LUCA Ricolfi
There are ideas that never go away. In fact, we call them "fixed." We have a little ' everyone in everyday life, and we take a little 'around when we discover in others: Alberto has fixed holidays intelligent, Peppino eat spaghetti in Burundi, Loren has the obsession of the bats that you stick to your hair (also does rhyme). Lately, though, I realized that the obsessions or fixations, there are also in the skies of politics. I am not speaking of fixations obvious, that those obsessions that fuel the political forces knowingly, to give themselves an identity or to make proseliti.Quelle there have always been, and mostly fall into the broad category of "construction of the enemy: the Communists, immigrants , Muslims, Jews and, of course, Berlusconi, the enemy par excellence. No, of fixations of which I speak are thinner, are ideas, beliefs, beliefs that - for some reason - have become immovable, impregnable, discounted, as are the conditioned reflexes, as are the essential pillars of our identità.Che there are Stainless beliefs made me understand Enrico Letta a few days ago, this newspaper published a nice article. Faced with the observation that the left has neither a leader able to reconcile its thousands of souls, nor a method to resolve disputes, Enrico Letta on one point does not seem to doubt crossed: Berlusconi is a unique unrepeatable and it is illusory to hope to build a "winning alternative" to Berlusconi's leadership on the ground. To read "the alternative operation can only play on a field different from his," because "its always going to win him." I'm not a politician and I do not know if you read right. I am very curious, though, this a priori rejection of the idea of \u200b\u200ba leader such as cement an alliance. It is years I've heard, in public and in private conversations, that the plurality of leadership is a resource of the Left, that the absence of a leader is a virtue, that the open discussion and 'free' is a force of progressive culture. And I remember what he said in Montanelli 2001, to explain to his readers why he, a man culturally right would have voted for the center-left, then led by Rutelli: "Of course my choice is more than questionable because the army of Rutelli is a jumble of forces brancaleonesca (so to speak) committed to fighting each other, as has always happened in the field of the Left, without ever managed to give himself a head and a program. While those on the right, the Pole, are much more compact, as they were in their time, the fascist and Nazi. [...] So Italy is facing the usual eternal choice: a right that ends up on a regular cult object to raise the baton, and a Left with the vocation of the brothel. [...]« Now, in my long life, I have already had experience of both. As a boy I saw many twirl batons, and have retained a memory inspired disgust. Then I was a frequenter of brothels good, and I have kept a memory based on the regret. That's the reason for my current choice. This left (with his ruffians to Bertinotti), I do not worry not because it is doomed to failure, but because, even if he comes to the so-called power, can not use it. The Right, if it comes, holds all the tools to stay. And that face has the Italian right, which even has the courage to proclaim himself "liberal," we well seen in recent days. No, better - that is the least worst - the brothel. "Well, I understand that most Montanelli Letta. Montanelli sided with the 'brothel' of the left because he felt assured that the left itself, unlike the right attracted by the 'baton' was not able to implement the flawed ideas of which he was the bearer, a certainty that Montanelli came from the last five years in government, reassuring precisely because of their inconclusiveness (a program widely rejected, four governments in five years). But left-wing politicians who call themselves reformers may settle the terms of Montanelli? Those who think that Italy should be modernized, which is required as the Bread of liberal reforms, can console themselves thinking that having so many leaders compete with each other we vaccinate against the risk of a dictatorship? If a leader that makes the leader is not the solution, what is the tool that makes it function? But most of all: where does this phobia for the role of leader? Why Blair and Obama are fine, but we - in Italy - there can be a leader, and when he tries to be is quickly worn down and replaced? Because the right may have a leader despite the shadow of Hitler and Mussolini, and the left that has always had - from Stalin to Togliatti to Berlinguer - now fear him like the plague? Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is that the repulsion of the culture left to the leader has a root deep and tragic. This root is called, in the lexicon Marxist false consciousness. Politicians are, as is natural, and almost always guided primarily by their self-interest, which is to make a career, manage power, obtain private benefits, in cash and in kind. Unlike those on the right, however, left-wing politicians are continuing to tell ourselves and other fairy tales that their selfless commitment is aimed at pursuing the common good if they occupy the seats are only for "the spirit of service (either because the called party, said Cofferati to justify his desire for a seat in the European Parliament). This idea heroic of themselves is not particularly objectionable (after all, self-indulgence is one of the most common human traits), but has logical consequences dangerous. One of them is to ensure that those who profess it, even when they have been squabbling for posts, feel bearers of "non-negotiable values", only representatives of the public good, of course, understood in a dozen different meanings, from that of Bertinotti to that of Prodi, from that of a Pecoraro Scanio to Di Pietro, from that of the panel that Binetti. And then you understand exactly why there can be a leader: if no one feels, simply and prosaically, the representative of certain interests, but all those who feel, and poetic grandeur, holders of high principles, it is logical that they have no intention of betraying their faith, to come to terms with the many heresies that make up the history of the left. There you will see the Pope, Russian Patriarch, the ayatollahs, rabbis, representatives of the many religions of this land just as many surrender their oligopolistic power on the definition of 'good', what is good and right in favor of more monopoly power, a leader of all religions in charge of settling disputes? In short, my feeling is that the phobia of the Italian left for the figure of the head as such is not the only natural daughter aversion to the hierarchy, but also to its archaisms, its still feel the repository of absolute values \u200b\u200band irreducible, while it is mainly political class bearer of personal and group interests, now unable to be traced back to the one considered the only true Norberto Bobbio lodestar of its history: the idea of \u200b\u200bequality. Bad in some way the mirror image of the right, where the ideals - which are not lacking - not too easy way to negotiations on interest, as the story of the Bossi-tax (public money for party interests) is explaining just in these giorni.Montanelli said that the choice was between baton and brothel. Today, perhaps, to note that the choice has become between Trade and faith: a right all too capable of mediating between competing interests just to stay in power, and left but also attentive to the interests so little able to mediate between irreconcilable beliefs as to risk forever of losing power. Or, even worse, do not know how to use the rare moments when it does.
press L 20/04/2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment