Thursday, January 24, 2013
Rallying the Middle Sector
Tonight's reading focus's on the Argentine "middle sector" -- its rise to political prominence by Yrigoyen's (or Irigoyen) election in 1916, and their subsequent removal from power by 1930. Why, if the radicals were so popular in the post WWI era, could they not sustain control during the great depression? Why is Yrigoyen's ousting virtually unopposed by the masses?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The radicals were removed because when the Depression made everyone look closer at their governments the Argentinians saw that they were starting to lag behind other South American nations when before they were the undisputed leaders. They had no solid progress to show so far as worker reform causing widespread strikes and violence. Also Irigoyen was far too controlling of his own party causing a split which injured their chances of winning another election and making them look like a weak party that could easily be brought down.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the depression came a huge decrease in the confidence of Argentina's future and a loss of faith in the government; "For the first time in a decade and half there was a widespread discontent". Findings of a close examination of a record made by the middle sectors concluded that the Radicals themselves, however, were unaffected by the surrounding events.
ReplyDeleteYrigoyen intervened in the political life of Argentina's provinces. The democratic government was threatened by his centralization of authority in the national government. When the Radicals promoted democratic-representative government/education, it was greatly unfavored. Also, they were unable to stimulate major fragments of the middle sector into a political unit. This aspect was Yrigoyen's fault, and contributed greatly to the discontent of the nation. Ultimately, his ousting was unopposed by the masses due to "the Radical's failure to respond favorably to the plight of the urban labor forces."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Radicals could not sustain control during the Great Depression because "Any possibility of labor's profitting from the laws passed by the radicals was largely nullified by the government's failure to provide for the enforecement of labor legislation...". This shows that the working class dind't not benefit from or sided with the Radicals. The text also says, "The Radicals' record in support of the 'neglected' elements of society was checkened". I think this statement says it all: The Radicals neglected the wants of society and did not take part in "social responsibilty". For example, Catholic Churches were left to deal with welfare, not the government. The Radicals simply did not do enough during the depression to help urban workers. His ousting is unopposed by the masses because of his lack of fufulling the needs of the working class.
ReplyDeleteThe radicals could not sustain power because, like Ashley said, the working class didn't benefit from their policies. They then went against them which seriously affected the movement.
ReplyDeleteYrigoyen's ousting was unopposed because it was what the masses wanted. The average working man did not agree with him so they chose not to react in any way when he was taken out of power.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn the years building up to Yrigoyen's election, people rallied around the Radical party because its platform stood for what they wanted to see in government (political democracy, representation!). But, as Yrigoyen continued and strengthened his years as president, he started to stray off the party ideals and became an "extreme personalist" operating his country on his "personal vehicle". With the population realizing his lack of commitment to his party's platform, they because dissatisfied and felt let down. As the Great Depression rolled around, this feeling of discouragement spiked immensely as Argentina suffered a great economic plunge. With most radical party supporters already dissatisfied with Yrigoyen, it was as if the depression was a boiling point and a good reason to oust him out of power.
ReplyDeleteI think that the radicals couldn't sustain power during the great depression was because the great depression made most every country affected look at Its own government and answer the question; what happened and how do we fix it. having leaders come and go like the tides was normal for argentina but when they settled down and voted Yrigoyen into office, it seemed like they were heading down a more 20th century path rather then a brutish path they had been taking. But this change in power mixed with the Great depression caused people to question the government of argentina and place the blame on Yrigoyen for causing all the problems. The coup de ta of Yirgoyen was unopposed by the masses because the masses felt like he put them in this horrible situation and the new system they had tried had failed, so basically they lost faith in what hey had tried and reverted back to their way of electing; walk up to the governmental buildings and take charge.
ReplyDeleteI think the radicals were "all over the place" it seemed that they were for the middle class, the against them, the for them again. I think Yrigoyen was the easiest to blame because he was in the position to blame. Anyone who is lead during a time like this can be easily put on the chopping block. This is why he couldn't get a rally of supporters behind him.
ReplyDeleteIt seemes like Yrigoyen was not the hero people thought he was when he and his party succeded in ending the conservatives party. In the article he is mentioned as being a personalist. He used the Radical Party to get himself on top of the government. When he got there
ReplyDelete, he considered himself as the one and only head of Argentina. The artycle even speaks from him as a tyrann. This is, next to the Depression,the reason that people didn't support him anymore.
The new influx of people were looking for constant progress, considering that they came to Argentina for opportunities. Because Yrigoyen was not making great strides, the people blamed the political system as a whole, and reverted back to the dictatorship that they were accustomed to. Because of no partisan divide nor voice of the people to halt progress, they felt that more could be done under a dictator.
ReplyDeleteI believe the radicals couldn't hold their power because they are unable to find a way to be sop porting the middle class. As Mitch said, they were for them, then against them, then for them. The middle class, (which held a great percent of the population), can't support them because of the consistency. Yrigoren was a scapegoat for ending the Conservative party. On top of this, the depression made matters even worse. Ultimately, yrigoren didn't make a good reputation for himself.
ReplyDeleteAll the new people immigrating to Argentina were searching for progress, change almost. Something that Argentina was arguably lacking do to Yrigoyen and his 'ever so graceful strides' (note the sarcasm). This caused the people to blame the government for their situation, as well as the political situation as a whole. They even go as far as to request or 'demand' that the government return to the more familiar Dictatorship.
ReplyDeleteThe Great Depression made many countries look at their government and choose a scapegoat for why the economy failed. FOr Argentina this was the radicals, they were in charge when the Great Depression hit therefore, it was their fault. Though one must give Argentina some credit for having the power of logic, they probably also noticed that their development was somewhat behind other countries in South America. and if there is anything a country can agree upon almost universally it will most often be that their chosen scapegoat has to go which is why Yrigoren was unanimously ousted by the public.
ReplyDelete