Politically Speaking

  As some of you may know, today is the day that Argentina decided on her president.  The current president, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, received about 53% of the votes, for her reelection.  (The next closest candidate was Hermes Binner with 17%.)

  Since the 1950s, Argentina has been a country that immensely favors populism.  I have often pondered the differences the politics of Latin American leaders versus those of North American leaders.  I often think, Don't they see what this is doing?  By playing Robin Hood, you're hurting your own economy.  (Recently, I have realized that Robin Hood was, indeed, a communist).  "Rob from the rich to feed the poor."  If that's not wealth redistribution, I don't know what is.    The people here in Argentina expect the government to keep raising the laborers' salaries.  Of course, this keeps the inflation moving in a steady upward direction.  A qualification for a good administration is good wealth distribution.  (If one were to say that last sentence in the States, someone might shoot you.

But let's get to the crux of the matter: there is a slight flaw with the Robin Hood illustration.  Although he steals from the rich, he actually takes from Prince John who was taxing the living daylights out of the people of Nottingham.  That is to say, the government is the problem, not the rich people. 

While listening to Cristina's speech and the aftermath, I figured out a fundamental difference in these political systems.  This difference is the enemy.  The Founding Fathers of the United States created a Constitution that protected the people from, what?  That's right kids! Big Government. 

 Thomas Jefferson said, "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a  government big enough to take away everything that you have...."   

Ben Franklin is attributed to having said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Juan Domingo Perón (Argentina's greatest political leader) was known for having told the President of Chile that he needed to give to the workers and keep on giving to them and 

keep on giving to them and when he felt like he had given them enough, that he should give them some more.  

Note: I'm not trying to take away from Perón's work as it relates to human rights and working conditions.  But, he hurt the nation because he killed his/its source of income, the agricultural industry.  When you tax a sector til it no longer wants to produce, you're not allowed to ask, "What's wrong?"

Listening to the results of tonight's election, I heard someone say on TV that this administration will continue to protect Argentina from privatization.  (In the '90s, President Menem sold a lot of public industries to private companies, and he is a very hated individual). 

  In the US of A, I don't think that general sentiment of government owned industries is, "It belongs to all of us."  But, that could also be a difference of a more individualist society versus a collective society.  

I don't really know what the moral of the story is, but I think that perhaps a book on culture differences may be in order.