-Analysis-
BUENOS AIRES — It was an unexpected sight, to say the least: Francis, the “socialist” pope from Argentina and defender of the poor, and Argentina’s new, neo-liberal president, Javier Milei, enthusiastically greeting each other this week in Rome. Who would have thought?
What could have led Francis, known for his frosty relations with previous conservative presidents, to allow such an embrace, no less from a politician who once called him an imbecile, a Communist and … well, evil? Do opposites attract, as they say, or are the two not as far apart as imagined?
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
For his theological and philosophical studies, Francis, formerly the archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Bergoglio, was familiar with the Hegelian idea of overcoming “opposing polarities.” Seeking “harmony” in the “whole that transcends its parts” no doubt, Francis rang the president.
This was surprising, but should it have been? After all, Bergoglio had been preaching about bridges all his life. Why raise a wall now?
Still, they do seem impossibly different: One is holistic and communitarian, and the other an “anarcho-liberal” worshipper of unfettered individualism. The Bishop of Rome cares little for the capitalism the president wants turbo-charged in Argentina.
A hug with another tropical Trump
I suspect Milei is not as unpalatable to the pontiff as one might imagine though, and vice-versa. The man who threatened to sever ties with the Holy See has now, practically received his diplomatic baptism at the Vatican, bar his visit to Israel. He knelt before the “evil” pontiff who in turn allowed his person to be hugged by this reincarnation of the “tropical Trump“.
Was this hypocrisy? Or, as they say: there shall be no real accounting for likes and dislikes.
Knowingly or not, Milei is honoring an unwritten law of Argentine history, namely the dual-headship (Church and State) implicit in the myth of Argentina as a Catholic nation. He may pick a fight with everyone, but with the Church, he is obliged to seek an understanding on as many fronts as possible.
Francis hates unfettered economic freedoms, but the pontiff and his bishops live on this planet.
Argentina’s new president has already said he would care for the poorest in the country — in a gesture to Francis — and his legislators will seek to cancel the abortion law. To think the same man wanted a free market in body organs, as an expression of perfect freedom!
The Church led by Francis hates this free market and its unfettered economic freedoms, but the pontiff and his bishops live on this planet. They can see Argentina’s coffers and budget are as they are, not to mention the fact that many of the poor whom they defend voted for the man Francis suggested was among the “messianic clowns” of politics.
Justicialism for the spirit of our time
Francis may have abandoned his love of the over-generous welfare state, rightly seeing it as a sinking ship. He’s not one for heroic failures, or he wouldn’t be pontiff today. He hasn’t minced his words criticizing our powerful trade unions, which he courted before, or the political clientelism typical of some of his old friends.
Now, instead of popular movements he prefers the “social market economy” of Wilhelm Röpke, a post-War German Catholic who found a middle way between liberal and collectivist governance. Perhaps he sees there an efficient, German equivalent of Argentina’s brand of social democracy, Justicialism (or Peronism), more in tune with the spirit of our time.
Francis may have found the social formulae he was looking for in the Germanic world — which never turned its back on the communitarian ethic — while Milei sought, and found them in minimal form, in the libertarian, Anglo-Saxon world. The Pope’s emphasis on social responsibility is not opportunistic, but his 10-year papacy and residence abroad have widened his perspectives beyond the Argentine vision.
When ideological polarities meet
The spirit of our time will likely remind us that if the ways of The Lord are many, so are those of a Catholic nation. And it can adapt to a fiercely philo-semitic president who remains, ultimately, Christian, and more amenable to its reasoning than the secular liberalism of the PRO conservatives.
They share a disdain for the technocratic élites that believe they are chosen to govern on the people’s behalf.
Both Milei and Bergoglio have seen modern Argentine history swing like a pendulum between nationalist populism and the “purgative” phases of liberalism.
In fact, they share a disdain for the technocratic élites that believe they are chosen, seemingly forever, to govern on the people’s behalf. And while Milei and Francis differ in their emphases or address different crowds, both believe in the contrast between common folk and cynical élite. Both have maximalist, if not eschatological, visions of what needs to be done.
This is no permanent state of reconciliation, but may foment a measure of understanding and help put a lid on social protests against Milei’s downsizing of the welfare state. The unexpected, and even heartwarming, meeting of ideological “polarities” might even lead Bergoglio to finally pay a return visit his native country, where he has not set foot since becoming pope.
