Before, during and after the vote they did nothing but insult those who did not intend to go to the polls, despite having the right. Historically, progressives struggle to get off the pedestal and to accept that there are people with different ideas.
Here quo qui without quorum. As Landini, Count and the Schleinmore frattaglie e Fratoianniremained largely under the quorum and they lost the referendum to great. It didn’t take much to understand that it would end like this. In a country that barely votes only half of the elections, imagine yourself in a referendum, which is also presented as a divisive. If you make a referendum with the idea of sending the government home, people do not agree that you vote whistles for flasks and laws that are not of this government. If you make a referendum relaunching the mastery and the suffocating godfather of the CGIL in the world of work, go to a defeat because that union is badly endured by many people. If you then look for a referendum to relaunch the image of a left on the side of the workers you are not very credible in the eyes of the majority of Italians, especially since those rules were launched, if I remember correctly, by the center -left itself. And if to the questions about workers, add a question that launches the message to open the doors even more to immigrants, it is inevitable that you go to the rejection by the sovereign people. In short, the referendum has been boycotted not by public information, which objectively has a relative incidence, but from the meta-referendum that you have created yourself on the referendum, loading it with improper and unacceptable messages and meanings for the majority of Italians. Take it with yourself. If you had humility, before intelligence, to understand it, you would have lesson from the referendums. Just as the “right” should take lessons from the defeats that collects in the administrative rounds because of the inadequate candidates, who are the result of something they do not want to see: the inability to select people appropriate to the leadership of the institutions.
But the problem for the left is even more serious and I try to explain myself better. When they campaign in favor of the referendum, they accused those who announced that they did not go to vote that they were cowardly and cowardly, enslaved to the government. To them does not even pass through the anteroom of the brain that there may be people who simply have a different idea of Italy and the things they really need. And he exercises the right not to go to vote for questions wanted by a minority. For them, those who do not agree with their theses of the moment (who then vary according to their contingent interests) is not one who has different ideas from theirs, respectable as theirs; No, for them it is only a coward, a Camorra, an subversor, an enemy of democracy and work, a servant of the Melons and its allies.
I also tell you for your good: you cannot continue to think that what you establish to be the right thing to do is a supreme truth, an absolute and indisputable good. You have every right to express your opinions and your opposition, but you cannot pretend that others have the duty to think of it like you and to adapt to your precepts. Until you accept the difference in opinions and continue to consider it a sign of the authoritarian, fascist or fascist turning point, you will never be able to be credible. The problem is serious. Unlike you, I do not pretend that you adapt to the opposing opinion at all, that you review your ideas and your intentions; I only say that if you continue with your presumption of representing the good and with your idiotic arrogance to consider sold or imbeciles those who do not share your ideas, you will never be able to be truly democratic, respectful of freedom and diversity, and how you prefer to say, inclusive. I say this not only to the managers and militants of the left, I also say it to the many exponents of the show and culture. But is it possible that actors, directors, singers, journalists and intellectuals express the same unique and predictable opinion, usually in contrast with the common feeling of the common feeling?
When I hear, in truth not only from us, but also elsewhere – in the United States for example – that you always express the same opinion, uniform, compliant, obsessive and repetitive, they grant me two thoughts. The first is that you do not think with your head but repeat the unique, indignant and prefabricated opinion, always addressed against the absolute enemy (which can be Melons, Salvini or Trump). The second is that if among you you never feel an opinion divergent from the mainstream, it means that those who dissent are made out, are excluded, marginalized. And therefore it is silent or silenced him, however I prevent him from saying what he thinks. I cannot think that ordinary people express very different opinions from yours and instead in your world, in your Squares, in your sect, there is never a divergent opinion. All always aligned to repeat the same pappagallo to parrot. But I go back to politics and I say you, after this umpteenth demonstration, that you are not the unique and authorized interpreters of the spirit of time; You have to make an effort to understand that others place other priorities compared to yours, have other sensitivity, judge differently certain choices for the country.
And, I repeat it again, this does not mean that you have to adapt; It only means that you have to accept to express an idea like the others, an opinion that is worth as much as opposite opinions, is not a table of Mosesbut only your opinion like those of others. You are a party, not the PravdaThat is, you are an expression of a partisan vision and you are not the owners of the right right. Is it so difficult to understand this elementary truth that is then the salt of freedom and democracy? Is it possible that you do not refer to your ethnic superiority, of your ethical racism, and judged lower breeds those who do not think like you?
It happens to me on social networks to read comments in which if you express these different ideas it means that you are in bad faith, you are in the pay of the government and the Melonsthat you are not a real intellectual, and you just say bullshit. No, idiots, we only have different ideas and I continue to define yours, for elementary respect for the diversity of opinions. Then the critic, I fight them, but I don’t dream of accusing you to be in bad faith. And I consider you idiots not for the theses you express but for the pretense of having the monopoly of truth and judging others as servants in bad and ignorant. I do not say that the idiots are only left, for heaven’s sake, I also know many from the other parts; But only you have the claim to hear the ventriloques of truth and the best by divine right.
As for those who say: “And this would be an intellectual, a philosopher, a writer” I answer: idiot, if you want to judge me in that sense, read and criticize my books. What I express here are opinions of a citizen, common thoughts, are not deep thoughts of a philosopher. And then, I have no position for a party taken. They are out of politics and its collateral areas, not a few times disagreement from the positions of the government and I consider many measures a strumped measures as resolutive such as placebo, fresh water, spot. But having to choose between opposite propaganda, I prefer in the end those who make propaganda in favor of security, we place, rather than those who propaganda against safety, to guarantee those who disappoint.
But I go back to the general political question and I beg you: if we want to make our democracy and comparison acceptable, and if you want to try to conquer the trust of ordinary people, get off your pedestal and get back into play and question. You are on the same level as your opponents, you are not on a upper floor. You need plan lessons, that is, humility.