In one of my first mornings in Congress, I approached a political leader who was walking through the halls of the Chamber with a microphone in hand. A survey had just been published on which all parties would give their opinions, and I thought that his voice could provide some interesting statements. In a burst of honesty, the man admitted to me that he had not yet had time to look at the survey, so I lowered the microphone and started to leave. “Wait,” he said, seeing me retreat. “I will give you a statement,” which is what we call in radio the statements that we broadcast later. The man indeed gave me a statement. He talked about the topic of the day without needing to say anything specific.
Recently, we have confused public debate with partisan debate. There are thousands of differences between the two, but one difference is more obvious than the others: the partisan view measures its results in the moment, through daily polls and, if applicable, through successive electoral calls. On the other hand, public debate only measures its effects in the long term. To put it simply, the partisan debate is like the weather: some days are sunny, some are cloudy and stormy, but only the day-to-day matters. Public debate is like the climate: only with some perspective can its warming or degradation be assessed. Here, we are constantly looking at the weather. Here we talk a lot about famous tracking polls and voter intention.
Spokespeople give their opinions immediately on any issue, with astonishing speed so that organizations as complex as political parties, which are presumed to have an ideological debate, can set a political position. However, that’s what they do. In truth, that speed is what the media demands of them in a machinery that penalizes silence and grinds news at high speed: if they take too long to set a position, it may no longer be interesting. We know the opinions of parties before those of experts, a sign of how much we care about time and how little we care about climate. Because the climate is complex and time is simpler: it’s immediate. We demand immediate opinions on everything and underline any disagreement in case it aligns someone with a rival or adversary, because we have become accustomed to explaining politics like we explain football: if one is on a team, it is assumed that they fully support that team.
There are some controversies that bring rainy and stormy mornings. In this country of droughts, some weeks it never seems like it’s going to clear up. However, experts warn that the real danger lies in climate change, because behind the everyday noise, the world is moving towards more polarized societies at the speed dictated by artificial intelligence. The debate will no longer be between left and right, but between democracies and authoritarianism. Perhaps the partisan view may be sufficient to address a dilemma of that magnitude, but any prediction would say that we will fall short with just that.
