At no time in history have plurality and tolerance of ideas and life choices been so appreciated and defended as in ours, yet no other era has been so polarized as to force everyone to align themselves with extreme positions.
For the progressive and socialist left, liberals are all genocides, Zionists, exploiters and imperialists. In turn, for the liberal right, its ideological opponents are all tyrants, thieves, swindlers and liars. On social networks there are no intermediate points: either the applause of like-minded people or the insults of opponents.
The long-winded spectacle of the opening of the Olympic Games, with the parody of Leonardo’s Last Supper, has divided public opinion on two fronts: that of those outraged by the mockery of a Christian symbol and that of the deniers who apologize in artistic freedom or in the reference to another profane painting. Each side felt obliged to take a stand: Christians offended against progressives of all stripes. In the end, no blood was shed thanks to the apology of the organizers and the removal of the controversial scene from the official video of the Games. The only thing I didn’t hear was a criticism of the vulgarity of the scene, a concept that, unfortunately, is increasingly associated with the performances of LGBT groups.
In the political field, the same polarization, with the obligation to align, occurred in the recent elections in Venezuela. The unwritten rule is that if you are on the left you have to support Maduro, but if the fraud is committed by my friends, it is not a fraud.
Apart from the “loyalty” of the politicians (Spanish, first and foremost) who have sucked thousands of euros from the boobs of Chavismo, I am impressed by the rejection of any clue that would invite a greater critical attitude before taking a public side. The current polarization explains the immediate recognition of the result by governments aligned with the Moscow-Beijing-Tehran axis (more pragmatic than ideological), with the argument that they stick to what the institutions determine. Curiously, the same governments immediately recognized the government of Janine Añez in November 2019.
Science has its own methodology in case of disputes. You can be an admirer and friend of a Nobel Prize winner and yet disagree with their findings if you have solid arguments that prove them wrong. A phrase, attributed to Aristotle, should guide our action in cases of controversy in any field: “Amicus Plato sed magis amica veritas” (I am a friend of Plato, but I am more a friend of the truth).
Isn’t a Catholic who defended “out of obligation” the pedophilia of a priest, however artistic or hard-working he was, comparable to a progressive who defends an overt fraud or pedophilia of a political leader, however indigenous he may be?
Similarly, while in Bolivia Héctor Arce, a loquacious Evo-fan deputy who, in a fit of lucidity, sowed doubts about the transparency of the Venezuelan elections, is forced by his “Plato” to retreat, in Chile its left-wing president has demanded transparency in the count, being the target of insults on social networks by those who align themselves with that left-wing parody represented by Maduro and his associates. Gabriel Boric, like Pepe Mujica, shows that it is possible to be on the left while being a democrat, critical and honest.
Not so Lula, not so Petro, two slimy people who move between the ambiguity of wanting to be and wanting to appear. And what about the disgraceful president of Mexico? Always ready to set himself up as a champion of non-interference, when he does not feel obliged to interfere.