El gobierno argentino enfrenta una crisis significativa tras el escándalo del token Libra, que ha puesto en duda la credibilidad, honestidad e inteligencia del presidente. Este evento, completamente autoinfligido por el oficialismo, amenaza con desestabilizar la narrativa anticorrupción y anticasta que ha sostenido al gobierno. A pesar de las sospechas de tráfico de influencias y corrupción, no se han involucrado fondos públicos. La complejidad del mundo cripto y la situación económica actual podrían mitigar el impacto en la opinión pública. Sin embargo, este episodio podría redefinir cómo los ciudadanos perciben al presidente.
Category
🗞
NewsTranscript
00:00Do you have a political outlook?
00:04Well, let's see, we are days away from having observed
00:10perhaps the most traumatic political event for this government
00:14of everything that has been this term.
00:16By far.
00:16Without a doubt, causing, in my opinion,
00:19the most important crisis of the government since it began,
00:23which was the episode of the Libra token and everything that that led to.
00:28I think we are facing a government that faces a very dangerous event
00:35for three very simple and relevant reasons.
00:39First, it is an episode that raises doubts,
00:44that sows doubts about three structural aspects of the presidential authority,
00:48which are the credibility of the president, the honesty of the president
00:52and the intelligence of the president.
00:54With which, already in itself, that doubt raised about those aspects of the presidential authority
00:59are reasons to identify it as a relevant crisis.
01:02Second, it is an episode that is produced 100% by officialism.
01:09There was no intervention of any actor of the opposition in the production of this change.
01:15It is self-inflicted.
01:16But why is this relevant?
01:18Because if one looks at the methodology of the exercise of power of this president,
01:24he was a president who, in any event that threatened to deteriorate his link with the people,
01:32he applied a remedy, the guillotine.
01:36Offer the public the head of someone,
01:39to show that he does not accept or tolerate that type of behavior.
01:43With which, what is the problem here?
01:46It is that in the involvement of this event are the most relevant figures,
01:50including the president.
01:52So, there is no possible guillotine, there is no remedy against this.
01:55That's why I think the government is trying to move forward.
01:59Maybe the guillotine has been used many times for internal signals,
02:04not to offer it to the public, but for internal signals.
02:07But, let's remember the case of the tower and the social development contracts at the beginning.
02:12Let's remember the case of the employee and the purchase of the coffee shop.
02:15The guillotine was used for external signals and also for internal signals.
02:18For this type of events, where there is suspicion of the intention of doing good to others,
02:26the president, using that remedy, cannot use it.
02:29And third, why do I say dangerous?
02:31Because it seems to me that it is also an event that affects the entire narrative structure of the government,
02:38which was this anti-caste speech, this anti-establishment speech.
02:41Why?
02:42Here we have the president investigated for a crime typically of caste,
02:46the trafficking of influences, the usurpation or exploitation of resources,
02:50or positions of hierarchy.
02:52There was suspicion of corruption, so the speech was always anti-corruption.
02:55There is a guillotine that will clearly condition the way in which public opinion looks at this president.
03:01Does this mean that this is going to translate into a deep deterioration in terms of social support,
03:07of public opinion?
03:08We do not know.
03:10We will have to wait for this to metabolize.
03:12We have recently occurred traumatic events in Argentina,
03:16which produce exponential transformations in public opinion.
03:20Then public opinion stabilizes and takes the previous form.
03:22I remember, the one that comes to my mind most present is the episode with Cristina Kirchner
03:28of the assassination attempt.
03:29It produced, let's say, changes in public opinion climate,
03:35which later disappeared and things stabilized.
03:38Then we will have to see over time if this effectively deteriorates the image of the president a lot,
03:43but in any case, if it is an event that can condition the way people look at the president.
03:47How does it come out? Forget about this government.
03:50Any government.
03:52What is the strategy to get out of this?
03:57Beyond the fact that the justice continues to investigate,
04:01but what is the strategy for a government to get ahead of this
04:07and run from the daily issues of this situation?
04:13What does a government do?
04:15There are aspects from a communicational point of view,
04:17where the explanation that is made of the event fundamentally operates.
04:23It has to be an explanation that to the people or in the light of public opinion,
04:26is reasonable, exculpates, in this case the president,
04:30who is involved, of the subjective responsibility of this matter,
04:34because the responsibility is very difficult to unlink the president due to the presence of the tweet.
04:40There is a whole communication strategy there,
04:43trying to avoid that it is interpreted that those who were behind this event had a link with the president.
04:50It seems to me that the government is trying to make a kind of sanitary fence there,
04:58in the link of the president with these people.
05:01And then, obviously, some complementary strategies,
05:04try to put other issues on the agenda,
05:06try to move forward to other issues,
05:09in a context that perhaps this is what also helps the government
05:13to minimize the impact of this type of episode,
05:16which is that this is still a political process strongly conditioned by the economic process.
05:21Here there is a society traumatized by inflation,
05:26terrorized by the deterioration of the economic situation,
05:29which demanded a very strong change in October, November 2023.
05:35And at some point this is a president who has returned stability,
05:39de-inflation, quiet dollar, calm,
05:42that is, aspects that help to build the perception from the public
05:47that this patient who was in intensive care, which was the Argentine economy,
05:50seemed to be on the way to healing or recovery.
05:54And that I think helps to mitigate the impact that this type of episode could have.
05:59That public and the government itself can have perhaps the argument to leave in a favorable way,
06:05that is, ok, there was, it was promoted or it was disseminated, as Javier Milley said,
06:11a possible scam, but at no time were there public funds in the way?
06:15Is there that argument that can also capture that sector of public opinion?
06:19Yes, I think it is a very permeable argument for the vision that the president has,
06:22the president is a person very obsessed with public spending.
06:27I don't think that is so relevant from the point of view of the definition that public opinion makes of this event.
06:33No, because I say, at the time, besides that, at least it seems to me that it is a topic perhaps complex to understand,
06:38the crypto world, and when it is compared, for example, with cases of corruption like López's pockets,
06:44perhaps it is much more graphic.
06:46It may be that the absence of the perception of details by the public,
06:50because the subject is very complex, very sophisticated, where are those dollars,
06:54what does a token mean, how do you buy and sell that type of financial asset?
06:58No, because let's say that the symbol of corruption in Argentina is always public funds.
07:03Yes, of course, but I insist, I say, the noise that all this generates,
07:08it seems to me that it is not necessarily dimensioned because the perception is effectively that there were public funds.
07:15It seems to me that I would relativize that point if, in any case, I believe that the economic process
07:23is a conditioning of the way in which public opinion looks at this type of episode.
07:26That is fundamental.
07:27Without a doubt.
07:28That is fundamental.
07:29What I am noticing, and it seems to me that it also has to do a little with the way,
07:35it seems to me that it goes by what is called or is called, in my opinion, the cultural battle,
07:39it seems to me, or is it much more divided still than before society, in political terms?
07:48Let's see, Miloy's strategy was clear from the beginning in the sense that he had to preserve
07:56the organization that public opinion gave itself on November 19.
08:00Yes.
08:01That is, a very particular instance, because there was no society choosing between different options,
08:07but choosing between two.
08:10To preserve that base of support, which the government has preserved to a good extent,
08:14because in previous records of this episode we had 80%, 85% of that support,
08:19the president still kept it.
08:21Well, the president tries to produce that fracture, that fracture does remain present.
08:26Yes.
08:27The famous us-them, the famous black and white, so that there are no grays.
08:30For me the fracture is clearer.
08:32Well, that fracture is promoted by the government.
08:35This is part of the strategy, typically of populist leadership,
08:39which has been observed about the president in the sense of having this simplistic interpretation
08:44that this is between them and us, black and white, which does not allow grays,
08:49which is what the narrative and the political strategy of the government tries to promote.
08:54For what?
08:55To produce that fracture and that that half that was decided by this change
09:00continues to believe that my law is the option to continue supporting the defense of that change,
09:06because if not the alternatives, those that were rejected on November 19,
09:10and that a good part of society is still rejecting it.