Clarín
journalist Ignacio Miri
wrote it, precisely on Twitter (the X thing is formal, the name does not change in everyday use) .
And he did it with the buzzy tone that best suits this social network:
“Elon, take down all Twitter accounts in Argentina for three days and save us a month of quilombos.”
The joke enables serious questions.
Because the confrontation between the national government and some governors exists, and its consequences are uncertain for now.
However, there is consensus that the figure of $13.5 billion that the Nation did not send to Chubut is irrelevant.
It is then a problem of a different order
and it is, in that context, where the tool becomes relevant.
How much did the President's Twitter have to do with the escalation?
At this point it is obvious that Milei's behavior on Elon Musk's social network finds reference points in Donald Trump and in Musk himself, of whom it was written that
"with one tweet he has generated confusion, uncertainty, polarization, chaos and distrust in all global public opinion.”
Couldn't something similar be said about Milei on a local level?
The criticism,
reiterated by intellectuals who suggest that Milei should moderate herself on that platform
, seems to matter little and operates in the opposite direction among fans.
Twitter is a polarizing machine, and it allows the President to take the lead in the public conversation.
As in other things, the Government seems better adapted in this area
than Kirchnerism in retreat, still obsessed with the covers of paper newspapers,
in a descriptive anachronism of its mental map.
However, on another level Milei is assimilated to a practice criticized by Cristina Kirchner and that
shows him less prone to argumentative combat:
taking refuge in like-minded interviewers with whom he feels safe from unexpected questions.
León,
yes, but in a friendly jungle.
Now, if the widespread opinion is that Milei's interventions in TW fuel the conflict, why doesn't it change?
Perhaps to understand this, the analysis that The Atlantic
magazine published about Trump this week is worth it
:
“At this point, no consumer of the dominant press is unaware that (Trump) is a liar and a racist (...) No reader is He escapes the fear and antipathy that much of the press shows towards him.
Yet Trump persists.
He has used negative coverage to belittle the media and lower his impact among his supporters.”
“Trump was banned from Twitter and Facebook.
In right-thinking circles it was considered that it would help it lose relevance.
This sentiment may have been morally correct, but the expectation was unfounded.
In fact, the bans may have helped him politically, becoming a rallying point for his supporters, who called them censorship.
Despite the distances (Milei is not persecuted by the press at all and no one wants to censor him) there are two concepts to retain:
“consumer of the dominant press”
and
“well-thinking circle”
.
For Milei and his followers they are part of the caste.
Far from being an impulse (although some outdated habits suggest it), the President's use of Twitter seems central to his strategy.
Captain of the
“tanks in the nets”,
his quest is not to calm, but to agitate.
Or at least he seems that way.