Cristina's speech at the Book Fair should worry us

Maybe exaggerating my presumptions. Time will tell that at the end of the day there is not much left. But Cristina's exposure to the Book Fair is more disturbing than it appears there. Kirchnerism is only irrelevant. That's what it is and we all know it, at least I think so. What worries is that Peronism is practiced in the province of Buenos Aires. Or even worse, that the Peronism of Buenos Aires is allowed to be led by a small group of leaders who are more like a sect than the people.

Before badyzing some paragraphs of Cristina's speech, it should be asked a question: the Calafate group began as a progressive intellectual adventure and ended with Open Letter, Marxist extraction thinkers who have become the intellectual inspiration of Kirchnerism, from crisis to field. It began with Néstor's solitary encounter with a small group of them at Parque Lezama. They upset the political divide, because that was the essence of their actions.

Many thinkers and journalists have equated this attitude with ancient Peronism. However, to my sight and my understanding, it was different. With Perón, he was conceived in opposition and Perón bought it. With Kirchnerism was born in power and the opposition has made it his. The examples for the two periods are so numerous that they would make this note endless. But that's not what I want to talk about.

It is important for the writer to follow Cristina's non-explicit thinking in her discourse, which is generally characterized by journalism as conciliatory and inclusive. I do not share those arguments.

Cristina said, in response to the national government's call for a ten-point agreement, which can be extended, as requested by the Church: "Nobody in time of unity and great agreements do not may disagree. " However, she added, "What she can do and give is something different from everything, let me tell you that it needs something more, a social contract of all Argentines and of all Argentines ".

Apparently, this statement would mean deepening the idea of ​​the agreement, as it is so light It's not enough. The good idea would be a social contract. To illustrate and justify his proposal, he gave as an example the failure of the social agreement of two giants of politics and the capital, General Juan Perón and his Minister of Economy José Ber Gelbard. He then explains the reason for this failure and, surprisingly, does not lie about Perón's anger on June 12, 1974 against the businessmen who did not respect the agreements. What he does not say, that's why they could not do it. Attention, businessmen!

Therefore, faced with the fiasco of these two giants, a pact is not enough, it is now something stronger and more energetic. To the one who gave it the following title: A social contract of responsible citizenship. Social contract and citizens! Miss Rousseau, Danton, Marat, Robespierre, and we are all here.

What is not clear, it is he says that it is frivolous or because his intellectuals gave him a revolutionary letter. In Argentina, there has always been talk of agreements, agreements and treaties. From the pillar, the quadrilateral, federal, the agreement of San Nicolás, the time of the city, among others. We have made agreements and pacts.

Social contract? It's so new that it sounds like singing. It is also good to say that we were co-religionists, companions, comrades, brothers, sisters, friends. Citizens? It smells like the public health committee.

Then, with a mischievous smile, he advises businessmen and politicians who visit the United States to see what Donald Trump is doing for the US domestic market.. Let it be made again at home. That American companies that have invested abroad and abroad maintain their capital, that they return to their country. In Cristina's head around the Import substitution and Gelbard. But without agreement. With the public health committee?

What Cristina tells us, without realizing it, is that globalization has damaged the empire and now, Trump corrects the error of so many years. So what's left with? If globalization has teased the empire, the seven-headed monster has been hurt, why did they act in Mar del Plata against the FTAA, which coincidentally was the clear expression of globalization? They should have let the FTAA destroy them completely.

Kirchner's ideas are confused, vague and therefore dangerous.