AS history has shown to those who care to see, pandering and plunder are features — not bugs — of politics. Populism, moreover, could be the oldest trick in a politician’s bag of tricks. (See for example, the politics of ancient Rome.) “Vote for me and I will make your life better while going after your oppressors: the establishment, the elite, the others.”
Many people — here and everywhere, and throughout known human history — believed, and still do, that Government (with a capital “G”) is the repository of all that is good and true in humanity; that it transcends humanity and transforms mere mortals into heroic, selfless, noble Leaders (with a capital “L”); and if that is not the case right now, then we should elect “better” Leaders who are morally upright, educated, hard-working, etc. (See campaign literature and news accounts of each election year “since ever since.”)
Not a lot of us have noticed that the main reason for our perennial dissatisfaction with Government is our unrealistic expectations that often clash with basic economics (arithmetic).
We want Government to provide good paying jobs with regular pay increases; generous retirement benefits; free or affordable education and healthcare; scholarships; more paved roads; low priced and faster internet; low priced fuel; a wider selection of consumer goods “at reasonable prices”; reliable and cheap, if not free, utilities; more programs for the youth, the elderly and other members of the community; among many other things we believe — and insist — that the Government should bestow upon “the people.”
But we don’t want to pay much, if at all, for any of these governmental goodies that many of us consider as “entitlements” — our “rights.” Then we are surprised — and outraged — that it all falls apart every time the Government doesn’t collect enough revenue because the economy is down.
To paraphrase economic professor and author Bryan Caplan, Government fails because it does what voters want, which is primarily to spend more on what voters want.
But in Argentina, a majority of the voters finally had it with politicians who promise pain-free, cost-free governance. They have just elected an “eccentric” economist with an unruly mop of hair who waves a chainsaw above his head at political rallies. A classical liberal, Javie Milei, 53, has promised to significantly cut government spending by, among other things, abolishing several of its agencies, including the central bank. He also wants to slash taxes and “dollarize” Argentina’s economy to help tame inflation, which hit 143% (!) in October.
Milei was up against the candidate of the ruling party, a big-government Peronista who, as usual, had promised a chicken in everyone’s pot.
I thought that the Peronista would win. As a political pundit had noted before the runoff, “Only 6.2 million Argentines work in the formal private sector and pay the taxes to subsidize the almost 20 million people who are public workers or pensioners or who get some form of public subsidies.”
But things are so bad in Argentina that even government employees and pensioners voted for Milei. “We have to get rid of those who have been there for…years and have done nothing. We are rotten,” one voter said. Another remarked, “I like Milei’s thoughts. He doesn’t lie to us and he doesn’t take our money with taxes.”
But no, Milie is not Donald Trump. The Argentinian has very little in common with Trump in terms of policy views. Milei supports unilateral free trade, and believes that tariffs should not exist. He is strongly opposed to Vladimir Putin and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Can he, however, fix the unholy mess he has inherited from the Peronistas who have dominated Argentina’s politics since the 1940s? Milei has little political experience, but he must now work with other elected politicians in Argentina’s bicameral Congress. Moreover, the reforms he wants to pursue are likely to upset — and mobilize — those who will be adversely affected. His proposals are akin to a cold turkey approach to curing drug addiction. The withdrawal symptoms could be intense, and eventually fatal to Milei’s cause.
I don’t believe that CNMI voters, like their Argentinean counterparts, will, one day, decide to elect candidates for office who are for actual change, which starts with a drastic reduction in the size of government coupled with a consistent implementation of policies that promote economic growth. Unlike Argentineans, CNMI residents who are U.S. citizens have another option in case the islands’ financial crisis worsens no thanks to their government’s overspending ways: they can always move to the states.
Send feedback to editor@mvariety.com
