What is strange though is that people that are not in the magician circle of belief somehow end up agreeing. How is it possible for people that do not have corporate interests to listen to Milei and think - yeah, this guy will have our back .... how?
There are some interesting potential explanations for this. The first, and most plausible in my opinion, is that the corporate interests are well-hidden behind a facade of "culture war" related issues.
Although both sides of the political spectrum bought into this socioeconomic model, it influenced the Left and Right in different ways. To sustain the model from the Left-of-centre, those parties shifted their rhetoric to "luxury belief" issues, e.g., gender, climate, etc. To sustain the model from the Right-of-centre, those parties adopted more reactionary campaigning along "traditionalist" issues, e.g., immigration, culture, etc.
This has allowed the neoliberal socioeconomic model to be incredibly resistant, because when either side has been in power, e.g., New Labour to the Cameron's Conservatives in Britain or the Democrats and Republicans under Clinton-Bush-Obama, they have maintained the status quo, while pretending to care about their respective megaphone issues.
In reality, they do little of much on either. E.g., vote Right and you don't really get any serious immigration reform; vote Left and you don't really get any meaningful or effective climate policies. They're both just maintaining the status quo.
Either way, the point is that the actual project is cleverly hidden behind particular rhetoric on certain socio-cultural issues that masks the real intent of the model.
Such an interesting and brilliant piece again, thanks a lot. What especially stood out for me is, besides the striking "Magician" and "Trojan Horse" metaphors/images, the concept or idea you describe of a "deliberate conflation of economic freedom with individual liberty", the "freedom to" vs. "freedom of" - this makes SO much sense, and is such an important point to make; especially in times when we really need to reflect back to the basics of "democracy, the actual political model of freedom" (if this makes any sense the way I put it..). Thank you!
What is strange though is that people that are not in the magician circle of belief somehow end up agreeing. How is it possible for people that do not have corporate interests to listen to Milei and think - yeah, this guy will have our back .... how?
There are some interesting potential explanations for this. The first, and most plausible in my opinion, is that the corporate interests are well-hidden behind a facade of "culture war" related issues.
Although both sides of the political spectrum bought into this socioeconomic model, it influenced the Left and Right in different ways. To sustain the model from the Left-of-centre, those parties shifted their rhetoric to "luxury belief" issues, e.g., gender, climate, etc. To sustain the model from the Right-of-centre, those parties adopted more reactionary campaigning along "traditionalist" issues, e.g., immigration, culture, etc.
This has allowed the neoliberal socioeconomic model to be incredibly resistant, because when either side has been in power, e.g., New Labour to the Cameron's Conservatives in Britain or the Democrats and Republicans under Clinton-Bush-Obama, they have maintained the status quo, while pretending to care about their respective megaphone issues.
In reality, they do little of much on either. E.g., vote Right and you don't really get any serious immigration reform; vote Left and you don't really get any meaningful or effective climate policies. They're both just maintaining the status quo.
Either way, the point is that the actual project is cleverly hidden behind particular rhetoric on certain socio-cultural issues that masks the real intent of the model.
Such an interesting and brilliant piece again, thanks a lot. What especially stood out for me is, besides the striking "Magician" and "Trojan Horse" metaphors/images, the concept or idea you describe of a "deliberate conflation of economic freedom with individual liberty", the "freedom to" vs. "freedom of" - this makes SO much sense, and is such an important point to make; especially in times when we really need to reflect back to the basics of "democracy, the actual political model of freedom" (if this makes any sense the way I put it..). Thank you!