracy and that only supporters of military brutality would dispute this, but they fell out of favour when it became unpleasantly clear that they were not much use when it came to running the country. Under Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, politicians associated with her insinuated that unless “the people” continued to pay them what could be described as protection money, they would leave ordinary folk at the mercy of the heartless capitalists who wanted to enslave them. This proved effective for a long time, but it would appear that only a dwindling minority still believes that Cristina and her cronies should be allowed to enrich themselves at public expense because they say they are against the local establishment.
Now that Javier Milei occupies the presidency, the politicians and others who flocked to his banner have taken to boasting about their attachment to good fiscal housekeeping. If they really mean it and set a good example by, among other things, refraining from pocketing whatever comes their way, they could contribute to a revival of the country’s fortunes by stressing the need for everybody to make the most of their own natural endowments instead of relying on handouts and being told they must vote for the philanthropists who say that it is thanks to them that they are not left to starve.
In Communist countries, party bosses enjoyed privileges once monopolised by the aristocrats of old though, unlike their predecessors, they did not attribute them to the military feats of remote ancestors but to their own services to what they called scientific socialism which, unluckily for them, proved unable to keep the general population happy by providing it with plenty of the consumer goods available elsewhere.
Their failure in this respect brought about their downfall. There are signs that, for similar reasons, the same fate could be in store for the men and women who remain in charge of almost all the relatively wealthy Western countries. In North America and much of Europe, governments have long come under fire because an increasing number of people feel they are falling behind and it seems more than probable that many more will do so in the next few years. Trump won last year’s elections by blaming this on the Democrats, but unless he manages to put things in reverse before the midterms, he too will be accused of impoverishing his compatriots and will suffer at the polls.
As it is widely assumed that governments should be able to make economies grow at a rapid pace, opposition politicians routinely say they can ensure that they do just that but when they reach power, most soon find themselves in the same position as those they displaced.
In the UK, the inability of the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer to make much of a difference even though his party won a sweeping victory in parliamentary elections held barely a year ago, has already made him every bit as unpopular as had been his much-derided Tory predecessors. With both traditional parties in bad odour, many think they could end up by being overwhelmed by Nigel Farage’s makeshift Reform UK outfit. Although Farage would be likely to do more than Starmer and Rishi Sunak to halt the influx of unwanted immigrants alarming so many people, he would find it very hard to make life any easier for the needy.
In France and Germany, those in office are also obliged to look for ways to satisfy the many who feel excluded from the benefits of what economic progress there is, as well as dealing with the problems caused by the arrival of millions of people from the Middle East, Africa and further afield who in many cases openly despise the values of the host society. Combined with a darkening economic outlook, the tensions arising from “multiculturalism”, which is an inherently divisive creed, plus the need to rearm quickly at great expense because Russia is on the prowl, have led many Europeans to fear the worst.
Despite Milei’s antics and the threat still posed by diehard Kirchnerites with a soft spot for Nicolás Maduro’s Venezuela, Argentina could be better placed to overcome the challenges coming her way than are many countries belonging to what was once called the First World. Immigration from neighbouring lands has not given rise to problems that remotely resemble those troubling Western Europe, and people have grown so accustomed to widespread poverty that even small improvements can reconcile people with their lot.
What is more, the ready availability of almost untapped natural resources, among them the Vaca Muerta shale deposits which are already coming on stream, lithium lakes, minerals buried underground which until now few have even bothered to look for plus, of course, the tech-savvy farm sector which for many years has given Argentina a lifeline, means that before too long large amounts of money could start pouring into the government’s treasure chests. This would enable it to alleviate the country’s many social problems without having to resort to self-destructive inflationary measures, though it would have to be careful to avoid encouraging welfare dependency and the accompanying sense of entitlement which in Europe is making life for politicians even more difficult than would otherwise be the case.
Comments