He's more articulate and consistent (at least so far in these very early days) than other right wing leaders, whether that comparison is made to the present day or the last century in South America.
The wave of privatization and de-regulation is the opposite direction of authoritarianism, unless there's a Putin-esque quid pro quo with the aristocracy/oligarchy. If he ramps of the nationalist populism and liberal use of the military, then maybe the comparisons to Pinochet won't be inaccurate. Argentina is racially and ethnically homogenous, with a very small indigenous minority, and Afro-Argentine descendants of slaves are also a tiny minority. So the left/right divide is seen less along racial lines, which makes this less of a social experiment and more of an economic one, at least as much as those can be disentangled. In other words, the oppressed/oppressor dichotomy is much more difficult to define and frame as a political movement in Argentina. No one can even agree whether Peronism, the dominant faction in Argentine politics for the last 80 years, is left or right wing, and I think that's what makes it kind of confusing for people observing Argentina right now. Either way, it was time to move on from the Peronistas. That had become an incoherent mishmash of left/right populism, corporatism, and corruption.
Argentina has needed a political enema for decades. I don't know if this is going to work, or if they're going to end up worse off than before, but something needed to be shaken loose. That's going to come with a lot near-term volatility as markets evolve. But I am interested to see what happens with this experiment.