Once upon an advanced country I saw the wars from afar and that, like the others, it suffered a crisis and then another and then a pandemic, althoughThe state was always there, demanded by the most liberal who asked for tax cuts while demanding high levels of social protection. He was always there, it is true, no matter how much he did not end inequalities nor prevent the plots of corruption. Despite everything, the country pulled because that was what it was all about: pulling and continuing despite everything. There was some degree of well-being in society and people sought their own happiness, underpinned by a series of basic benefits that no one disputed: public education and health, economic progress and well-developed social rights. It was a modern world, at times even happy, that most settled on the recognition of the equality, respect and the possibility of expressing oneself freelyto vote and demonstrate, to go to fair courts and other guarantees that were only wishes for previous generations.
That things were for the better does not mean that they were always good. They weren’t going for many, they couldn’t progress and for those who lacked resources. There were those who accumulated feelings of grievance or those who proposed different ways of doing things. In reality, several strands were mixed together -or mixed, or allowed to mix-: economic, ideological, identity and social. It was necessary, of course, the participation of false news and also the discrediting of the institutions they called ‘the system’, in a common generalization, because it was generalized a lot in general: between good and bad, between patriots and traitors or between goodists and realists. There were also nostalgic ones, determined to light all the fires. Or reactionaries. And, as injustices or crises grew, parties that brought simple solutions arrived in that country. Magic solutions, at the price of intolerance.
Related news
Those leaders were winning the voters that others lost And so they ended up carving out a niche for themselves: in parliaments and in some media and of course among other parties, who took them for partners. Little by little, his speech became naturalized and suddenly the deputies could see themselves in a plenary session arguing about a racist premise, no matter how much it was to reject it: what difference did it make, if the purpose was not to pass any law, but to make noise. Place a doubt before each certainty. be suspicious of consensus.
From there, those parties grew and it turned out that the purposes that seemed made to attract attention – restrictions on politicians, on judges, on journalists, on rights, on equality – were not provocations and that’s it. They were provocations and something else: political, with all its consequences. Nevertheless, it was too late to manifest or to react. There was the option of lamenting little and at home, which was no longer possible in public. Lamenting and remembering that, when the first of the setbacks occurred and hardly any importance was given to it, you could hear in the background how someone disdained it: “Let’s not exaggerate either & rdquor ;.