Berkley Center

As a foreigner, I have had a hard time deciding whether or not to take Cristina Kirchner seriously or not.

Almost 60 years old, she is not your typical head of state. Glamorous and regal, she is outspoken, passionate, and has an undeniably unique speaking style—she has been known give hours-long unscripted speeches. Then there is the Barbie doll dyed auburn hair, the heavy makeup, the rumored plastic surgeries, and the luxurious black gowns. Supposedly, she has never worn the same outfit twice since taking office in 2007, and, on top of that, she has never appeared publicly in any non-black clothes since the death of her husband (an extremely popular ex-president) in 2010.

The public perception of President Kirchner, however, obviously is based in something deeper than merely her appearance, although her gaudy image certainly plays a role—though perhaps a more symbolic one.

Without a doubt, she is the most polemic figure in every sphere of Argentine public life, casting a perfectly manicured shadow over Argentine politics.

Two Thursdays ago from the time of writing on September 13, there was a massive—and I mean shut-down-the-whole-city massive—march to the historic center of civic participation, La Plaza de Mayo in front of the president’s governing house. In classic Argentine style, the boisterous masses banged together pots and pans, clapped, chanted, and carried posters denouncing la presidenta for a wide variety of reasons.

Some resented the newly imposed tax on foreign goods purchased outside of Argentina, others were upset about the federally mandated retirement of professors once they reach age 65 at the Universidad de Buenos Aires, still others raged against the official inflation rate released by the federal government which is widely believed to greatly understate inflation. It seemed that the topic generating the greatest buzz and most impassioned responses was the legislative proposal that, it is rumored, President Kirchner is planning on introducing that would alter the constitution to allow her to run for re-election for a second time.

I do not pretend to have a deep understanding of Argentine politics, economics, or the “Argentine national spirit.” To contribute to my admittedly lacking familiarity with the central issues and to wrap my head around the logic behind the march, I sought the knowledgeable and nuanced opinions of my Argentine friends and host family.

An Argentine friend in my "Argentine Foreign Policy" class was staunchly opposed to the whole affair. This friend, Josefina, told me that she thought it was simply unfair to Cristina to be calling for her dismissal when la presidenta had won a free and fair election only two years ago.

Over dinner, I picked the brains of my host mother and host sister. Generally supportive of President Kirchner’s policies, they informed me that the majority of the protesters were actually upper middle class to upper class Argentines who are upset at the increasing restrictions on buying dollars and spending pesos outside of the country. Basically, these new measures restrict the ability of middle/upper middle class families to travel abroad and purchase higher-end foreign goods. President Kirchner’s economic policies, fundamentally, aim to prevent the escape of domestic capital and instead funnel Argentine pesos back into the national economy to stimulate domestic demand.

So, then, who supports President Kirchner? Generally speaking, her supporters are among the lower and middle classes who never had the option in the first place of buying high-end foreign goods or traveling abroad. These are the people who benefit from increased domestic demand on the part of the Argentina’s wealthier citizens.

Despite her popularity with the lower class, though, President Kirchner remains a distant figure that almost never mingles with common Argentines or even speaks with the press. She does not field questions at press conferences; she occasionally broadcasts speeches on the public cable television channels, interrupting the normal programming. Regarding the recent demonstration, she dismissed it as having been driven by people who were more interested in what happened in Miami than Argentina.

It is her frequent brash decrees like this that really cause me to pause. She seems to create a narrative that distracts from legitimate criticisms of her policies and administration. Without missing a beat, she appears entirely serious in her pronouncements that seem, at least to a foreigner, exaggerated and, sometimes, utterly ridiculous. I cannot shake the impression that she is always trying to convince her audience of something that is not entirely true while obscuring the truth.

Alas, I suppose politics is the same the world over.