Sorry, but to talk about the case of the day – “the Travaglio case”- unfortunately we must enter into the automatisms of the vernacular. If one said, “That’s a son of a bitch,” everyone would understand that the object of the insult is the son, not the mother. When we say “son of a bitch”, even in the most positive meaning – that exists – we speak of an unscrupulous, a sly, a straight. Certainly not about the maternal profession and the virtue of her “one parent”.
And that’s why, having to enter what has now become a important media-political case it is even necessary to explain some banalities of automatism of the Italian language: “dad’s son”, Right or wrong is a scion, a sample from the elite, who grew up in a protected environment among his fellows. Of the father this lemma says little, or nothing, of the son it says everything. It is certain that Marco Travaglio you are wrong in saying that Mario Draghi it is “just a curriculum” (having it, Totò would say): it is not true that Dragons does not understand “shit”, but it is certain that he messed about vaccines. And not a little: that was the point.
And there is no doubt that, without this being considered a fault, Dragons both son of elite. He is the son of one pharmacist (wealthy middle class) and a father who worked in Bank of Italy and who had worked as an executive in the world of credit. And that he made his career in Bank of Italy and in the world of credit: son – in fact – of his father, in the vocational choice of a lifetime.
This is why the most painful thing that was read yesterday was the argument (it is no coincidence that he used it Matteo Renzi) that Dragons is an orphan. Also Renzi it’s a dad’s son”, Regardless of dad’s state of health Titian. He grew up in the family business, he never worked a minute in his life, before politics: he took pocket money from dad and mom’s company Renzi, then we, the community, gave him a salary. And certainly Renzi he is more “father’s son” than Draghi.
But when it comes to the environment of the Massimo high school to Rome, the one where the former governor studied, it is no coincidence that they say: “That’s one school for daddy’s children“. It is done without bothering with registries and death certificates: it is – even today – the high school of the elite, where the Roman ruling class he enrolls the children he does not want to submit to uncertainties of public school.
The category we are talking about – therefore – is that of protected children, who frequent people of equal income, not that of wealthy fathers and their trades. It would be as if talking about someone calling him the “son of a bitch” he replied: “But look, his mother is a Red Cross nurse”. However, following the thread of incongruity, and invective against Labor it has even come to criticize Item one, the party that organized the party in which the director de Daily fact spoke.
As if a party where ideas are debated should guarantee a kind of conformity certification: as if all ideas were to be the same. But then what would be debated in the parties’ parties? Roberto Speranza he should not be called upon to dissociate himself from Labor, but he should certainly give him a medal: because the world has discovered thanks to the controversy over the children of fathers that Article one party, and immediately after that Item one has a non-conformist audience.
Therefore the theme of these debates is not the father, but the conformity around the Draghi government, a certain cultural climate. The theme is not the insulting hyperbole, but the taboo of Mario Draghi.
Now we need to order: di Palmiro Togliatti it was written that it was a servant of Moscow. Of Alcide De Gasperi that it was a servant of the Austrians. Of Antonio Segni that it had been a coup president. Of Giulio Andreotti it was said to be massacre And mafia (well before his trial). Of the Christian Democrats (all) who were a regime. Of Aldo Moro that it was crazy and also) sex addict (see Todo Modo again, if you have any doubts). Of Silvio Berlusconi he said to himself and wrote everything. While Romano Prodi was called by the right-wing press “Mortadella“(He liked the nickname). Amintore Fanfani it was a monster with dictatorial temptations. Giorgio Almirante a “fascist shooter“. Bettino Craxi a “wild boar“, but also “Bokassa”, Like the African dictator who amputated his opponents, with tribal ferocity, with machetes.
Only today the conformity of newspapers, and theItaly of the 90 percent (of the average) are tuned to a single voice, and the theme of the crime of “lese majesty“. In a democracy Yes criticism, in a autocracy we pay homage to the sovereign. The premier, therefore, it becomes a untouchable monarch, which should not be disturbed, mocked and (above all) mocked. But I ask myself this question: the newspapers that until seven days ago painted the reform Cartabia as if it were perfect And inemendable, and which according to script exalted the consensus imposed by Dragons in the vote in cabinet, what they write now when they have to break the news that by the will of Dragons and the minister there reform changes substantially? It’s not a counterorder? Was it misspelled? Was the criticism right? If it had passed as the sovereign they would have gone in smoke the trials of mafia and terrorism? And he didn’t even say Paolo Mieli (yesterday, a On air) which was a error suspend vaccination Open Days?
Marco Travaglio has freedom of opinion, he is not elected, he has no institutional roles, he can say what he wants about political leaders. Right or not, his people judge him readers. Who does not share is free, in turn, to criticize it. I do not agree with the hyperbole of invective, I would never subscribe to the “does not understand shit”. But I wrote on this site that Dragons on the vaccination campaign he was wrong twice.
Who today makes controversy about Labor he pulled the plug of criticism and this is the theme of the dispute. THE leopoldini trolls (and surroundings) that yesterday were unleashed on social media (and newspapers) against the director of The fact for its opinions, have not said a word about the true absurdity of politics in these hours. And that is that Matteo Renzi, once again, blackmails Enrico Letta telling him that if he wants to apply for the Room he must abjure his political line.
Which – however you think – is nothing short of crazy. As if a minor ally of the center right – I do not know Lorenzo Cesa – said that Giorgia Meloni or Matteo Salvini they cannot run for the House in their coalition. This is the missing editorial among the choir masters. This the italics disappeared. The one on the son of father of Rignano, darling of directors, who with a comma, still pretends to give the cards in Italian politics.