Maybe it's just me, but I am convinced that we have lost the art dell'intavolare discussion. I am referring to a calm discussion, articulating, in which the rhetorical artefizi are appreciable verve typical of sporadic events, without the tricks offered by the logic become the backbone that makes up an obvious lack of content. I seem to remember that once, in the fabulous time that the elderly are common in every age, political opponents put on the bench each his own list of arguments and then discuss them openly recognizing right and wrong. There was no reason whatever not the absolute reason. It is not part of the hypothesis that one of them was right and the other was wrong. Both could well be right, both wrong, that's why the end is going to ask people to vote: there was no solution better than the already identified. They are good either case, you decide which you prefer.
Not now. Now you say I am right and if you give him the vote will end up in trouble, in fact, we already have and it's all his fault, my political opponent. We do not enter more than the substance of the issues, explain you from be understood by everyone because it is difficult to understand things, all that is cut slice of voters who do not have the intellectual or cultural tools to understand the issues. Then you say you have to trust me, I'm good and he's bad, I make you become rich, poor him, I give you more free he slave. Do not even care most find a topic of discussion, whatever you speak, the result is the same: the opponent is disqualified from the start. He is a thief, he does not keep that promise, he breaks down the country, his mind, he did not even realize the damage they cause to the country if he wins the election.
If you refuse to accept the moral logic of oppression, expulsion prior, and they make you insist on going into detail, what he wants steps to muddy the waters, who wants to create confusion, which tells you the as a salesman who tries to cheat. If before we start, add a rule that everything that your opponent will tell lies and cunning, difficult words to deceive you, that's coming out not only de-legitimized the opponent, but the entire democratic process on which we must sustain the political confrontation . I remember always the good old days of the above, that the old ones can not say whether or not dreamed of them, that even the most extreme was respected, I heard terrible things without the healthy carrier of ideological madness I say was not insulted, silenced, but not quietly mocked by the other party. There was plenty of respect, and who then regrets it now seemed too excessive.
who persists in locking up a discussion within the confines of a rational and civil exchange of opinions is not perceived as a knight of good sense but as a boxer into a corner, forced to defend himself because he has the strength to attack. The theorem is that if you do not taxable if crying does not support your reasons, then you are a coward, a loser, you're afraid of something, doubt of your reasons. So when I ask you have to say with the utmost conviction that you will win the elections, that only a fool would not agree with you, it is clear that the wrong opponent, indeed, the enemy. The winning strategy is not the problem-solving, the ability to present proposals for effective and efficient, no, it seems the electorate is too stupid, does not reward more intelligence is no longer able to hear the whispers of the mind with ears full of the cry of the heart. Voting
the team, you cheer for politicians who play for our team. Even if they do not say something intelligent, it is important that they know to shut the opponent, but on the enemy, reduce to silence by force or insults, and here we reveal the most talented politicians, saying that the people is intelligent and understands who to vote for, is smart enough to trust us blindly, do anything not to go beyond that to power, the opponent, rather, the enemy. It is a short circuit, a paradox from which we can not come out. Politicians are stupid because a nation of fools stupid buffoons in power send their own kind? Or the political class, or as a manager if we expand the criticism, no longer represents the constituency? It is broken or not the actual link between elected representatives and voters? The problem is only in the selection mechanism, and which entitled the bottom or one imposed from above, neither purely on merit? Even thinking nobody is against you is a form of paranoia.
0 comments:
Post a Comment