Politics, Convictions, Principles and all that stuff
I am tired of the Spanish ellections but I become addicted about as well. As much I read and hear all about each party say, more hypnotized I feel.
Something I realize is that NEVER none of the politicians says to his adversary "yes, I agree with this you say". For me this is very weird, because it is the kind of things that happens to me a lot of times. And, the same I am sure it must happen to nearly everybody. For me it is so difficult to find somebody else - I am talking in general, not only politicians - I agree with everything, so as to find somebody else I totally disagree in anything, ever and ever. It is just mathematically impossible. There are ever some argument I have to say "Oh, Mister X, just in this I agree with you", or "Look, I normally admire your points of view but here I think you are wrong". And then, ever I talk with somebody - even if they have radical opposite views to me - we ever find some points we agree and, after to share our differences, we can take a coffee together without any problem.
So weird am I and the people I know for this? Why politicians are so bitter? Why they talk in that way? Who obligues them to talk in that way? (and sorry for copy those two last questions from a writing I love, just changing 'poets' by 'politicians' ;)
Then, why in any debate, politic meeting, etc. NEVER, none of the candidates say that to the other? Are they afraid to look cowards, traitors to their main "convictions" or something like that? I don't think so. Even more, I am sure that if someone had a moment of accepting some personal mistake, accepting that the opponent can say something right, their general image would been far better that it is now. How is possible that two parties - I am talking here about two imaginary ones - which generally they aren't so far in lot of ideals, can say to their opponent "you lie in all you say", "you are wrong in all you say" and blah, blah, blah, ever and ever the same boring repeated story, until the end of the times? Sometimes you easily can see this situation, even between parties the only difference they have is just in their name and few things more. I correct myself: even more in those parties. This is obviously because they are looking for the same kind of clients and - more than never - they have the need to show they are the only ones to sell their idea the best while the others are just liars, bastards, criminals, terrorists, etc. I think it must be even difficult to be so evil all the time, isn't it? Even the parties which scare me the most I hear some of the guys there are into them saying something that make me think... and I even agree! And I am not so easy to change my mind just because someone say something I like. But I think it would been very good for everybody if we were a little bit more open. Just a little bit will be enough.
Joan Fuster (a Valencian writer, 1922-1992) once said:
’Tota convicció -convicció seriosa- se us convertirà en un prejudici per a les conviccions ulteriors. Penseu-hi. Cada convicció que adquiriu és un prejudici més que acumuleu. I ja sabeu que vol dir un prejudici: un vici d'origen. Si sou zelosos de la vostra llibertat intel·lectual, si aspireu a conservar la "disponibilitat permanent" que n'és el pressupòsit, heu d’esforçar-vos per ser homes d'escasses conviccions. El fanàtic és un convençut: un individu que està convençut de tot, que té moltes conviccions. No crec que el fanatisme sigui una perspectiva gaire amable. La prudència, virtut cardinal, aconsella evitar aquestes exasperacions mentals i morals. I al capdavall, per a circular per la vida, no calen massa conviccions. N'hi basten tres o quatre. Només.’
Translation, the best I can:
’Any conviction you have - serious conviction I mean - will become a prejudice for your convictions to come. Think about it. Each conviction you acquire is a prejudice more you accumulate. And you know what means a prejudice already: a vice at the origin. If you are jealous of your intellectual liberty, if you aspire to conserve your “permanent availability” that is presupposed, you have to make the effort to be men of a limited number of convictions. A fanatic is a convinced person: a guy who is convinced about everything, who has a lot of convictions. I don’t think the fanaticism would been a too nice perspective. The prudence, cardinal virtue, advises to avoid this mental and moral exasperations. At the end of this, for walking through the life, we don’t need too much convictions. Three or four are enough. That’s all.’
What do you think about?