WE DON’T HAVE PORTUGAL EITHER?​

Sergio Massa seemed to have an advantage over Javier Milei in a debate that generated expectations and could be decisive; the libertarian was uncomfortable.

Never before has a ballot been held in such dramatic terms. And there has never been a presidential debate with so much expectation that it could be decisive. This is confirmed by the 48 rating points and what was seen last night. Both candidates showed that they had practiced (a lot) to face it. But it was Sergio Massa who seemed to take advantage of a confrontation that was more than dialectic.

The official candidate deployed from the first thematic block his offensive, with a rehearsed composure, which set the pace, the tone and the background of the discussion in almost all levels, including the personal one. The agenda was almost entirely his own.

Javier Milei, installed on the defensive and trying to manage tones and emotions did not manage, on the other hand, to disguise his discomfort nor to discomfort his rival in almost any passage.

The libertarian submitted himself to answer questions and accusations rather than to question with incisiveness an adversary who, in his condition of Minister of Economy, as well as candidate, offered several weak flanks. Such as inflation or the illegal espionage scandal that has just exploded, which Milei never got to investigate in depth.

The capacity and power of impact of both sides was asymmetric, especially in the first half of the debate. The big question is how the electorate will process such an unequal beginning, which later turned out to be less forceful and even Milei managed to even out in some parts.

The articulating axis of the discussion was fear or lies, more than other dilemmas, and the pro-government candidate managed to turn that antinomy towards the side of fear, if not terror, of what could happen with Milei in the Casa Rosada.

In the plane of lies, Massa also disputed that terrain to his opponent, who recurrently used the discussion on truth as a battering ram, but without enough success or at least without provoking defeats capable of changing the course of the confrontation.

The climax was reached with Massa’s coup d’effect when he stated that the libertarian would not be psychologically fit not only to be President but not even to be a trainee at the Central Bank for, allegedly, not having passed a psycho-technical exam for an initial position in that institution. The impact was increased to the extreme when the audience noticed that Milei did not deny it.

It was understood at that moment why the minister-candidate had been making his interest in knowing Milei’s emotional condition known in private conversations and public proposals for some time. A curiosity that would even include the medical history of his rival and the possibility that it would be revealed before next Sunday. It did not go that far. Not yet.

Under the protection of an alleged higher interest, such as the need of the electorate to know (nothing less) if a candidate is in psychological conditions to assume the first magistracy of the country, Massa did not even seem to worry about some undesired derivations of that revelation. Such as the possible violation of privacy, especially with regard to information held by the State.

The same could be said regarding the accusation that Milei’s family owns real estate in Miami. Just when the use of data that should enjoy state protection is one of the issues dominating the public agenda these days. Massa seems to remain impervious to the espionage case known as Zanchettagate. His rival made it easier for him.

Although the pro-government candidate had already shown himself and was presumed to be more seasoned and solvent in the handling of rhetoric, the unequal result of the debate is curious.

Massa, but also Milei had and have the final scenario they had dreamed of. For which they had worked (very successfully) to achieve it throughout the electoral campaign and with some mutual help. Without underestimating the invaluable contribution made during the whole process by the main rival of both: Juntos por el Cambio (Together for Change), which fell by the wayside.

This was seen in the two presidential debates prior to the general election of October 22, which left the two of them face to face in the runoff. The officialist and the libertarian outsider chose each other to polarize the discussion and grab the attention, in a remarkably careful way. Or with controlled aggressions.

In the meantime, both displaced the Cambiemite candidate, who, without being pushed too much, was already facing her own limitations and difficulties to take part in the debate, to make her adversaries uncomfortable and to present a proposal that would catch the audience’s interest.

The result of the first round reflected as no other fact what had happened in those dialectical confrontations. The order and the difference that separated the candidates barely amplified what happened in the stages of Santiago del Estero and the Law School of the University of Buenos Aires.

Massa was the one who had clearly come out better from both instances. Especially in the first meeting, where he presented himself with the blue asbestos-covered suit of a quasi-president, which was neither too much nor too tight on any side. Milei was then the one who did not lose, when a majority expected him to stumble.

MORE CANDIDATE THAN MINISTER

It is clear that the first place obtained by the official candidate and the six points of distance with the libertarian in the first round were not only due to the debates, but they did help to reinforce his positioning. It was there where Massa began to consolidate the great change (or the great magic pass) that took place during the electoral process. He managed to make the candidate prevail over the minister and his performance.

The big question about him was no longer what he did during his (failed) tenure at the head of the Ministry of Economy. It became what he would be like as President, what he offers, how he is seen in that role. Obviously, in the context in which he is involved. Not in the abstract, but with respect to his rivals. From then until today, the Minister’s negative attributes have been reduced so that the supposed expertise or quality as an eventual President could grow.

For Milei, the fact that the floor he had reached in the PASO became his ceiling in the general election had a lot to do with his campaign, including his performances in the debates. Especially when, outside his hard core of followers, his arrival at the Casa Rosada ceased to be an outlandish statistical probability to become a certain possibility once he was the most in the PASO.

The questions about his presidency took precedence over the punitive tool against the political leadership (the caste) that operated as the great answer to the anger and frustration of a more than important part of the electorate.

The second place in the PASO of the candidate of La Libertad Avanza and, above all, the resounding defeat of Patricia Bullrich, which both Milei and Massa had dreamed of, reset the system. Much more after the support of Macri and Bullrich.

From the caste-anti-caste and system-anti-system antinomies, on the way to the ballot, the democracy-anti-democracy, continuity or change cleavages were replaced by the democracy-anti-democracy, continuity or change cleavages. Further behind, although still in force, were Kirchnerism-anti-Kirchnerism and Macrism-anti-Kirchnerism. Massismo and Antimassismo are, for the time being, constructions for the future or frightening specters that still have a very relative weight. Last night’s debate confirmed it. And Massa made it explicit.

Meanwhile, fear and anger, which have been the dominant emotions of almost the entire electoral process, continue to be very powerful dilemmas, although at this stage they tend to be confused in whom those feelings are embodied, depending on which side of the new polarization each one is located.

For one half (more or less precise), the fear of Milei and of what his government could mean for some sectors of the population or with respect to his concrete policies and positions of strong symbolic weight and practical consequences weighs heavily. Such as some basic agreements on which the democracy recovered 40 years ago was based. Especially with respect to the illegal repression and the systematic plan of violation of human rights.

The libertarian has been in charge, with words and attitudes, of giving entity to these precautions. So that some social referents, unsuspected of Massaism and, even less of Kirchnerism, have announced not only their vote against Milei but also in favor of Massa. This was also used by the official candidate in his favor last night and the libertarian did not manage to disarticulate it.

Meanwhile, for a good part of the other half, which even though they also harbor certain fears about what could happen with a Milei government, the threatening continuity, renewed and reinforced by a third generation Kirchnerism, embodied by Massa, has a much greater impact.

It would be an artifact capable of becoming a new hegemony like the one created by Néstor and Cristina Kirchner, in which the institutions and guiding principles of liberal democracy, such as the division of powers and respect for the law, are as threatened or more than then, subjected to arbitrariness and discretionality. These are not old fears or paranoid projections, but the fruit of the (increased) observation of the forms and practices of the current Minister of Economy, during his administration.

For a runoff that will be decided by narrow margins, as predicted by the polls and as dictated by the dominant average in most of the second rounds, the nuances count a lot. Not for those who will vote for or against one or the other candidate out of hope or fear.

What will matter is how they will process last night’s debate, how it will be amplified in the days that follow, and how the events leading up to Election Day will challenge citizens. Including the campaign closings.

Nothing will be settled until the polls close next Sunday. But last night Massa took an advantage.

This article was originally published in La Nación, from Argentina. It is reprinted here with their permission.