Argentina in the NY Times

Yesterday’s NY Times article on Argentina was sloppy and generally disappointing. The article tries to be a catch all on recent news from Argentina by covering Argentina’s decision to pay off all its IMF debt, Kirchner’s popularity and solidification of power, and the general move left in Latin America. The broad outlines are on target but the details consistently miss the mark. It is unfortunate that the Larry Rohter, a reported based in Buenos Aires, could not do a better job.

Some points are misleading. Rohter suggests Kirchner has become more popular since he was elected: “Mr. Kirchner, 55, took office in May 2003 having won less than a quarter of the popular vote.” This low vote total does not reflect the story of Kitchner’s support. He received less that a quarter of the vote in a multi-candidate field but would have received 70% or perhaps even 80% of the vote in a runoff. His support was so overwhelming that his opponent, Menem, dropped out. He entered office as a bit of an unknown figure but with a clear mandate.

Others statements are wrong: start a conversation with anyone in Buenos Areas and see if the last three years have “erased memories” of the crisis. The crisis still is very much present in the minds of the people, especially much of the middle and lower class for whom a few years of strong growth haven’t even come close to allowing them to recover their economic position. In fact, Rohter contradicts himself, as he argues that people still blame the IMF for the crisis. If the crisis were forgotten Kirchner’s paying off the debt would not be so popular.

Some arguments are just silly, like using a quote from a political scientist who trots out a weak environmental argument about personality: “‘For someone like Kirchner,’ a native of frigid Patagonia ‘who doesn't have an extroverted character, Chávez is too tropical.’”

Rohter’s reference to Bolivia is a red herring: “if Mr. Morales's promised transformation were to go awry and degenerate into class, regional or racial conflict that, in the worst case, would send refugees spilling across Argentina's northern border and constrict the flow of natural gas to Argentina.” Sure this scenario is possible but it is farfetched. The leftist positions cited by Rohter are more likely to keep gas flowing to Argentina. And it seems unlikely that things would be come so much worse in Bolivia that it would lead to a large refugee problem. It is not as if Bolivia is in great shape now.

The number of weak arguments is a relatively short is just unfortunate, particularly in a piece such as this one that does not have to be written on the spot. Rohter had time to get the details right. Sloppy work from the newspaper of record.