It is well known that every historical process, with its corresponding leadership, is inclined to develop a reading of the past that justifies or legitimizes the present and, above all, convinces citizens that in a distant time we lived moments of glory, although unfortunately - We can allow ourselves to add - those who should have sustained and expanded that social happiness have not known how to sustain it and in more than one case have disgraced it and precipitated it to decadence and economic and moral bankruptcy.
Javier Milei, who, as he has repeated ad nauseam, intends to found a new historical era, has not evaded that temptation and, on the contrary, has been busy reinforcing it by developing slogans that evoke a period of abundance that he unhesitatingly describes as the most important in the world at that time.
Period of abundance that began after Caseros, had its moment of splendor at the beginning of the twentieth century and its subsequent bankruptcy fifteen or sixteen years later, a bankruptcy that it labels with the name of “collectivism” and that, to the best of its knowledge, It has lasted for more than a century, that is, until the moment when he assumes the presidency to put an end to these prolonged misfortunes caused by the various civil and military collectivisms that have plagued this unfortunate country like a plague.
The current president is sincerely enthusiastic about this historical reading, or this mythological vision of the past, but let us agree that it does not enjoy the approval of the most qualified historians in the academic world.
That Argentina was the richest or most powerful country in the world in the nineties of the 19th century is, in the mildest of cases, a controversial statement, if not absurd;
that our economic and social misfortunes began in 1916 with the full validity of the Sáenz Peña law and the arrival of Hipólito Yrigoyen to the presidency of the nation, it is a truth that at the time was shared by the most retrograde sectors of Creole conservatism and the presumptuous gentlemen of the Patriotic League who always considered that Law 8871, approved in 1912 ensuring universal and male suffrage, was solely responsible for all our calamities since nothing good could be expected from a law that granted the vote to the mob.
Finally, qualifying the period that extends from 1916 to 2023 as a century dominated by collectivisms is more similar to the monologue of one of the characters of Roberto Arlt or William Faulkner than to the hypothesis of a historian, an economist or a leader committed to the demands of power and politics.
I am not sure that it is advisable to resort to the court of history to justify the decisions of the present.
Those who have experienced these stratagems have made the people pay, in the short or medium term, a very high price, in addition to living with the taste of deception.
In any case, this dialogue between the present and the past that we can very well call history exists, and it is not bad for leaders to be aware of its oscillations and doubts.
Perhaps it is somewhat exaggerated to describe history as a teacher of life, but that exaggeration is innocent compared to those who try to use it to gain undeserved prestige or honors.
Those who claim that with the Constitution of 1853 this fledgling nation that claims to be called Argentina guarantees civil citizenship and individual rights, starting with the right to life and property, are not wrong.
The problem or objection that could be made to Milei is that civil citizenship is the starting point of full citizenship and not the arrival point.
Even this unexpected resurrection of Alberdi should not make us lose sight of the fact that when thinking about a nation, he himself warned that civil rights ensured the possible republic, leaving the true republic for an uncertain but not very distant future, that is, the republic that made political citizenship possible, an achievement that was achieved in 1912 with the law approved during the presidency of Roque Saénz Peña.
Milei does not tell us a word about that true republic, or in any case it is an entity that is absent, otherwise it would deserve to be described, as can be deduced from his story, the starting point of national decline.
History takes pleasure in creating certain symmetries that do not contribute to historical knowledge but provide a slight touch of humor that is always welcome.
At the end of the 20th century, an anachronistic Peronist was accused of having stayed in 45, that is, in a country that had little or nothing to do with the current one.
What can we say in 2024 about a politician (yes, Milei is a politician) whose future model of the country is 1853?
The question would take on somewhat disturbing tones if we share the hypothesis of sociologist Thomas Marshall who postulates that the process of establishing full citizenship of a nation includes, in addition to individual and political rights, the social rights of the twentieth century, the century of incorporation of the masses into politics and of which Milei does not tell us a word, predictable silence if you will for those who “stayed in 1853.”