In his very good column in the Sunday cultural supplement of the newspaper Perfil, Damian Tabarovsky wrote a note to which entitled "underground Policy" . Write with a veil of humor, a fascination with the figure simulated chief of staff of the Buenos Aires government and Rodriguez Larreta PRO policies. Then in a turn only likely through the literature related to the ineffable Larreta with the figure of Jurgen Habermas. Following a fictional dialogue between hypothetical progressive positions and the positions of the PRO, the "character" reinforces Tabarovsky their vocation to vote PRO despite alleged evidence to the contrary. The note concludes as follows, "... By then the progressive, invariably after Habermas, pictured to the public as a critical space to mediate between the state and the market. But progressives have long called for silence on this issue (and others too). Maybe since I noticed that the utopia of democratic public communication has a name: Tinelli. But luckily, now the Rodriguez Larreta and Michetti to remedy that situation, and return to public speech dimension critical. Macrismo: upper stage of enlightenment. "
Beyond their ration cynical, I wrote something in a place where I can not follow the arguments, but in which I do not understand is laborious. I do not share neither the author nor political cynicism that Michetti Larreta or be able to fix anything. Fewer still, I guess the Macrismo is the highest stage of enlightenment. But the truth is that neither seems so preposterous. What could be the reasons for that someone for whom you feel intellectual respect analyze things like this? It is clear Progressive calls the experiences were responsible for becoming the ideal example of conservatism and that most of the time crowned with its grand and resounding failures always politically correct characterizations. It is also clear that the presence of PRO in the City of Buenos Aires is the result of ten years of a government "progress", with bonhomie, can be described as disappointing.
But that's not what I find interesting from the question of Tabarovsky. Which brings up the article is the self-perception, biographical and political liberalism and the continuity. The memory is clear enough, back in 1999 and we were to discuss texts Dalem, Gonzalez, Olive and European social democratic parties. We thought that one day we would have the responsibility to govern and we wanted to do like that we read. We saw in these ideas is an interesting mix of our ambition and our democratic culture equal, some report still true, but vigorously democratic.
realize I can not nesting the component that ended up making those who worked together now we do separately. He stayed in many, of course, a temperament which I did not perceive at the time but it was powerful enough to generate an experience less like Kirchnerism a liberating and fundamental milestone. The passage of the current Laclau Habermas, the memory of the discussions between Massimo D'Alema and Felipe Gonzalez and his counterpart in recoveries Jauretchianas Tabarovsky explain in part the macrismo can see further progress. The story, pending the passage of lightning God, taught us some things and filled us with shame Alliance. A few pretended to ignore because there can be no reform effort with conservative leaders, others because they see progress where and because he had not come too fast. But that experience failed more for their absence than their presence, leaving dead end because it was never really alive.
The shame and silence are intimate partners, are used each other to make the time go and clean the sores. I'm not sure that the roads we take to overcome that shame has been correct. I think we sin by exaggeration and distinction. No need, generationally, to pay up the fact desentronizar eternity false gods and myths which we need not generate mismatch. We should only make the effort to speak again. There was a day I do not know how, which we decided that we should not speak of enlightenment. The same day we decided not to tell us more about the virtuous combination of liberalism and the best of the best of democratic socialism as we learned from the wise old Bobbio. We took refuge in a speech of others, frighteningly strange that separated us from the impossible. The impossible is unable to talk. It is impossible not to find the words to help us reform act. The worst manifestation of this impossibility is to think that we must atone for the infinite guilt. Another way to think condemnation is no difference between weak and powerful. A what I think, with modesty, Tabarovsky error, is doing very well these words of Camus, "Is beauty and are the humiliated. As difficult as the company would never be unfaithful or the second or the first. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment