Elena Garro wrote about her ex -husband Octavio Paz: “I live against him, I studied against him, I spoke against him, I had lovers against him, I wrote against him. I wrote politics against him, in short, everything, everything I am against him is against him. In life you have nothing more than an enemy and with that enough. And my enemy is peace.”
So blunt. So clear. The enemy can be a substantial part of the person. Having an enemy gives you strength, movement, motivates you. What Garro says. In politics they define many things, but one of them – and not less – are our enemies. From López Obrador we can criticize many things – even more – but not the clarity of his strategy in which he clearly defined his enemies with name and surname.
It is assumed that the natural enemy of the opposition would be the 4T, the president and some of her close and her party companions. The opposition should be busy saying their names, giving them personal marking, not letting out. Exhibit them again and again (some of that did the PRI Rubén Moreira with the faded claudist Ramírez Cuéllar). And of course, oppose everything they put and propose. But, it seems that the opposition has not only other data, but also other plans. For “the opposition” I refer specifically to the PAN and the PRI. It seems to me that MC is doing its own strategy and is going well: focusing on going down to panism and PRI, that is his priority. There are surveys that already put them above those games (I must say that one of my children is part of the Emecist paintings).
It is a fact that we all see the president and her hosts point to the PAN and the PRI every day as the great evils of this country. It does not matter that they are in a digit, for the president it is important to name and whip them. The enemy helps him to define himself. The movements and sayings of their adversaries are magnified and relaunched to attack and ridicule them.
How does bread think with your enemy? We don’t know. Apparently his worst enemy are themselves. Confusion seems generalized in that party. There is a clear lack of definition in issues and attitudes. It should be a radical opposition, but it seems that they think it is best to be the “responsible opposition” of the nineties. But that doesn’t work anymore. Moreover, the answer to that attitude is punishment, not the prize.
Why does the PAN approve of the 4T law and security approaches? They see the absurd loas to the head of the security of Sheinbaum as if it were a relative of the PAN. The PAN plays to look good, but the president will always make them bad. If it is true that the PAN nemesis is Sheinbaum’s hosts, because they should not approve anything, they should oppose everything systematically. López Obrador did so. He opposed everything and everyone. PAN members will not be able to sell as their own the good results that are, for example, in security, those will be from the government. With these contradictory attitudes, panism simply blurred and lost. In times of radicalism, panism plays the friendly compound that nothing more remains as a accommodation hypocritical and that is punished by voters.
Citizens demand definitions not only in favor of what you are, but against what you are. The PAN doubt is confused with Timorata attitude, with the moral fault of having done something they regret. Indefinition is not the way, because the other ends up defining you.
Umberto Eco in an essay entitled Build the enemy (Lumen), mentions that “in the Stalinist processes the image of the enemy was first built and then the victim was convinced to recognize himself in that image.” There are already several years when panismo has ended up being what López Obrador said and now the president and his companions. Eco says: “To have an enemy is important not only to define our identity, but also to procure an obstacle with respect to which to measure our value system and show, by facing it, our value. Therefore, when the enemy does not exist, it is necessary to build it.”
While panismo thinks that its definition is to be “humanist” and “put the person in the center” is in trouble. Much of the policy now has to do with the cons that with the pros. The encyclical must be left to the Vatican, who is in premiere.
Nothing else to close on the appointment that begins this text can be said that Octavio Paz said of his experience Elena Garro: “She is a wound that never closes, a sore, a disease, a fixed idea.” As you can see, sometimes you don’t have to go far to find the enemy.
For more updates, visit our homepage: NewsTimesWire
