Amb ells, els usuaris han arribat a crear esbojarrats títols de pel·lícules. Han atribuït a polítics com Esperanza Aguirre poders sobrenaturals o inversemblants responsabilitats de fets històrics. Han repassat les tres paraules que es repeteixen en moltes llits després de fer l’amor. O les tres últimes paraules abans de la mort. Són els hashtag de Twitter, les etiquetes que, per activa o per passiva, hem acabat introduint en la nostra manera de participar. Però, què passa quan l’etiqueta passa a ser una eina més de campanya?
Aquest camp de proves per a la comunicació política online que són les eleccions catalanes de la propera tardor, estan posant de manifest com els partits i els seus activistes no dubten a utilitzar totes les escletxes i espais al seu abast per promoure els seus missatges. Hashtags inclosos. Com els estan utilitzant?
Anem per parts. Per als profans en la plataforma de microblogging, el hashtag és una etiqueta que escriu l’usuari quan emet un missatge. S’escriu després aquest símbol # i sol resumir el contingut. Per exemple, si estem comentant un debat, usaríem #debat. Aquesta és la seva principal funció. Però no l’única.
De fet, potser aquest sentit d’ordenació d’una conversa sigui el que es vegi amb menys assiduïtat: apareix en moments puntuals, com en els actes de partit. Mítings, conferències, etc. solen tenir associada una etiqueta i els assistents el fan servir. És especialment útil per seguir en temps real i pel que comenten els usuaris un acte en un moment determinat. El gran exemple d’això en la política del dia a dia la trobem en l’ús del hashtag #parlament durant les sessions de la cambra catalana.
Un altre dels usos, cada vegada més estesos i que poden generar certa extenuació en els usuaris, és la utilització del hashtag com un eslògan polític més. Cada frase, cada reflexió, s’acompanya de l’etiqueta. Aquesta, pot ser igual que el lema de la pròpia campanya. Així, l’etiqueta passa de ser un complement a ser una part essencial del missatge. Exemples d’aquest ús el tenim a #segueixocreient #elcanvireal o #elcanvi
Arribats a aquest punt, la reflexió és sobre l’efectivitat d’aquest tipus de pràctiques. Sens dubte, els seguidors d’un usuari poden conèixer de primera mà el lema… però si, com sol ser habitual, un usuari comparteix a més d’un seguidor d’entre aquests activistes, la saturació a la qual se li exposa pot arribar a expulsar de l’objectiu primordial: que conegui la nostra oferta i el puguem convèncer.
Sens dubte, el hashtag és més que una etiqueta quan es barreja amb política. De fet, pot ser un punt de lluita entre partits. Socialistes i convergents s’han vist imbuïts en més d’una ocasió en la lluita per omplir el fil de comentaris d’un hashtag amb missatges contraris al partit en qüestió.
I quin d’aquests usos és millor? Quin és pitjor? La resposta la tindrem en l’autèntic objectiu, no ja del hashtag, sinó de la presència online. Com que aquestes etiquetes solen aparèixer perquè algun dels líders en la Xarxa dels partits o fins i tot dels propis perfils dels partits; saber si amb això estem responent a l’objectiu de la participació és essencial. Si el que busquem és més seguidors, afins o no, a qui convèncer; segurament no sigui el camí. Si el que volem, en el fons, és mantenir una tropa amb l’orgull ben alt, segurament sí. Però si el que busquem és convertir tot això en vots, potser necessitem reflexionar-hi. Del que no hi ha dubte és que, a Twitter, el propi hashtag és política.
Quan Barack Obama va visitar Battle Creek, a Michigan, durant la campanya presidencial de les eleccions de 2008, el senador estatal Mark Schauer li va regalar una caixa de cereals en la qual apareixien ell i Biden costat del famós tigre Tony de Kellogg’s… companyia que és present a la ciutat. Encara que no va quedar molt clar si era un producte oficial de la companyia o no, el cert és que Obama va agrair el gest i ho va prendre amb humor. Una cosa semblant li ha passat a la ministra de Sanitat i precandidata en les primàries del PSM. Però per ella no hi ha cereals, sinó el suc de fruites.
Ha estat en el marc d’aquesta contesa en què un dissenyador ha vist a Trinidad Jiménez el nou sabor per Madrid. La similitud entre el nom pel qual és coneguda, Trini, i una coneguda marca de refrescos, ha portat al professional a crear una nova imatge que coincideix amb el mateix objectiu polític de Jiménez i la seva candidatura: donar un nou sabor, un nou aire , al PSM ia la Comunitat de Madrid. L’anècdota quedaria aquí si no fos pel gest que va tenir la ministra al rebre un davantal amb aquesta imatge en un acte aquest cap de setmana. Igual que Obama, no va dubtar a agrair el gest i posar amb ell, amb una franc somriure.
La imatge és d’aquelles que parlen soles. En campanya un candidat pot fer moltes coses, però les que surten de l’ànima són les que valen. I és que aquesta imatge és perfecta per il·lustrar un gran article d’Antoni Gutiérrez-Rubí: Els tristos no guanyen eleccions (ni lideren, ni sedueixen, ni convencen).
Segurament aquest sigui un dels punts que més fortalesa donen a la ministra: transmet simpatia i afabilitat. Una cosa que el ciutadà del carrer percep. Per això és una de les ministres més ben valorades de l’executiu de Zapatero. I potser pels núvols que li van plantar en la campanya municipal de 2003, Jiménez no va aconseguir fer-se valer davant el seu cosí i rival, Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón.
No és intranscendent aturar-nos en aquella anècdota, la famosa xupa de cuir que la va posar al centre d’atenció. Polèmica fotografia de campanya en què alguns van veure un excés d’erotisme. D’altres, la identificació de valors polítics masculins -agressivitat, duresa-. I entre un i altre, una polèmica desfermada per El Mundo quan el PSOE va procedir a retirar els cartells de la xupa. Xupa que, tal i com explica Juan Campmany a “El efecto ZP”, va escollir la pròpia Trini.
Amb davantal o amb xupa, Trini té la sort de transmetre elements molt necessaris en la comunicació política del futur que comença a teixir-se en el present que ens està tocant viure. Amb l’anècdota de la xupa de cuir va donar en el clau del què va passar realment: a una dona candidata se li exigeixen coses que a un home candidat ni se li plantegen. Va demostrar que el lideratge polític en femení és diferent i necessari en un món ple de líders testosterònics. Per cert, la base del lideratge d’Esperanza Aguirre, molt semblant al de la Dama de Ferro. Jiménez és oberta, afable i optimista. Somriure a la boca. Una comunicació emocional i empàtica.
Però en polític no tot es basa en aquestes capacitats. Gómez, el secretari general del PSM i el seu enemic en la lluita per la candidatura, és un home que ha treballat dur els últims tres anys recorrent els carrers de la Comunitat per explicar el projecte socialista i conèixer els problemes dels ciutadans. Una cosa de la que, per cert Jiménez també ha estat partícip com a membre de l’Executiva. Però Tomàs Gómez és un home que somriu poc i comunica menys. Potser aquí està part de l’explicació de les famoses enquestes que van dur a Zapatero a apuntar Trini com a candidata a batre’s en duel amb Aguirre.
La lliçó de tot això és clara. Carrer, projecte i somriure. Però somriure sincer, entenent que els que no són tristos, els que fan de l’alegria i l’optimisme part del seu ADN polític poden arribar més lluny. Tant com prestar-se a fer del disseny d’un atrevit dissenyador una curiosa anècdota. Un nou sabor per a la comunicació.
Anita Roddick va ser una d’aquelles dones emprenedores que van aportar el seu gra de sorra per canviar el món. Va ser la fundadora de la cadena de productes de bellesa The Body Shop i una compromesa activista a favor del medi ambient i dels drets de les comunitats més vulnerables per la globalització.
Va crear una companyia exitosa, present en desenes de països i que, en el moment de la seva venda -a la multinacional L’Oréal- va assolir un valor de 980 milions d’euros. De fet, la polèmica no va estar exempta en aquesta operació: l’activista que havia unit forces amb Greenpeace per boicotejar petrolieres com Exxon, va acabar venent la seva empresa sostenible i natural a una empresa poc compatible amb els seus valors.
En tot cas, Roddick va donar un brillant discurs a Seattle el 1999, a l’International Forum on Globalization, una organització multidisciplinar centrada en l’anàlisi i la crítica al procés de globalització. Un discurs en què va advocar per un comerç més just, però sobretot, més humà … amb principis
“We are in Seattle arguing for a world trade system that puts basic human rights and the environment at its core. We have the most powerful corporations of the world ranged against us. They own the media that informs us – or fails to inform us. And they probably own the politicians too.
It’s enough to make anybody feel a little edgy.
So here’s a question for the world trade negotiators. Who is the system you are lavishing so much attention on supposed to serve?
We can ask the same question of the gleaming towers of Wall Street or the City of London – and the powerful men and women who tinker with the money system which drives world trade. Who is this system for?
Let’s look more closely. Every day, the gleaming towers of high finance oversees a global flow of two trillion dollars through their computer screens. And the terrifying thing is that only three per cent of that – that’s, three hundredths – has anything to do with trade at all. Let alone free trade between equal communities.
The great global myth being that the current world trade system is for anything but money
It has everything to do with money. The great global myth being that the current world trade system is for anything but money.
The other 97 per cent of the two trillion is speculation. It is froth – but froth with terrifying power over people’s lives. Reducing powerless communities access to basic human rights can make money, but not for them. But then the system isn’t designed for them.
It isn’t designed for you and me either. We all of us, rich and poor, have to live with the insecurity caused by an out of control global casino with a built-in bias towards instability. Because it is instability that makes money for the money-traders.
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest,” said John F Kennedy, “- but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” Asking questions can puncture these powerful myths.
I spend much of every year travelling around the world, talking to people in the front line of globalisation: women, community farmers, children. I know how unrealistic these myths are. Not just in developing countries but right under our noses.
Like the small farmers of the USA, 500 of which go out of business every week.
Half a century ago there were a million black farmers in the US. Now there are 1800. Globalisation means that the subsidies go to the big farms, while the small family farms – the heart of so many American communities – go to the wall.
Or the dark, cramped factories where people work for a pittance for 12 hour days without a day off. “The workers are not allowed to talk to each other and they didn’t allow us to go to the bathroom,” says one Asian worker in that garment factory. Not in Seoul. Not in Sao Paulo. But in San Francisco.
We have a world trading system that is blind to this kind of injustice. And as the powers of governments shrink this system is, in effect, our new unelected, uncontrollable world government. One that outlaws our attempts to >make things better.
According to the WTO, we don’t have the right to discriminate between tuna caught without killing dolphins and tuna caught by those who don’t care, don’t worry and don’t try.
According to the WTO, we have no right to hoard patented seeds from one harvest to plant the following year.
According to the WTO, we have no right to discriminate against beef with growth hormones.
According to the WTO, the livelihoods of the small-scale banana farmers of the Windward Islands are worthless – now facing ruin as the WTO favours the big US exporters
The truth is that the WTO, and the group of unelected trade officials who run it, are now the world’s highest court, with the right to overturn local laws and safety regulations wherever they say it ‘interferes with trade’.
It is government without heart, and without heart you find the creativity of the human spirit starts to dwindle too
This is world government by default, but it is a blind government. It looks at the measurements of money, but it can’t see anything else. It can recognise profits and losses, but it deliberately turns its face away from human rights, child labour or keeping the environment viable for future generations.
It is government without heart, and without heart you find the creativity of the human spirit starts to dwindle too.
Now there will be commentators and politicians by the truckload over the next week accusing us of wanting to turn the clock back. They will say we are parochial, inward-looking, xenophobic and dangerous.
But we must remind them what free trade really is. The truth is that ‘free trade’ was originally about the freedom of communities to trade equally with each other. It was never intended to be what it is today. A licence for the big, the powerful and the rich, to ride roughshod over the small, the weak and the poor.
And while we’re about it, let’s nail another myth.
Nobody could be more in favour of a global outlook than I am. Internationalism means that we can see into the dark corners of the world, and hold those companies to account when they are devastating forests or employing children as bonded labour. Globalisation is the complete opposite, its rules pit country against country and workers against workers in the blinkered pursuit of international competitiveness.
Internationalism means we can link together at local level across the world, and use our power as consumers. Working together, across all sectors, we can turn businesses from private greed to public good.
It means, even more important, that we can start understanding each other in a way that no generation has managed before.
Let’s be clear about this. It’s not trade we’re against, it’s exploitation and unchecked power.
I don’t pretend for a moment that we’re perfect at The Body Shop. Or that every one of our experiments work out – especially when it comes to building trading relationships that actually strengthen poor communities.
We are absolutely committed to increasing our trade with communities around the world, because this is the key – not just for our future, but the planet’s. It means that they trade to strengthen their local economy for profit, but not because their very survival depends on it.
Community trade will make us not a multi-national, but a multi-local. I hope we can measure our success in terms of our ability to show just what’s possible if a company genuinely opens a dialogue with communities.
Heaven knows, we’re not there yet. But this is real life, and all any of us can do is to make sure we are going in the right direction, and never lose our determination to improve.
The trouble is that the current trading system undermines anybody who tries.
Businesses which forego profits to build communities, or keep production local rather than employing semi-slaves in distant sweatshops, risk losing business to cheaper competitors without such commitments, and being targeted for take-over by the slash-and-burn corporate raiders. Reinforced by the weight of the WTO.
It’s difficult for all of us. But if we are going to change the world then nobody – not governments, not the media, not individuals – are going to get a free ride. And certainly not business, because business is now faster, more creative and far wealthier than governments ever were.
Business has to be a force for social change. It is not enough to avoid hideous evil – it must, we must, actively do good. If business stays parochial, without moral energy or codes of behaviour, claiming there are no such thing as values, then God help us all. If you think morality is a luxury business can’t afford, try living in a world without it.
So what should we do at this critical moment in world history? First, we must make sure this week that we lay the foundations for humanising world trade.
We must learn from our experience of what really works for poor countries, poor communities around the world. The negotiators this week must listen to these communities and allow these countries full participation and contribution to trade negotiations.
The rules have got to change. We need a radical alternative that puts people before profit. And that brings us to my second prescription. We must start measuring our success differently.
If politicians, businesses and analysts only measure the bottom line – the growth in money – then it’s not surprising the world is skewed.
Let’s measure the success of places and corporations against how much they enhance human well-being
It’s not surprising that the WTO is half-blind, recognising slash-and-burn corporations but not the people they destroy.
It’s not surprising that it values flipping hamburgers or making sweaters at 50 cents an hour as a valuable activity, but takes no account of those other jobs – the caring, educating and loving work that we all know needs doing if we’re going to turn the world into a place we want to live.
Let’s measure the success of places and corporations against how much they enhance human well-being. Body Shop was one of the first companies to submit itself to a social audit, and many others are now doing so.
Measuring what really matters can give us the revolution in kindness we so desperately need. That’s the real bottom line.
And finally, we must remember we already have power as consumers and as organisations forming strategic and increasingly influential alliances for change. They can insist on open markets as much as they like, but if consumers won’t buy, nothing on earth can make them. Just look at how European consumers have forced the biotech industry’s back up against the wall.
We have to be political consumers, vigilante consumers. With the barrage of propaganda served up to us every day, we have to be. We must be wise enough so that – whatever they may decide at the trade talks – we know where to put our energy and our money. No matter what we’re told or cajoled to do, we must work together to get the truth out in co-operation for the best, not competition for the cheapest.
By putting our money where our heart is, refusing to buy the products which exploit, by forming powerful strategic alliances, we will mould the world into a kinder more loving shape. And we will do so no matter what you decide this week.
Quan Joan Clos va abandonar el ministeri d’Indústria per assumir el càrrec d’ambaixador d’Espanya a Turquia, les declaracions del nou titular del ministeri no van tornar a ser el mateix. Amb la seva marxa, els mitjans perdien al, potser, polític català que més lapsus era capaç de crear en les seves intervencions. Un maldestre del llenguatge que, ho creguin o no, no queia malament.
Precisament, en un post anterior vèiem la importància de l’accent en el missatge, en la capacitat de comunicar. Els errors de Clos també tenien el seu valor. Perquè la seva tasca no va ser fàcil: quan Pasqual Maragall va decidir deixar Catalunya per anar a la seva estimada Roma, Clos es va quedar al comandament de la capital catalana. I això no va ser tasca fàcil.
Substituir a un gran de la política catalana i espanyola com Maragall, agafar el relleu de l’alcalde olímpic, era quelcom titànic. Els temps no van ser fàcils. El canvi de segle va suposar la contestació del model i fracassos com el del Fòrum de les Cultures del 2004. Tot i això, va ser reelegit, votat; preferit.
Segurament en això va influir, a més de l’evident penetració del PSC al electorat de la ciutat, el seu caràcter afable i aquests errors. Aquests lapses en parlar. Aquest aspecte de doctor boig, excèntric. Una cosa que l’humanitzava i acostava als seus conciutadans. Tots recordem la seva promesa del càrrec de ministre davant el Rei, en què va errar en el nom del ministeri. O quan visitant una coneguda companyia automobilística, va saludar al seu amfitrió com si fos el president de la seva immediata competència. Una forma d’empatia que, dit sigui de passada, no li ha anat gens malament en la seva carrera.
Ara, Clos emprèn nous reptes professionals que li s’aparten encara més del focus. Acaba de ser nomenat director executiu de l’agència de l’organisme especialitzada en la gestió i desenvolupament integral dels assentaments humans (ONU-Hàbitat). Nova York i les Nacions Unides són ara la seva nova destinació. Potser aquests errors siguin, de nou, la seva porta d’entrada per empatitzar amb els seus nous públics.
Per als que vulguin recordar més d’aquests errors, el programa de TV3 “El Club” recollir alguns d’ells en aquesta peça de “millors moments” del ministre i alcalde.
No és país per a debats. Per molt que s’entestin alguns, Espanya no és un país donat als debats. La història democràtica espanyola ens mostra els quatre debats a les eleccions generals com una anècdota més que una norma. Així, no és estrany que en alguna cosa sí que s’han posat d’acord els dos grans partits espanyols és, precisament, en no regular aquest punt. Seguirem a mercè de la voluntat dels candidats. Millor, de les necessitats de l’estratègia de cada partit.
Així, mentre Espanya segueix sense dotar-se d’un consell que els organitzi, d’un acord majoritari per promoure’ls; observem amb atenció -i per què no, certa enveja- les experiències en d’altres països que fan del debat electoral una oportunitat d’or per conèixer com raonen, com reaccionen, què pensen i què proposen els líders polítics.
I en aquest nou mapa dels debats electorals, Internet és ja una part destacada del nou escenari. Si els debats són bàsics en una democràcia, que aquests recorrin a la Xarxa per fer-los més oberts és una excel·lent notícia. Ho vam veure als Estats Units durant la campanya presidencial, però l’última experiència al Brasil és, senzillament, impressionant.
Si durant la campanya als Estats Units YouTube va facilitar a molts ciutadans posar preguntes sobre la taula, el recent debat a la xarxa entre els candidats a succeir Lula da Silva va arribar a registrar més d’un milió de connexions, sense tenir en compte el soroll generat en altres espais. I la cosa té el seu què, perquè el mercat potencial de seguidors al Brasil arriba als 66 milions d’usuaris.
El debat es va retransmetre en directe per la xarxa -una cosa semblant al que el viceprimer ministre britànic va fer aquesta setmana- durant una hora i mitja, i va poder seguir a la pàgina de Folha -el mitjà organitzador-, Twitter i Facebook. Va tenir sis blocs diferenciats. Al final de l’acte, diversos usuaris van poder posar les seves preguntes en el centre del debat. I els comentaris de periodistes enriquir l’anàlisi.
L’experiència no és simple i té un punt interessant. No ja per la novetat que resulta que, una cosa tan important com un debat electoral en unes eleccions transcendentals, es doni en un mitjà que no és el tradicional, sinó també per la possibilitat que aquest debat es faci més ric, més plural i més perllongat en el temps gràcies a la pròpia conversa.
Cada vegada són més aquest tipus d’experiències, la capacitat d’arribar a noves audiències a la xarxa i fer que aquestes mateixes persones puguin participar, no ja amb les preguntes als candidats, sinó en els debats paral·lels que augmenten l’impacte desitjat. Però sobretot, augmenten la participació ciutadana en els assumptes públics.
Arribarem a debats similars a les properes conteses electorals a casa?
Segurament no. Són casos aïllats que mostren com en la calor de la batalla política a vegades l’exaltació ens duu a la crítica grollera i buida de contingut polític. Una persona no és millor ni pitjor en la tasca de governar per un o altre accent. Però si comentaris d’aquest tipus arriben a aixecar butllofes és perquè els accents tenen una gran importància en el procés comunicatiu.
Els accents couen perquè són importants en la comunicació. Ho hem vist en més d’una ocasió: quan llancem un missatge és gairebé més important el que l’envolta que el missatge en si. És a dir, que quan parlem, la nostra veu, el nostre to, l’accent, el ritme, etc. conformen elements que són més importants per al nostre interlocutor que el que estem dient. Donem més informació sobre la intenció real del nostre missatge amb això.
La mateixa Álvarez a la que criticava Nebrera no va dubtar a exigir al diputat d’ICV Joan Herrera que si la imitava, ho fes correctament. “Antes partía que doblá” no era el mateix que partida o doblada. Artur Mas afirma en el llibre de Pilar Rahola que desitjaria tenir un accent particular, un defecte en la parla, quelcom característic que li hagués evitat la sàtira del programa Polònia. I pot ser Montilla veu en el seu enigmàtic accent un punt de sorpresa que pot fins afavorir: el cordovès que a Madrid té accent català i quan parla en català, un marcat accent castellà. I tanmateix, arribà a president.
Recapitulem. Seria el mateix Felipe González sense el seu accent sevillà? Seria la seva oratòria, el seu carisma i la seva personalitat política el mateix sense aquest deixi del sud? Segurament no. Tenir-lo el converteix en pitjor o millor polític? No. El converteix en millor orador? Ni sí, ni no. Però el marca. Volia dir Soler que un candidat a la presidència de Madrid ha de parlar com els madrilenys? Sembla que sí. I si era això el que volia dir, s’equivocava.
Per això, introduir aquesta aresta en el debat té la seva part interessant. Madrid té aquest punt d’eclosió d’accents, sensibilitats i procedència. Un lloc on ràpidament saps que ets diferent, però tan diferent com tots els que t’envolten. No importa el teu marcat accent català, perquè el que et parli segurament ho farà amb l’empremta de les seves arrels gallegues. I el que ens escolti, guardarà en el seu interior un deix gadità inconfusible. Així és Madrid. Qui vota Esperanza Aguirre també. Milions de vots que no saben de laísmos.
El fet és que els madrilenys i madrilenyes, gatos o d’adopció, de pas o fent arrels, poca importància li donen a això. Per això, s’equivoquen els que volen convertir això en un debat sobre la identitat, els gens, i les arrels. Però no s’equivoquen en intuir la importància d’un accent en política, a establir vincles emocionals amb els ciutadans. Un accent envolta un missatge, una idea, una proposta. Potser temen la dolçor de Trindad contra el sec accent d’Esperanza?
Molts recordem les llàgrimes que Jesse Jackson va abocar la nit electoral de les eleccions presidencials de 2008. La nit que Barack Obama es va convertir en el primer president electe afro americà de la història del país, molts van pensar en el reverend que escoltava el seu discurs a Chicago. No era per menys: va ser el primer afro americà amb opcions serioses de guanyar la nominació del Partit Demòcrata per a les presidencials de 1984. Les mateixes en què Reagan va apallissar a Dukakis, el nominat.
Jackson és una peça clau en la història política americana. Un activista pels drets civils que va arribar a senador i va tenir un paper rellevant en algunes missions diplomàtiques i va ajudar a ampliar la base dels Demòcrates en els republicans anys 80 amb la Rainbow Coalition que va capitanejar.
El discurs que va dirigir a la convenció Demòcrata de 1984 és una bona mostra d’aquesta coalició, d’aquest esperit de superar diferències i unir al partit, optar per un canvi en la direcció del país sumant. Us sona?
Tonight we come together bound by our faith in a mighty God, with genuine respect and love for our country, and inheriting the legacy of a great Party, the Democratic Party, which is the best hope for redirecting our nation on a more humane, just, and peaceful course.
This is not a perfect party. We are not a perfect people. Yet, we are called to a perfect mission. Our mission: to feed the hungry; to clothe the naked; to house the homeless; to teach the illiterate; to provide jobs for the jobless; and to choose the human race over the nuclear race.
We are gathered here this week to nominate a candidate and adopt a platform which will expand, unify, direct, and inspire our Party and the nation to fulfill this mission. My constituency is the desperate, the damned, the disinherited, the disrespected, and the despised. They are restless and seek relief. They have voted in record numbers. They have invested the faith, hope, and trust that they have in us. The Democratic Party must send them a signal that we care. I pledge my best not to let them down.
There is the call of conscience, redemption, expansion, healing, and unity. Leadership must heed the call of conscience, redemption, expansion, healing, and unity, for they are the key to achieving our mission. Time is neutral and does not change things. With courage and initiative, leaders change things.
No generation can choose the age or circumstance in which it is born, but through leadership it can choose to make the age in which it is born an age of enlightenment, an age of jobs, and peace, and justice. Only leadership — that intangible combination of gifts, the discipline, information, circumstance, courage, timing, will and divine inspiration — can lead us out of the crisis in which we find ourselves. Leadership can mitigate the misery of our nation. Leadership can part the waters and lead our nation in the direction of the Promised Land. Leadership can lift the boats stuck at the bottom.
I have had the rare opportunity to watch seven men, and then two, pour out their souls, offer their service, and heal and heed the call of duty to direct the course of our nation. There is a proper season for everything. There is a time to sow and a time to reap. There’s a time to compete and a time to cooperate.
I ask for your vote on the first ballot as a vote for a new direction for this Party and this nation — a vote of conviction, a vote of conscience. But I will be proud to support the nominee of this convention for the Presidency of the United States of America. Thank you.
I have watched the leadership of our party develop and grow. My respect for both Mr. Mondale and Mr. Hart is great. I have watched them struggle with the crosswinds and crossfires of being public servants, and I believe they will both continue to try to serve us faithfully.
I am elated by the knowledge that for the first time in our history a woman, Geraldine Ferraro, will be recommended to share our ticket.
Throughout this campaign, I’ve tried to offer leadership to the Democratic Party and the nation. If, in my high moments, I have done some good, offered some service, shed some light, healed some wounds, rekindled some hope, or stirred someone from apathy and indifference, or in any way along the way helped somebody, then this campaign has not been in vain.
For friends who loved and cared for me, and for a God who spared me, and for a family who understood, I am eternally grateful.
If, in my low moments, in word, deed or attitude, through some error of temper, taste, or tone, I have caused anyone discomfort, created pain, or revived someone’s fears, that was not my truest self. If there were occasions when my grape turned into a raisin and my joy bell lost its resonance, please forgive me. Charge it to my head and not to my heart. My head — so limited in its finitude; my heart, which is boundless in its love for the human family. I am not a perfect servant. I am a public servant doing my best against the odds. As I develop and serve, be patient: God is not finished with me yet.
This campaign has taught me much; that leaders must be tough enough to fight, tender enough to cry, human enough to make mistakes, humble enough to admit them, strong enough to absorb the pain, and resilient enough to bounce back and keep on moving.
For leaders, the pain is often intense. But you must smile through your tears and keep moving with the faith that there is a brighter side somewhere.
I went to see Hubert Humphrey three days before he died. He had just called Richard Nixon from his dying bed, and many people wondered why. And I asked him. He said, “Jesse, from this vantage point, the sun is setting in my life, all of the speeches, the political conventions, the crowds, and the great fights are behind me now. At a time like this you are forced to deal with your irreducible essence, forced to grapple with that which is really important to you. And what I’ve concluded about life,” Hubert Humphrey said, “When all is said and done, we must forgive each other, and redeem each other, and move on.”
“We must forgive each other, and redeem each other, and move on”
Our party is emerging from one of its most hard fought battles for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in our history. But our healthy competition should make us better, not bitter. We must use the insight, wisdom, and experience of the late Hubert Humphrey as a balm for the wounds in our Party, this nation, and the world. We must forgive each other, redeem each other, regroup, and move one. Our flag is red, white and blue, but our nation is a rainbow — red, yellow, brown, black and white — and we’re all precious in God’s sight.
America is not like a blanket — one piece of unbroken cloth, the same color, the same texture, the same size. America is more like a quilt: many patches, many pieces, many colors, many sizes, all woven and held together by a common thread. The white, the Hispanic, the black, the Arab, the Jew, the woman, the native American, the small farmer, the businessperson, the environmentalist, the peace activist, the young, the old, the lesbian, the gay, and the disabled make up the American quilt.
Even in our fractured state, all of us count and fit somewhere. We have proven that we can survive without each other. But we have not proven that we can win and make progress without each other. We must come together.
From Fannie Lou Hamer in Atlantic City in 1964 to the Rainbow Coalition in San Francisco today; from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we have experienced pain but progress, as we ended American apartheid laws. We got public accommodations. We secured voting rights. We obtained open housing, as young people got the right to vote. We lost Malcolm, Martin, Medgar, Bobby, John, and Viola. The team that got us here must be expanded, not abandoned.
Twenty years ago, tears welled up in our eyes as the bodies of Schwerner, Goodman, and Chaney were dredged from the depths of a river in Mississippi. Twenty years later, our communities, black and Jewish, are in anguish, anger, and pain. Feelings have been hurt on both sides. There is a crisis in communications. Confusion is in the air. But we cannot afford to lose our way. We may agree to agree; or agree to disagree on issues; we must bring back civility to these tensions.
We are co-partners in a long and rich religious history — the Judeo-Christian traditions. Many blacks and Jews have a shared passion for social justice at home and peace abroad. We must seek a revival of the spirit, inspired by a new vision and new possibilities. We must return to higher ground. We are bound by Moses and Jesus, but also connected with Islam and Mohammed. These three great religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, were all born in the revered and holy city of Jerusalem.
We are bound by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rabbi Abraham Heschel, crying out from their graves for us to reach common ground. We are bound by shared blood and shared sacrifices. We are much too intelligent, much too bound by our Judeo-Christian heritage, much too victimized by racism, sexism, militarism, and anti-Semitism, much too threatened as historical scapegoats to go on divided one from another. We must turn from finger pointing to clasped hands. We must share our burdens and our joys with each other once again. We must turn to each other and not on each other and choose higher ground.
Twenty years later, we cannot be satisfied by just restoring the old coalition. Old wine skins must make room for new wine. We must heal and expand. The Rainbow Coalition is making room for Arab Americans. They, too, know the pain and hurt of racial and religious rejection. They must not continue to be made pariahs. The Rainbow Coalition is making room for Hispanic Americans who this very night are living under the threat of the Simpson-Mazzoli bill; and farm workers from Ohio who are fighting the Campbell Soup Company with a boycott to achieve legitimate workers’ rights.
The Rainbow is making room for the Native American, the most exploited people of all, a people with the greatest moral claim amongst us. We support them as they seek the restoration of their ancient land and claim amongst us. We support them as they seek the restoration of land and water rights, as they seek to preserve their ancestral homeland and the beauty of a land that was once all theirs. They can never receive a fair share for all they have given us. They must finally have a fair chance to develop their great resources and to preserve their people and their culture.
The Rainbow Coalition includes Asian Americans, now being killed in our streets — scapegoats for the failures of corporate, industrial, and economic policies.
The Rainbow is making room for the young Americans. Twenty years ago, our young people were dying in a war for which they could not even vote. Twenty years later, young America has the power to stop a war in Central America and the responsibility to vote in great numbers. Young America must be politically active in 1984. The choice is war or peace. We must make room for young America.
The Rainbow includes disabled veterans. The color scheme fits in the Rainbow. The disabled have their handicap revealed and their genius concealed; while the able-bodied have their genius revealed and their disability concealed. But ultimately, we must judge people by their values and their contribution. Don’t leave anybody out. I would rather have Roosevelt in a wheelchair than Reagan on a horse.
The Rainbow is making room for small farmers. They have suffered tremendously under the Reagan regime. They will either receive 90 percent parity or 100 percent charity. We must address their concerns and make room for them. The Rainbow includes lesbians and gays. No American citizen ought be denied equal protection from the law.
We must be unusually committed and caring as we expand our family to include new members. All of us must be tolerant and understanding as the fears and anxieties of the rejected and the party leadership express themselves in many different ways. Too often what we call hate — as if it were some deeply-rooted philosophy or strategy — is simply ignorance, anxiety, paranoia, fear, and insecurity. To be strong leaders, we must be long-suffering as we seek to right the wrongs of our Party and our nation. We must expand our Party, heal our Party, and unify our Party. That is our mission in 1984.
We are often reminded that we live in a great nation — and we do. But it can be greater still. The Rainbow is mandating a new definition of greatness. We must not measure greatness from the mansion down, but the manger up. Jesus said that we should not be judged by the bark we wear but by the fruit that we bear. Jesus said that we must measure greatness by how we treat the least of these.
President Reagan says the nation is in recovery. Those 90,000 corporations that made a profit last year but paid no federal taxes are recovering. The 37,000 military contractors who have benefited from Reagan’s more than doubling of the military budget in peacetime, surely they are recovering. The big corporations and rich individuals who received the bulk of a three-year, multibillion tax cut from Mr. Reagan are recovering. But no such recovery is under way for the least of these.
Rising tides don’t lift all boats, particularly those stuck at the bottom. For the boats stuck at the bottom there’s a misery index. This Administration has made life more miserable for the poor. Its attitude has been contemptuous. Its policies and programs have been cruel and unfair to working people. They must be held accountable in November for increasing infant mortality among the poor. In Detroit one of the great cities of the western world, babies are dying at the same rate as Honduras, the most underdeveloped nation in our hemisphere. This Administration must be held accountable for policies that have contributed to the growing poverty in America. There are now 34 million people in poverty, 15 percent of our nation. 23 million are White; 11 million Black, Hispanic, Asian, and others — mostly women and children. By the end of this year, there will be 41 million people in poverty. We cannot stand idly by. We must fight for a change now.
Under this regime we look at Social Security. The ’81 budget cuts included nine permanent Social Security benefit cuts totaling 20 billion over five years. Small businesses have suffered under Reagan tax cuts. Only 18 percent of total business tax cuts went to them; 82 percent to big businesses. Health care under Mr. Reagan has already been sharply cut. Education under Mr. Reagan has been cut 25 percent. Under Mr. Reagan there are now 9.7 million female head families. They represent 16 percent of all families. Half of all of them are poor. 70 percent of all poor children live in a house headed by a woman, where there is no man. Under Mr. Reagan, the Administration has cleaned up only 6 of 546 priority toxic waste dumps. Farmers’ real net income was only about half its level in 1979.
Many say that the race in November will be decided in the South. President Reagan is depending on the conservative South to return him to office. But the South, I tell you, is unnaturally conservative. The South is the poorest region in our nation and, therefore, [has] the least to conserve. In his appeal to the South, Mr. Reagan is trying to substitute flags and prayer cloths for food, and clothing, and education, health care, and housing.
Mr. Reagan will ask us to pray, and I believe in prayer. I have come to this way by the power of prayer. But then, we must watch false prophecy. He cuts energy assistance to the poor, cuts breakfast programs from children, cuts lunch programs from children, cuts job training from children, and then says to an empty table, “Let us pray.” Apparently, he is not familiar with the structure of a prayer. You thank the Lord for the food that you are about to receive, not the food that just left. I think that we should pray, but don’t pray for the food that left. Pray for the man that took the food to leave. We need a change. We need a change in November.
Under Mr. Reagan, the misery index has risen for the poor. The danger index has risen for everybody. Under this administration, we’ve lost the lives of our boys in Central America and Honduras, in Grenada, in Lebanon, in nuclear standoff in Europe. Under this Administration, one-third of our children believe they will die in a nuclear war. The danger index is increasing in this world. All the talk about the defense against Russia; the Russian submarines are closer, and their missiles are more accurate. We live in a world tonight more miserable and a world more dangerous.
While Reaganomics and Reaganism is talked about often, so often we miss the real meaning. Reaganism is a spirit, and Reaganomics represents the real economic facts of life. In 1980, Mr. George Bush, a man with reasonable access to Mr. Reagan, did an analysis of Mr. Reagan’s economic plan. Mr. George Bush concluded that Reagan’s plan was ”voodoo economics.” He was right. Third-party candidate John Anderson said “a combination of military spending, tax cuts, and a balanced budget by ’84 would be accomplished with blue smoke and mirrors.” They were both right.
Mr. Reagan talks about a dynamic recovery. There’s some measure of recovery. Three and a half years later, unemployment has inched just below where it was when he took office in 1981. There are still 8.1 million people officially unemployed; 11 million working only part-time. Inflation has come down, but let’s analyze for a moment who has paid the price for this superficial economic recovery.
Mr. Reagan curbed inflation by cutting consumer demand. He cut consumer demand with conscious and callous fiscal and monetary policies. He used the Federal budget to deliberately induce unemployment and curb social spending. He then weighed and supported tight monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board to deliberately drive up interest rates, again to curb consumer demand created through borrowing. Unemployment reached 10.7 percent. We experienced skyrocketing interest rates. Our dollar inflated abroad. There were record bank failures, record farm foreclosures, record business bankruptcies; record budget deficits, record trade deficits.
Mr. Reagan brought inflation down by destabilizing our economy and disrupting family life. He promised — he promised in 1980 a balanced budget. But instead we now have a record 200 billion dollar budget deficit. Under Mr. Reagan, the cumulative budget deficit for his four years is more than the sum total of deficits from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined. I tell you, we need a change.
How is he paying for these short-term jobs? Reagan’s economic recovery is being financed by deficit spending — 200 billion dollars a year. Military spending, a major cause of this deficit, is projected over the next five years to be nearly 2 trillion dollars, and will cost about 40,000 dollars for every taxpaying family. When the Government borrows 200 billion dollars annually to finance the deficit, this encourages the private sector to make its money off of interest rates as opposed to development and economic growth.
Even money abroad, we don’t have enough money domestically to finance the debt, so we are now borrowing money abroad, from foreign banks, governments and financial institutions: 40 billion dollars in 1983; 70-80 billion dollars in 1984 — 40 percent of our total; over 100 billion dollars — 50 percent of our total — in 1985. By 1989, it is projected that 50 percent of all individual income taxes will be going just to pay for interest on that debt. The United States used to be the largest exporter of capital, but under Mr. Reagan we will quite likely become the largest debtor nation.
About two weeks ago, on July the 4th, we celebrated our Declaration of Independence, yet every day supply-side economics is making our nation more economically dependent and less economically free. Five to six percent of our Gross National Product is now being eaten up with President Reagan’s budget deficits. To depend on foreign military powers to protect our national security would be foolish, making us dependent and less secure. Yet, Reaganomics has us increasingly dependent on foreign economic sources. This consumer-led but deficit-financed recovery is unbalanced and artificial. We have a challenge as Democrats to point a way out.
Democracy guarantees opportunity, not success.
Democracy guarantees the right to participate, not a license for either a majority or a minority to dominate.
The victory for the Rainbow Coalition in the Platform debates today was not whether we won or lost, but that we raised the right issues. We could afford to lose the vote; issues are non-negotiable. We could not afford to avoid raising the right questions. Our self-respect and our moral integrity were at stake. Our heads are perhaps bloody, but not bowed. Our back is straight. We can go home and face our people. Our vision is clear.
When we think, on this journey from slave-ship to championship, that we have gone from the planks of the Boardwalk in Atlantic City in 1964 to fighting to help write the planks in the platform in San Francisco in ’84, there is a deep and abiding sense of joy in our souls in spite of the tears in our eyes. Though there are missing planks, there is a solid foundation upon which to build. Our party can win, but we must provide hope which will inspire people to struggle and achieve; provide a plan that shows a way out of our dilemma and then lead the way.
In 1984, my heart is made to feel glad because I know there is a way out — justice. The requirement for rebuilding America is justice. The linchpin of progressive politics in our nation will not come from the North; they, in fact, will come from the South. That is why I argue over and over again. We look from Virginia around to Texas, there’s only one black Congressperson out of 115. Nineteen years later, we’re locked out of the Congress, the Senate and the Governor’s mansion. What does this large black vote mean? Why do I fight to win second primaries and fight gerrymandering and annexation and at-large [elections]. Why do we fight over that? Because I tell you, you cannot hold someone in the ditch unless you linger there with them. Unless you linger there.
If you want a change in this nation, you enforce that Voting Rights Act. We’ll get 12 to 20 Black, Hispanics, female and progressive congresspersons from the South. We can save the cotton, but we’ve got to fight the boll weevils. We’ve got to make a judgment. We’ve got to make a judgment.
It is not enough to hope ERA will pass. How can we pass ERA? If Blacks vote in great numbers, progressive Whites win. It’s the only way progressive Whites win. If Blacks vote in great numbers, Hispanics win. When Blacks, Hispanics, and progressive Whites vote, women win. When women win, children win. When women and children win, workers win. We must all come up together. We must come up together.
Thank you.
For all of our joy and excitement, we must not save the world and lose our souls. We should never short-circuit enforcing the Voting Rights Act at every level. When one of us rise[s], all of us will rise. Justice is the way out. Peace is the way out. We should not act as if nuclear weaponry is negotiable and debatable.
In this world in which we live, we dropped the bomb on Japan and felt guilty, but in 1984 other folks [have] also got bombs. This time, if we drop the bomb, six minutes later we, too, will be destroyed. It’s not about dropping the bomb on somebody. It is about dropping the bomb on everybody. We must choose to develop minds over guided missiles, and think it out and not fight it out. It’s time for a change.
Our foreign policy must be characterized by mutual respect, not by gunboat diplomacy, big stick diplomacy, and threats. Our nation at its best feeds the hungry. Our nation at its worst, at its worst, will mine the harbors of Nicaragua, at its worst will try to overthrow their government, at its worst will cut aid to American education and increase the aid to El Salvador; at its worst, our nation will have partnerships with South Africa. That’s a moral disgrace. It’s a moral disgrace. It’s a moral disgrace.
We look at Africa. We cannot just focus on Apartheid in Southern Africa. We must fight for trade with Africa, and not just aid to Africa. We cannot stand idly by and say we will not relate to Nicaragua unless they have elections there, and then embrace military regimes in Africa overthrowing democratic governments in Nigeria and Liberia and Ghana. We must fight for democracy all around the world and play the game by one set of rules.
Peace in this world. Our present formula for peace in the Middle East is inadequate. It will not work. There are 22 nations in the Middle East. Our nation must be able to talk and act and influence all of them. We must build upon Camp David, and measure human rights by one yard stick. In that region we have too many interests and too few friends.
“There is a way out — jobs. Put America back to work”
There is a way out — jobs. Put America back to work. When I was a child growing up in Greenville, South Carolina, the Reverend Sample used to preach every so often a sermon relating to Jesus. And he said, “If I be lifted up, I’ll draw all men unto me.” I didn’t quite understand what he meant as a child growing up, but I understand a little better now. If you raise up truth, it’s magnetic. It has a way of drawing people.
With all this confusion in this Convention, the bright lights and parties and big fun, we must raise up the simple proposition: If we lift up a program to feed the hungry, they’ll come running; if we lift up a program to study war no more, our youth will come running; if we lift up a program to put America back to work, and an alternative to welfare and despair, they will come working.
If we cut that military budget without cutting our defense, and use that money to rebuild bridges and put steel workers back to work, and use that money and provide jobs for our cities, and use that money to build schools and pay teachers and educate our children and build hospitals and train doctors and train nurses, the whole nation will come running to us.
As I leave you now, we vote in this convention and get ready to go back across this nation in a couple of days. In this campaign, I’ve tried to be faithful to my promise. I lived in old barrios, ghettos, and reservations and housing projects. I have a message for our youth. I challenge them to put hope in their brains and not dope in their veins. I told them that like Jesus, I, too, was born in the slum. But just because you’re born in the slum does not mean the slum is born in you, and you can rise above it if your mind is made up. I told them in every slum there are two sides. When I see a broken window — that’s the slummy side. Train some youth to become a glazier — that’s the sunny side. When I see a missing brick — that’s the slummy side. Let that child in the union and become a brick mason and build — that’s the sunny side. When I see a missing door — that’s the slummy side. Train some youth to become a carpenter — that’s the sunny side. And when I see the vulgar words and hieroglyphics of destitution on the walls — that’s the slummy side. Train some youth to become a painter, an artist — that’s the sunny side.
We leave this place looking for the sunny side because there’s a brighter side somewhere. I’m more convinced than ever that we can win. We will vault up the rough side of the mountain. We can win. I just want young America to do me one favor, just one favor. Exercise the right to dream. You must face reality — that which is. But then dream of a reality that ought to be — that must be. Live beyond the pain of reality with the dream of a bright tomorrow. Use hope and imagination as weapons of survival and progress. Use love to motivate you and obligate you to serve the human family.
Young America, dream. Choose the human race over the nuclear race. Bury the weapons and don’t burn the people. Dream — dream of a new value system. Teachers who teach for life and not just for a living; teach because they can’t help it. Dream of lawyers more concerned about justice than a judgeship. Dream of doctors more concerned about public health than personal wealth. Dream of preachers and priests who will prophesy and not just profiteer. Preach and dream!
Our time has come. Our time has come. Suffering breeds character. Character breeds faith. In the end, faith will not disappoint. Our time has come. Our faith, hope, and dreams will prevail. Our time has come. Weeping has endured for nights, but now joy cometh in the morning. Our time has come. No grave can hold our body down. Our time has come. No lie can live forever. Our time has come. We must leave racial battle ground and come to economic common ground and moral higher ground. America, our time has come. We come from disgrace to amazing grace. Our time has come. Give me your tired, give me your poor, your huddled masses who yearn to breathe free and come November, there will be a change because our time has come.
Quan el malvat senyor Burns, l’home més ric de Springfield i propietari de la central nuclear de la ciutat inventada per Matt Groening, va decidir presentar-se a les eleccions a governador pel partit Republicà, no podia imaginar que un sol detall, una reacció personal, podria costar-li la victòria. Ni tots els diners invertits, la xerrameca i el reciclatge de la seva imatge van poder amb el tros de peix que va escopir en directe davant les televisions de tot l’estat.
Lisa i Marge Simpson, les demòcrates i ecologistes de la família, van ordir la trama per servir a Burns un peix de tres ulls mutat per la contaminació de la seva central. Burns ho va escopir amb fàstic. Una victòria electoral es pot treballar durant mesos amb esforç i diners, però es pot perdre per una reacció. Per això, un polític s’arrisca a perdre tota la seva credibilitat quan s’atreveix amb segons quines coses. Especialment quan tenen entre mans temes d’alarma social.
Els nostres líders donen exemple de forma constant. Estan sotmesos a l’escrutini de mitjans i ciutadans i saben que tot el que facin tindrà conseqüències. Per bé o per mal. Així, la seva actuació sembla necessària quan certs temes arriben al gran públic. Quan els poders públics asseguren una cosa però la immensa majoria de la ciutadania en creu la contrària.
Catàstrofes naturals, riscos sanitaris, alertes alimentàries, projectes percebuts per la ciutadania com pitjors que altres alternatives… aquest tipus de situacions necessiten un suport públic i notori dels responsables polítics per poder recuperar la confiança.
Per què necessitem veure un polític banyar-se en aigües contaminades o menjar un aliment que ha estat vetat per l’imaginari col·lectiu? Necessitem comprovar en les carns dels que prescriuen que el que recomanen, dicten o afirmen és cert. És una necessitat lògica de veure que el que diuen és cert. És, sens dubte, un dels moments més interessants de la comunicació pública ja que és la persona, amb els seus sentiments i les seves reaccions la que ha de reforçar el seu missatge. Escopir el menjar, com Burns, pot suposar l’enfonsament, no ja de la imatge del polític, sinó d’indústries, interessos o formes de vida que viuen al darrere d’aquestes situacions límit.
Per això, no és estrany veure el president Obama i la seva filla Sasha banyant-se a les aigües del Golf de Mèxic que s’han vist afectades pel desastre petroler de BP. Aquest cap de setmana el matrimoni presidencial i la seva filla van acudir a Panama City i van mostrar el seu suport a la zona, que està patint els efectes econòmics de l’abocament. La Casa Blanca ha circulat la imatge de pare i filla en les aigües, un missatge inequívoc de suport a la zona i de minimització dels efectes per a la salut pública.
Un altre bany molt semblant va tenir lloc a Espanya a Palomares. El protagonista, el ministre d’Informació i Turisme de la dictadura franquista, Manuel Fraga. El 17 gener 1966 un B52 de l’exèrcit nord-americà, carregat amb armes nuclears, va col·lisionar a la localitat almerienca amb un avió de reaprovisionament. Les bombes termonuclears que anaven a bord es van repartir entre terra i mar. Dues de les quatre bombes van quedar intactes però les altres dues van detonar escampant uns 20 kg de plutoni altament radioactiu pels voltants.
Així, el 9 de març d’aquell mateix any, Manuel Fraga es va banyar a Palomares costat del ambaixador nord-americà per mostrar al món que no existia cap risc. Tot i això, encara avui Palomares és la localitat més radioactiva d’Espanya i la contaminació a la zona va ser profusa. En tot cas, aquest bany va ser el suport necessari per a la zona i per la pau i la societat que mai va saber del cert el que ha passat, gràcia i obra de la dictadura franquista i de la informació ocultada de manera deliberada al govern espanyol per part de les autoritats nord-americanes.
A mig camí entre Florida i Palomares trobem el afartament de vedella que va patir el llavors ministre d’Agricultura del govern del PP, Miguel Arias Cañete. Quan el boví espanyol es va veure afectat, com el d’altres països europeus, per l’encefalopatia espongiforme bovina, coneguda com “el mal de les vaques boges”, el ministre va haver de sortir en defensa dels interessos del sector mostrant que era segur menjar aquest tipus de carn. I va resultar molt creïble. El recurs comunicatiu de veure a algú que s’introdueix en el seu organisme una cosa que és jutjat com nociu, té un gran efecte.
En aquest sentit, proper a l’exemple de Arias Cañete, trobem el president de la Generalitat de Catalunya i seu conseller de Medi Ambient, Francesc Baltasar, que no van dubtar a beure un got d’aigua tractada a la dessalinitzadora que van inaugurar al Prat el 2008 davant les càmeres.
Donar exemple pot portar els responsables fins a engrandir el seu carnet de vacunació. La consellera de Salut, Marina Geli, va aparèixer davant els mitjans en plena tempesta per la Grip A -la pandèmia que recentment ha estat esborrada del mapa i el pànic va arribar a límits insospitats- sent vacunada. Un altre exemple de l’exposició als riscos com a via de contenció d’una alarma.
Sens dubte, aquest tipus de casos il·lustren les múltiples opcions de què disposen els polítics per fer front a una situació de crisi. La informació veraç, pertinent i a temps es dóna per descomptada -encara que no sigui així en la majoria dels casos-, però l’exemple s’estén. Potser perquè els fils de plastilina, prenent la frase prestada a Rajoy, no van estar presents en el faristol de la sala de premsa de la Casa Blanca, veure com el president es banya a l’oceà és encara més creïble.
L’equip de dissenyadors del logotip de la campanya del president Obama ens explica com es va crear el que segureament és el logotip polític més famós de tots els temps.
La decisió del Parlament de Catalunya de prohibir les curses de braus en el territori català ha iniciat un debat amb múltiples arestes. Alguns raonaments, fundats en l’interès de promoure un assossegat debat. Altres -la majoria- esquitxades per la demagògia més rància. I enmig, algunes enginyoses estampes que no han passat desapercebudes. Com l’últim vídeo de Rajoy. Es poden barrejar toros i la seguretat viària sense sortir banyegat?
Resulta curiós. Més enllà dels gestos del nacionalisme espanyol que encarna el PP, amb l’anunci de dur al Congrés una resolució per protegir la festa nacional, el debat arran de la decisió del Parlament ha transcorregut en l’àmbit del binomi llibertat-prohibició. La llibertat de triar anar o no anar als toros contra la prohibició de la mort i tortura d’un animal per plaer dels assistents. Rajoy ens recorda la seva postura, sense dir res, en el seu vídeo prevacacional: els bous d’Osborne que decoren centenars de carreteres a Espanya són el símbol d’aquesta defensa de la festa.
Però també en el mateix vídeo veiem a Rajoy, que va ser ministre de l’Interior, sense el perceptiu cinturó de seguretat. Molts ens hem quedat amb això que el líder de l’oposició fa cas omís de les normes i posi en risc la seva vida i la dels seus acompanyants, però pocs semblen haver demanat un debat existent en diversos països, especialment als Estats Units: atempta contra la llibertat individual l’ús obligatori del cinturó?
I aquí és on arriba el detall sublim d’aquest vídeo que, segurament, no tenia intenció d’arribar a les cotes de popularitat i polèmica que ha assolit, amb disculpes públiques del mateix Rajoy per infringir la llei de forma manifesta. La defensa vetllada d’aquest dret a la llibertat en el cas dels toros però el sotmetiment pel que fa al cinturó. En un cas la llibertat està per sobre de l’espectacle de la mort però en l’altre no.
El tema del cinturó de seguretat no és un issue a Espanya com sí ho és als Estats Units o l’Argentina. Allà hi ha moviments que afirmen que portar el cinturó de seguretat atempta contra la llibertat de l’individu, encara que el risc més imminent pugui ser la mort. De fet, el 2008 es van salvar 13.000 vides a la UE gràcies a aquest mecanisme. En quin moment, per a les persones, preval el dret a la seguretat a la pròpia llibertat per al PP i no per als animals a la festa nacional?
Aquestes poden ser algunes de les perversions en el debat quan deixem a l’atzar alguns detalls importants en elaborar una peça de comunicació, com aquesta absència del cinturó en Rajoy. Però no ens alarmem. L’aspirant a succeir a Zapatero a la Moncloa no és l’únic polític espanyol que no fa servir el cinturó. De fet, estic convençut que molts dels que han saltat a la jugular tampoc el fan servir. En aquests vídeos podem veure a Saura en un spot de campanya de 2003 sense ell. I en aquest altre tall, a Pujol en el seu cotxe oficial també fent cas omís d’aquest element de seguretat.
Rajoy ni guanyarà ni perdrà les eleccions per aquesta anècdota. Tampoc les guanyarà o les perdrà Montilla per dur els seus fills a una escola privat i defensar políticament a l’escola pública. Molts s’han esquinçat les vestidures aquests dies a compte d’això sense veure el que fan o el que fan els seus. Però potser en el fons el que més s’ha trobat a faltar és una veu com la de Mas que creu que els polítics han de donar exemple, tal com es desprèn del llibre de Pilar Rahola. Donar exemple.
Potser Rajoy hauria de començar fent servir el cinturó, sens dubte. Però seria més important que comencés per donar exemple de debats assossegats i fonamentats en el si del seu partit. Per què ha de prevaler la llibertat a anar a veure els toros i no en dur o no el cinturó sense por a ser sancionats? Donar exemple, sens dubte.
