The degradation of politics

In President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address this Tuesday on Capitol Hill, the partisan radicalism that is beginning to border on hysteria in today’s political societies manifested itself perhaps as never before. A symptom that illustrates the worrying decline of politics in the world. It is true that today, and always in all parliaments, one part of the chamber usually applauds enthusiastically, while the other shows its anger at the party’s militancy. The United States, like Mexico, is no exception. But the photos from Tuesday’s shoot were pathetic. Republicans never applauded President Biden, even when they made statements of state or bipartisan importance (the mere mention of victims and heroes of violence in attendance earned them some applause).

It may seem like a minor issue, but what it reveals is very important: To Republicans, Biden is a Democratic leader first, a rival, and the President of the United States second. A break with the criteria of the past, when it was understood that there were times when the president, whatever party he belonged to, was head of the caretaker government and was treated as such. Not anymore.

I insist this is a reflection of something more serious. From Donald Trump’s first campaign, it was clear that the shortest way to get votes was not to make proposals to improve the country, but to humiliate the opponent, instill fear and resentment in voters. It was much easier to sully the rival in the discussion than to build strong arguments on community issues. Rival demonization to rejection leads voters to believe that the offended character is so perverted or inept that his triumph can only be the result of betrayal. And anyway, whether he succeeds legally or illegally, it is considered a moral obligation to prevent him from ruling.

What happened in Brasilia, a copy of what happened in Washington nearly two years earlier, when angry citizens tried to prevent the president-elect from taking power, is the product of this phenomenon. It’s one thing to understand that you won a candidate with ideas and intentions you don’t agree with; it is quite another to assume that the character is so despicable that it is a patriotic duty to prevent him from wielding power.

Of course, there has always been the dirty election battle. But it was a kind of subtext beneath the political debate and the juxtaposition of programs and agendas. What is new is that this formerly underground struggle has become the dominant party. The election campaign is less and less a display of various alternatives to the nation’s political marketplace or project, and more and more a battle of confused strategies between competitors’ battlerooms. A scandal, conveniently covered by networks and the media, can be more than enough to reverse a trend in voting intentions. A “well” crafted grudge or prejudice saves millions in publicity or the effort of building viable projects. Linking voters’ fears to a characteristic of the rival works wonders: “It will flood the country with migrants”, “It will raise taxes and expropriate companies” or, conversely, “It will suppress unions”, “It will lower wages”. not to mention strictly personal traits, redefined in mean terms where possible.

Social media, despite their many merits in other respects, is the perfect breeding ground for this form of public conversation about politics. The virality achieved through negative messages, the success of ridicule, the anonymity of charges, pseudo or entertainment information, the ability to generate bots and use influencers to spread these messages change election processes for the worse. In theory, the proper functioning of democracy requires citizens to know the options competing for power to choose a candidate based on their interests and beliefs. The misuse of marketing and the power of money that we witnessed had already threatened that possibility. But what we are seeing now is another setback that ultimately leads to questioning the meaning of elections. The humiliation of politics, which in itself was never exactly honorable.

In fact, I used this underlying theme to build a story that reveals the intricacies of an election-time war room. Penelope’s Dilemma is a political thriller that follows the case of a woman who unknowingly uncovers a secret and nefarious conspiracy to win the presidential election. Penelope faces the dilemma of whether to save her life and stay on the sidelines, or do something to show the ongoing tragedy. An excuse that served me to put into practice the ideas described above. These days I present this, my fifth novel.

Note: Comments on the files released following Genaro García Luna’s verdict that an alleged Chihuahua government advertisement ordered in El Universal newspaper was funded by the drug trafficker to obtain favorable reports for the then-Security Minister. In addition to the details that this newspaper has already covered, I share the following: from September 2008 to October 2010, I was responsible for the editorial staff of El Universal, during two of the six years of Felipe Calderón’s mandate; i.e. part of the period stated by the authorized representative. With the team that supervises me, we adopt an independent and critical attitude towards the public administration, as everyone who takes the trouble to consult the relevant files notices. I do not personally know the former governors Rubén, nor Humberto Moreira, nor Genaro García Luna, characters whose achievements I have repeatedly questioned in my columns and whose excesses and blunders have occasionally been collected in notes and reports in the newspaper itself. In my time as a director, I have never received any comment from the company or owner regarding reports about the Secretary of State for Public Safety or the Calderon administration.

@jorgezepedap

Register here for the newsletter and receive all important information about current affairs in this country