2023-07-29 03:56:36
It is difficult not to evoke, in days of electoral campaigns and before the polls, what Carlos Menem once said: “If I said what I was going to do, they would not vote for me.” A significant consideration regarding not saying in politics, especially since that not saying was now saying it. Between not saying and saying, there was or was doing; between what he had not said and saying it, there was neither more nor less than that: what he had done. Couldn’t General Perón be paraphrased, and propose for this case: worse than saying is doing?
Menem did not say what he was going to do to win the 1989 election, and he did. But then he was president and he did, he did what he didn’t say he would do; and that doing was equivalent to saying, it was just as or more eloquent, it was just as or more evident, it made everything perfectly clear. And following that there was an election, in 1995, and he won it; and there was another in 2001, and he initially garnered more votes than anyone else.
If to win the first time he needed not to say what he would do, how come he won later, when he had already done it, when everything was in plain sight? I don’t know, I have no idea; I wonder and I should ask maybe someone who has voted for it (and following voting, insisted). But it may be possible to detect there, in some section of that time, a turn, a hinge, a turn, something that made certain things change. That a certain possibility of saying, or a certain impunity of saying, would be enabled in some way. The conscious abandonment of a certain caution, of a certain modesty, not out of honesty, but rather out of cynicism, in the face of the unexpected verification that the impunity of saying was perfectly within reach, that it did not matter what was said, that no costs were paid politicians for saying it (or doing it). If not, even worse, before the discovery that this saying (and with that saying, a doing), no matter how harmful and detrimental it might be, no matter how calamitous and destructive it might be, would still obtain adhesions, that is to say, with other words, votes
I am considering it because, now that once once more political messages and harangues are circulating everywhere in advance of an electoral act, there is a curious shift towards the explicit in several candidates (in the sense that in pornography it is said that there are explicit sex). And if, for example, they intend to take away workers’ rights and dignity, they say so almost without euphemisms (because there is no effective veiling in words like flexibility, it is well understood what they are aiming at). Or that of returning teachers to slavery, depriving them of the rights won in the fight for education. Or that of implementing violent repression once morest all those who demonstrate and protest once morest opprobrium and injustice. Or even to demolish emblematic buildings, if that serves to remove from sight people they don’t want to see, who they don’t want to know regarding.
And all that is strikingly said in an open way. They note that there are a few who are no doubt pleased to hear them.
1690603761
#Explicit #Profile
