Hatred of strong leaders

Recognizing that we face a clash of styles and morals is not necessarily a negative observation, as it is inevitable. Voters, by definition, are not fully aware of all the topics covered in a campaign, and they vote in ways that follow a variety of and even unpredictable motivations.

Each voter may be influenced by party affiliation or sympathies, the opinions of family and friends, subjective views on society and the economy, information repeatedly disseminated by the media, loyalty to a particular candidate, and even the occurrence of unexpected events during the campaign.

Thus, voters are rationally ignorant of specific issues, and the natural order of things means that political struggles are fought and decided in the realm of style and morality. Apart from this insurmountable fact in a democracy, when a society goes through phases of stagnation and existential crisis, moral issues become life-or-death matters. It is time for leaders to recognize the existence of these crises and try to establish personalized order where chaos seems to prevail.

Third, the polarizing forces of an age of instant and superficial information also mean that the success of a message depends primarily on its style and its moral impact on voters.

That being said, we can calmly recognize that we are all affected to a greater or lesser degree by the new dynamic of political polarization, which brings with it both positive and negative things.

Perhaps the most positive thing is the competition of ideas and the drive to challenge a decaying oligarchy. This force reminds us that there are no clear answers in politics and that struggles are always waiting to sweep away the authoritarian pressures of a consensus that serves the interests of some.

The most negative thing is the spirit of crusades and cancellations, which favors the dehumanization of those who claim to have different values. This dehumanization includes encouraging violence against political candidates, which is easily seen in some of the regrettable responses to the attempted assassination of Trump.

Our time is full of political leaders who are mediocre or mediocre. They do not show a sense of mission, they do not display their individual traits in public (perhaps because they lack them), they hide personal emotions and beliefs, they avoid dedicating their service to the country on the basis of strong geographical and cultural ties. They are obedient technicians who coldly exercise arbitrary power, turning citizens into anonymous consumers, without autonomy and without strong social ties. It is natural and reasonable that voters feel unmotivated and uncomfortable in the face of such leaders.

Biden is a very instructive example of this doomed pressure to fail, because of his unusual performance in the US presidency and the way the tentacle oligarchs have tried to support and cover up his physical and cognitive deficiencies. It is even a good example of how political struggle is essentially a clash of styles and morals.

The president resorted to fanatical rhetoric, implied unclear values, boasted that he was the guardian of democratic values, and incited hatred against Donald Trump. It was a stale speech, but it still won the support of some supporters. On the other hand, despite the many incompetences Biden has shown throughout his term and the sharp escalation of the war, few people believe that Biden’s weaknesses pose a threat to domestic security and international peace. This indifference is in sharp contrast to the alarmist propaganda spread during Trump’s term.

As Camões said, “Weak princes weaken the strong.” We should not entrust the fate of our country to someone who stirs up diplomatic tensions every time he sits down with senior international representatives.

One might ask: how is it possible that a hegemonic state does not attract characters that are admirable, more competent, more moral or least exciting? This is one of the most challenging questions of our time and applies to the situation of many countries, first of all the Portuguese.

The key question is whether this pays off, whether it brings prestige, whether it is disliked at first. Who has the courage to stand up to the dying oligarchy? What kind of public reception will you find? Few characters can face the “hidden state” and the misunderstanding of the masses.

To be sure, democratic discontent leads to a new moral struggle among political candidates. Electoral victory depends on emotions and the ability to mobilize potential abstentionist voters. Those who do not adapt to this new phase of our history will suffer a crushing defeat or will fight for survival using superficial alliances that are seen as electoral frauds and as fragile as a house built on sand.

The author wrote according to the old spelling.