A SPEECH THAT DIVIDE VICTOR
ARMONY
All political discourse defines an adversary. Not only is appointed, but are also, albeit implicitly, the nature of antagonism. Presidential posts 25 and 27 March have been very illustrative in this regard. The first drew the now famous opposition between the "pickets of abundance" and "pickets of misery and tragedy of the Argentine people." Through a chain associations, the president suggested the link between a minority (which means "return home a few inches), inside (the most profitable sector), pillage (" the cows for them and for others Penitas) , arrogant ("that threaten, not to government but to society with the shortage of food") and recalcitrant against social change ("who insist with the same practices as usual") with the use of violence and the past dictatorial. Cristina Kirchner opened his speech by referring to the match - described by her as "coincidence" but at the same assigning a value "signal" - between the dates of 76 and hit rural protest. If such a parallel might seem eminently excessive and unjust, would be expected at the end of his speech to understand the full extent of presidential reading of the situation. What initially took the form of an understandable call for tolerance and moderation was rapidly, in the words of the head of state, the explicit recognition of a reality that politicians rarely admit publicly: "provided the dispute between the fighting and with generating sectors, ultimately, violence. " That is - without adding too much to what Cristina Kirchner said clearly and directly - that social change necessarily implies a certain level of violence, because "you have to play interests are often very powerful." It would be very difficult to find in the Argentine presidential speech from the democratic transition a similar statement. Moreover, by implying that there are different types of political violence, with varying degrees of legitimacy ("when you have ... a certain economic slack, violence is much more understandable and more untenable"), the president admitted to a field rhetoric that has no parallel since the last government of Juan Domingo Peron. Clearly
that in this context, the message of March 27 in North Park tried to lower the decibels with "a call for dialogue" and "an outstretched hand, as the tone was less combative and more openness. 7 times the president used the word "dialogue" and 6 times the word "dialogue." Moreover, she felt compelled to emphasize its Peronist identity (on which there was too much emphasis above) and argued that "the Peronist never raised the class struggle, Peronism never raised the war between rich and poor." However, the cornerstones of his vision still present: the words "popular" "Distribution" and "interests" are repeated (each between 9 and 11 times) over a speech that draws the antagonism between the cartoon of "Mrs. neighboring parcels where I live" - in unfortunate resonance with D'Elia's comments about "white Barrio Norte" - and sectors to take "action against the people." A computer study allowed us to verify that the term "the people" that Cristina Kirchner used twice in his message of March 27 was never delivered by her husband (in their official statements between 2003 and 2007). It is possible that the political approach is the same as the ex-president, but his rhetoric is considerably more radical.
While as a candidate, Cristina Kirchner had shown a clear affinity with the vocabulary of her husband, already being observed significant changes in the speech since taking office just over a hundred days. Words such as home, work, dignity and self-characteristics of a rhetoric that combined motifs typically Kirchner Peronist with subjective effects of closeness to the "common people" - that was mobilized in 2001 and 2002 - have given way to a lot of terminology more focused on what the head of state called "the model" and the structural issue of "income distribution." Statistical analysis confirmed a number of other very interesting contrasts between the two presidents K on style: for example, Cristina Kirchner used the pronoun "I" more often than Néstor Kirchner and almost never invoke the name of God, as he used to do with her husband regularly. Of course, these data do not indicate more or less self-centeredness or religiosity in one or another of the leaders, but a way to position themselves before the public. In the case of the current president, is a clear desire to assert itself as an independent leader, with free will and decision making: do not ask divine or secular authorities. But this attitude of firmness and independence has a cost because, as you well know women in politics, the risk is shown as a calculator, arrogant and even aggressive. In his reaction to the rural protest, Cristina Kirchner led to the end that position. Some consider that what he said reveals his true thinking. Others judge that his extraordinary strength is mere rhetorical strategy. But in any case the president has helped fuel a conflict discourse that does no good to society in Argentina.
