Why is Lousteau so annoying?

By Coni Cherep

It’s striking. On Friday night on television shows and on social networks, they queued up to insult Martín Lousteau. The ruling party, those from the PRO, did it, the radicals themselves mistreated it, the Kirchneristas pointed it out and the left, just in case, joined in the disqualifications.

What did Martin Lousteau do or do to bother so many at the same time? The little that an opposition leader should do and with some responsibility: Politics. Make use of your powers as a legislator, propose an alternative to the government’s proposal, and in this way, guarantee that, if the half-sanction of deputies was rejected, your proposal would allow the executive to maintain the possibility of recovering it in the chamber of origin .

What bothered the ruling party, then? Not much is understood, or yes: it made it clear that, if they proposed to open the game a little, discuss some issues and accept some changes, the final sanction of the law would end up being even more legitimate than it will be, if it is finally passed. vote in Deputies. To the Kirchnerist opposition, Lousteau’s attitude left it directly in off side: “How can it be that a guy presents an alternative project and we, with 33 senators, have not been able to do it?” And not. The position merely obstructivist

of Kirchnerism, strengthened the presidential discourse, which operates on an enormous social base that thinks the same as him: they do not want to change anything, and, therefore, they want everything to remain the same. They didn’t do it while they governed, much less do they do it now.

To the radicals, most of them, and to the PROs, who do not have executive responsibilities nor do they discuss budgets with Milei, he left them with the evidence that, to support, they support anything. And although it is true that the law that is about to be sanctioned is very different from the one that the government intended to sanction since it sent the project, it is no less true that your votes, all those votes, are essential for the government and for governability. . And they find the applause of the momentary majorities pleasant.

That is to say: Lousteau, it doesn’t bother him because he was Cristina’s Minister, no. If it were for that reason, Scioli, Ruckauf or Minister Guillermo Francos, with equal or greater ties to the original Kirchnerism than the annoying Lousteau, should be bothered in the same way.

Even less if the objections are “moral”: Lousteau’s private life is private. As much as that of the president and his sister. To object to actions of this type is to have seven yardsticks to measure the same situation.

In the end, what bothers Martin Lousteau is his virtue: putting on the public table, from his expertise and knowledge – as valuable or worthless as that of any economist – a set of discussions that it seems that some do not want to have.

He proposes, and on top of that, he does so from the logic of institutional respect, leaving room for the decisions he criticizes to be made in the same way, by exercising the game of majorities and minorities.

Lousteau, it sucks because it expresses what sucks the most in this country: the lukewarmness, the moderate path, the search for a meeting between those who have been preaching for decades, the path of confrontation as the only way out.

Today, to everyone’s detriment, it is a rarity to accept those who promote alternatives that do not involve hatred and denial of the different. And we Argentines will have to learn, including the president, that the results will be better if more people accompany us along the way.

It is comfortable, blindly supporting the heat of popular support. And even more comfortable, to oppose everything, without any responsibility for what will happen with that rejection.

Politics, used well, is a useful and very annoying tool.

It promotes some to think, and exposes those who do not want to think anymore.

Lousteau, in this story of the endless battle of the Base Law, did that. And then it bothers. To all.