Borges had fostered an intense dislike for Perón for years. The latest biography of Borges ( Borges: A Life
Borges immediately phoned his sister to break the news to his familly. Then he went out again; the entire population of the Barrio Norte seemed to have surged into the streets to celebrate the news of Perón’s downfall. It was pouring rain, but no one minded – there were crowds everywhere, wandering about aimlessly, singing and shouting. Borges himself was deliriously happy and kept crying out “Viva la patria!” at the top of his voice. He ran into a girl he knew on calle Libertad, and by the time they had found their way back to the avenida Santa Fe, he was soaked to the skin and had lost his voice with all the shouting. “I remember the joy we felt; I remember that at that moment no one thought about themselves: their only thought was that the patria had been saved.(p.328)
Unfortunately, Argentina didn’t fare too well under its new government either and Borges’ political optimism didn’t last long. Yet, Borges himself benefited from Perón’s downfall when, a few weeks later, Borges was named director of the National Library.
September 22nd, 2005 at 9:14 pm
The other half of the population was crying . Though I admire Borges as a writer I can ignore he was not able to understand that for the other half of the population the Patria had been betrayed
September 25th, 2005 at 5:44 am
It’s true that Borges was an elitist. He had aristocratic pretensions, though his family was actually middle class. Of course, he had the right to his own political beliefs. I don’t subscribe to the concept that admirable writers should be either apolitical or share my own perspective.
September 29th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
I do not think a writes should be apolitical either.
I think Borges (as many other argentines)did not understand why other argentines could cry because Peron was being overthrown.
September 30th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
And it’s likely that those who cried didn’t understand why others were cheering.
Opposing political perspectives rarely understand the other side. (A more recent example is when half the US cried when George W. Bush was re-elected, while the other half cheered). A lack of understanding others is perhaps one of the most unfortunate aspects of society.
The 1955 coup in Argentina was obviously a failure of democracy. Yet, one can argue that Peron’s presidency itself had transgressed democratic governance by that point and had become an authoritarian state. Throughout Argentine history, military coups oddly seem to have been viewed as accepted forms of political transition. (Let’s hope that the last one in Argentina has changed that perspective forever.)
What is even more fascinating about the topic than the reaction in 1955 is the fact that Peron appears beloved by so many today. While much great social progress did occur in his presidency, should his accomplishments overshadow his repressive and totalitarian actions?
That’s what I’m trying to understand with Argentina today. Embedded in that are tough questions for political philosophy, not just about Peron but about so many political leaders (e.g., Castro, Chavez, Bush).